An easier route to unionize

An easier route to unionize

There are 12 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Mar 2, 2007, titled An easier route to unionize. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

The first night that Bill Lawhorn stood outside the Consolidated Biscuit Company gate with his union handbills, the local sheriff showed up.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

Jay

United States

#1 Mar 2, 2007
And there's the socialiast point of view. Modern-day unions like the SEIU don't give a hoot about the workers, they just want the money so they can funnel it into political action committees that support the socialist viewpoint. The workers are simply pawns in a global Marxist struggle.
Rena Martin

Glendale, CA

#2 Mar 2, 2007
I hear you Jay! If they are going to restrict what a company can do to prevent unions, are they also going to restrict the lengths a union can go to in order to get in?? At my husband's work, they put a couple union "moles" in the place to breed discontent and lure the weak-minded into believing they can work less for more money (who wouldn't want that). Luckily, the majority of the place didn't vote for the union, but it doesn't stop them from trying again EVERY year. My husband already gets good benefits and pay...all UAW wants from them (a warehouse) is the extra dues they'll get to help prop up the auto industry. Disgusting. You would be better off forming your own "worker's union" internally, than to let those people in.
ABC123

Lake Mary, FL

#3 Mar 2, 2007
Jay and Rena,

As long as there is pisspoor management, there will be unions. Unfortunately, the reverse is also likely true.
Mike Ayers

Crystal Lake, IL

#4 Mar 2, 2007
I'm sorry to hear of Jay and Rena's aversion to due process, a grievance procedure to air differences without recriminations, the rights of workers to fight management abuse... I agree with ABC that as long as there is piss poor management, there will be a need for unions but disagree that the reverse is true. It was unions who helped form the middle-class of this country by negotiating contracts with their employers, arguing for a fair wage for a fair day's work. In addition, it takes two sides for a contract to be signed-one is management and the other is the hourly employee. Unions do not place a gun to the head of their employers and force them to sign contracts, literally the reverse is true. The editorial states that many management now uses "union-busters" to avoid dealing with people concerned about the welfare of their members. I wish I could say the same for management, but i can't.
Steve Campbell

Kenosha, WI

#5 Mar 2, 2007
Does the Whitehouse response surprise anyone. Bush is wealthy he had everything handed to him, what does he care about the working man.
Management

United States

#6 Mar 2, 2007
If the workers at my company form a union, I will replace them all with Mexican workers who work twice as hard for half the pay.
A PROUND UAW MEMBER

Fort Recovery, OH

#7 Mar 2, 2007
YOUS NEED UNION TO KEEP MANGMENT INLINE CAUSE MANGMENT MESSS WITH WORKERS. I HAVE BEEN UNIOUN MEMBER 27 YEAR AND AN UAW UNION MEMBER.

Since: Dec 06

Southern Indiana

#8 Mar 2, 2007
Steve Campbell wrote:
Does the Whitehouse response surprise anyone. Bush is wealthy he had everything handed to him, what does he care about the working man.
The glass workers union out of Evansville, IN does absolutely nothing for its members. Its really a money maker for the union to not help. Let a factory employee get within a few months of his pension being vested, the company is in financial trouble and has lots of layoffs. Its more economical for the company to go on a witch hunt and find little things or trumped up situations to fire long time employees. The union rep sits there through the whole meeting and doesn't say a word. The union gets to keep all that money in the pension plan since the employee/union member was not vested yet. Its a win/win for the union and company and a lose all around for the employee.
Power

Summerville, GA

#10 Mar 2, 2007
And next on the list of reforms, you will no longer have a secret ballot on election day.
This is a win-win situaition as we know its better to have open an free knowlegable elections in november. In unrelated news The teamsters and The Democratic Party have come to an agreement that will allow allow Union Supportor to assist with voting at polling places to carry their bats for the ball game they are planning when the polls close.
lastrep

South Bend, IN

#11 Mar 3, 2007
A PROUND UAW MEMBER wrote:
YOUS NEED UNION TO KEEP MANGMENT INLINE CAUSE MANGMENT MESSS WITH WORKERS. I HAVE BEEN UNIOUN MEMBER 27 YEAR AND AN UAW UNION MEMBER.
Your act is getting old.
Rena Martin

Glendale, CA

#13 Mar 5, 2007
Mike Ayers wrote:
I'm sorry to hear of Jay and Rena's aversion to due process, a grievance procedure to air differences without recriminations, the rights of workers to fight management abuse... I agree with ABC that as long as there is piss poor management, there will be a need for unions but disagree that the reverse is true. It was unions who helped form the middle-class of this country by negotiating contracts with their employers, arguing for a fair wage for a fair day's work. In addition, it takes two sides for a contract to be signed-one is management and the other is the hourly employee. Unions do not place a gun to the head of their employers and force them to sign contracts, literally the reverse is true. The editorial states that many management now uses "union-busters" to avoid dealing with people concerned about the welfare of their members. I wish I could say the same for management, but i can't.
I don't have an "aversion to due process" as long as it is applied equally on both sides. No bullying and pestering...people should be able to make a decision based on FACTS. And I do believe that unions have done a lot of good things IN THE PAST. But they have lost their way and care more about the bottom line than actually HELