Comments
1 - 16 of 16 Comments Last updated Jan 28, 2013

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#1 Jan 23, 2013
Good Day,

Interesting take...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/furchtgott-roth...

Steelie
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Brighton, MI

#2 Jan 23, 2013
Nice.
Chip

Madison, WI

#3 Jan 23, 2013
The Dems are all about rhetoric and don't care about consequences. The supporters lack the ability to think rationally about what they are doing.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#4 Jan 24, 2013
Synopsis:
Yes unions have deserved some of their bad reputation through their own “thugery”. But by a long shot that is not across unions altogether nor the individual union locals altogether.

Mostly this shrinking of unions is from lack of loyalty to our own country, society, standard of living, and people.

Unions standardized wages and benefits across the board. Eliminating the desired competition between available workers for the lowest wages and benefits. Keeping in mind among localities. With unionized companies concentrated on hiring the most desirable workers to their standards without the cost(s) being the deciding factor. Every worker within the job classification hired to would be paid the same. There was a time when workers were lined up around the corner and waited for years to get a job in a union company. Why? Workers like to get paid a living wage for their efforts (gasp). Across the contract term it also stabilized the companies labor costs making it easier to plan ahead fiscally.

With the advent of the global economy companies could move their operations to the lowest labor cost areas. Maintaining their pricing in the market moved from while increasing profits and investor returns. When looking at it the middle class incomes have stagnated, and even declined, over the last 40+ years. Just after the time Nixon granted China Preferred Trading Status and companies began moving their operations there. Not to ignore Japan entering our market with their lower cost labor goods.

In short the perceived necessity for the lowest cost of labor possible to increase market share, management pay and bonuses, investor returns and profits is what has caused the shrinking of unions. Along with the fish out-of-water flopping for any excuse of partial truth that just may sound good enough for the masses to accept the lowering of their own standard of living.

Even Walmart is "allowing" unionization of their employees in other countries. Why? Because in so many other countries they aren't against everyone making a livable income.

For those who aren't afraid of learning that they just may be, even just partially, wrong read these.
http://www.nathannewman.org/EDIN/.labor/.file...

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/afl/LabourN...
Chip

Madison, WI

#5 Jan 24, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
Synopsis:
Yes unions have deserved some of their bad reputation through their own “thugery”. But by a long shot that is not across unions altogether nor the individual union locals altogether.
Mostly this shrinking of unions is from lack of loyalty to our own country, society, standard of living, and people.
Unions standardized wages and benefits across the board. Eliminating the desired competition between available workers for the lowest wages and benefits. Keeping in mind among localities. With unionized companies concentrated on hiring the most desirable workers to their standards without the cost(s) being the deciding factor. Every worker within the job classification hired to would be paid the same. There was a time when workers were lined up around the corner and waited for years to get a job in a union company. Why? Workers like to get paid a living wage for their efforts (gasp). Across the contract term it also stabilized the companies labor costs making it easier to plan ahead fiscally.
With the advent of the global economy companies could move their operations to the lowest labor cost areas. Maintaining their pricing in the market moved from while increasing profits and investor returns. When looking at it the middle class incomes have stagnated, and even declined, over the last 40+ years. Just after the time Nixon granted China Preferred Trading Status and companies began moving their operations there. Not to ignore Japan entering our market with their lower cost labor goods.
In short the perceived necessity for the lowest cost of labor possible to increase market share, management pay and bonuses, investor returns and profits is what has caused the shrinking of unions. Along with the fish out-of-water flopping for any excuse of partial truth that just may sound good enough for the masses to accept the lowering of their own standard of living.
Even Walmart is "allowing" unionization of their employees in other countries. Why? Because in so many other countries they aren't against everyone making a livable income.
For those who aren't afraid of learning that they just may be, even just partially, wrong read these.
http://www.nathannewman.org/EDIN/.labor/.file...
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/afl/LabourN...
The unions wouldn't be hated so much if they didn't abuse the power they were given.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#6 Jan 24, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
The unions wouldn't be hated so much if they didn't abuse the power they were given.
With respect Chip that is just crap. Unions are hated so much just like a group of adults in a room with a few upset toddlers not getting what they want. They make such a high pitch and deafening racket that no adult can just ignore that they aren't truly in distress.

I could give you many stories why I should dislike, and even possibly hate some, unions and the people in them. BUT the fact is the people are no different than anyone else. I have seen NO difference in office politics. NO difference in company "thuggary" toward ANYONE they don't happen to like. NO difference in spreading those little lies that grow into sudo-facts. and for lack of paying attention to all the facts only serves to fertilize the lies.

The sole purpose of getting rid of unions is to put the available workforce at "life and death" competition with each other for who will accept the lowest wages and benefits to increase profits.
Chip

Madison, WI

#7 Jan 24, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
With respect Chip that is just crap. Unions are hated so much just like a group of adults in a room with a few upset toddlers not getting what they want. They make such a high pitch and deafening racket that no adult can just ignore that they aren't truly in distress.
I could give you many stories why I should dislike, and even possibly hate some, unions and the people in them. BUT the fact is the people are no different than anyone else. I have seen NO difference in office politics. NO difference in company "thuggary" toward ANYONE they don't happen to like. NO difference in spreading those little lies that grow into sudo-facts. and for lack of paying attention to all the facts only serves to fertilize the lies.
The sole purpose of getting rid of unions is to put the available workforce at "life and death" competition with each other for who will accept the lowest wages and benefits to increase profits.
Yup, look at all the great things the unions are doing for us.

http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysler-rehires...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#8 Jan 24, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, look at all the great things the unions are doing for us.
http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysler-rehires...
First off notice the Union HAD TO file a grievance. It's their fiduciary duty. It may not be liked but there are murders that there is no question they did but still get a lawyer to defend them. But it's a nasty thing for unions so unions should be gotten rid of. Think lawyers will be gotten rid of?
OMG "The TV station even caught them tossing empty cans into the grass before heading back to work." CERTAINLY an offense for Chrysler to fire them.
At the time of lunch off the clock and off the property had they been killed Chrysler would not have been on the hook.

Now to the point of being under the influence of alcohol and pot on the job. Yes Chrysler had the right and did fire them. Remember they were fired. Despite all the hoopla from the right that "union employees can't be fired".

It was the Arbitrator that reinstated them. Not Chrysler and not the union.
"I want you to know that Chrysler Group does not condone, in any way, this type of misconduct, but we're in the tough spot of having to accept the arbitrator's decision, just as the Union must when the ruling is in the favor of the company," wrote Scott Garberding, Chrysler's senior vice president of manufacturing, in the second statement."

Just who is keeping tabs on all the office workers, including management that drinks and even smokes pot on THEIR lunch HOURS? Likely no one. Because the shop workers only have 1/2 hour for lunch they retreat to a public park across the street. While those who have an hour for lunch probably go well away from company property to do theirs.
You've never hear of drinking lunch before. I guarantee you there are just as many office workers that drink their lunch and even hit a joint and then return to work under the influence. But oh no, it's all those union workers. Again who's keeping tabs, with cameras, on the office employees?

Don't get the idea I am trying to excuse this type of behavior because I do not condone it in any way.

On company "thuggery". I worked for a company that had a unionized shop floor. A very large company. They had a point system for discharge. Twelve points in a 12 month time span. I won't even get into the details of what the 12 months was but it wasn't like a date from one year to the same date the next year. They wouldn't even let their employees have a doctor's appointment during working hours without a point toward discharge. That's at a time when doctors hours ended before working hours did. Any excused absences had to be approved 24 hours in advance or points. Don't get sick unless it's been planned in advance. I can't tell you how much more sickness was spread around because of that policy.

Reports like this are so petty, for the reasons I've given, it's gotten to be nauseatingly irrelevant.
Chip

Madison, WI

#9 Jan 25, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
First off notice the Union HAD TO file a grievance. It's their fiduciary duty. It may not be liked but there are murders that there is no question they did but still get a lawyer to defend them. But it's a nasty thing for unions so unions should be gotten rid of. Think lawyers will be gotten rid of?
OMG "The TV station even caught them tossing empty cans into the grass before heading back to work." CERTAINLY an offense for Chrysler to fire them.
At the time of lunch off the clock and off the property had they been killed Chrysler would not have been on the hook.
Now to the point of being under the influence of alcohol and pot on the job. Yes Chrysler had the right and did fire them. Remember they were fired. Despite all the hoopla from the right that "union employees can't be fired".
It was the Arbitrator that reinstated them. Not Chrysler and not the union.
"I want you to know that Chrysler Group does not condone, in any way, this type of misconduct, but we're in the tough spot of having to accept the arbitrator's decision, just as the Union must when the ruling is in the favor of the company," wrote Scott Garberding, Chrysler's senior vice president of manufacturing, in the second statement."
Just who is keeping tabs on all the office workers, including management that drinks and even smokes pot on THEIR lunch HOURS? Likely no one. Because the shop workers only have 1/2 hour for lunch they retreat to a public park across the street. While those who have an hour for lunch probably go well away from company property to do theirs.
You've never hear of drinking lunch before. I guarantee you there are just as many office workers that drink their lunch and even hit a joint and then return to work under the influence. But oh no, it's all those union workers. Again who's keeping tabs, with cameras, on the office employees?
Don't get the idea I am trying to excuse this type of behavior because I do not condone it in any way.
On company "thuggery". I worked for a company that had a unionized shop floor. A very large company. They had a point system for discharge. Twelve points in a 12 month time span. I won't even get into the details of what the 12 months was but it wasn't like a date from one year to the same date the next year. They wouldn't even let their employees have a doctor's appointment during working hours without a point toward discharge. That's at a time when doctors hours ended before working hours did. Any excused absences had to be approved 24 hours in advance or points. Don't get sick unless it's been planned in advance. I can't tell you how much more sickness was spread around because of that policy.
Reports like this are so petty, for the reasons I've given, it's gotten to be nauseatingly irrelevant.
I work in an office and I would get fired if I was smoking pot or drinking during the day, so should anyone else, end of story.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#10 Jan 27, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
I work in an office and I would get fired if I was smoking pot or drinking during the day, so should anyone else, end of story.
What bugs me the most of ill investigated and reported stories like this they leave out the most important information.

Before I get into that though. Again, the arbitrator made the decision. Was there a toxicology report stating it was pot they were smoking? Didn't say in the article. Was just cleaver enough to NOT say it. The employees were officially not employed while they were on lunch. So they could do what they want on their own time. Did they drink enough to be considered drunk by legal standards? Is there an employment restriction of zero alcohol in their system when returning to work? They weren't on company property so they couldn't be charged with drinking on company property.

And of course this reporter and photographer happened to stumble on this infraction. Of course they weren't stalking union employees.
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#11 Jan 28, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
What bugs me the most of ill investigated and reported stories like this they leave out the most important information.
Before I get into that though. Again, the arbitrator made the decision. Was there a toxicology report stating it was pot they were smoking? Didn't say in the article. Was just cleaver enough to NOT say it. The employees were officially not employed while they were on lunch. So they could do what they want on their own time. Did they drink enough to be considered drunk by legal standards? Is there an employment restriction of zero alcohol in their system when returning to work? They weren't on company property so they couldn't be charged with drinking on company property.
And of course this reporter and photographer happened to stumble on this infraction. Of course they weren't stalking union employees.
All your questions can be answered by the contract. Were these employees truly off the clock while having lunch? There are contracts where employees get paid while eating lunch as they do not punch out. As for the arbiter, well, never mind. Been there done that, know how that works.
Working Stiff

Wayland, MI

#12 Jan 28, 2013
I wonder if the company CEOs and VPS have drinks when they go out for lunch?
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#13 Jan 28, 2013
Working Stiff wrote:
I wonder if the company CEOs and VPS have drinks when they go out for lunch?
Become one and find out.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#14 Jan 28, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>All your questions can be answered by the contract. Were these employees truly off the clock while having lunch? There are contracts where employees get paid while eating lunch as they do not punch out. As for the arbiter, well, never mind. Been there done that, know how that works.
They weren't questions literally. Questions posed in the context that this was obviously one more we hate unions and we want to see them eliminated even if we have to lie to get it accomplished.

I have not seen one unionized company where the shop floor got paid for their lunch period. Doesn't mean there isn't. Just means it would be the exception, not the rule. Companies don't like paying when they aren't seeing back-sides and arms flailing.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#15 Jan 28, 2013
Working Stiff wrote:
I wonder if the company CEOs and VPS have drinks when they go out for lunch?
Without doubt many many do. And that includes drugs for some also. But in this we hate unions and their members society you won't find too many reporters sticking their necks out to publish stories like this one. We are definitely an executive idol worship society.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#16 Jan 28, 2013
Here's another reason unions are shrinking. THE PEOPLE ARE STUPID! But for a degree of kindness I will say many are just ignorant, but stupid because they have no desire to not be ignorant.

It has never been a law that anyone hiring into a company that had a union had to become a union member. That was a contractual agreement between the company and the union. NOT LAW!

"Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’—an agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.

Not true.

The Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947, which amended the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, did away with the “closed shop” era in America during which an employee—who either resisted joining the union or lost his union membership as a result of failing to pay dues or some other violation—was required to be dismissed by the employer as a result of the worker losing, or never accomplishing, union member status.

But there was much more to this law.

The Taft-Hartley Act additionally required that employment agreements collectively bargained for to benefit union members would also be required to inure to the complete benefit of non-member employees, even though these employees elect not to join the union.

Already knew all of that? Excellent.

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12...
I've said this same thing time and again so now go argue with the editor at Forbes.

So all you that want to bow down to the alter of the Republicans, you've been duped AGAIN.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 6 min kookierecluse 936
Meet The Press 2 hr Go Blue Forever 3
'We Don't Have a Strategy' to Fight ISIS t 12 hr Phil 10
why war with isis? 21 hr Colonel Sanders 15
Plafkin Brothers-McDonalds, Home of the Famous ... (Jun '13) 21 hr Colonel Sanders 9
The cheerleaders with their tight skirts are v... Aug 28 Phil 1
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) Aug 28 Buffalo Bull 1,326
•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••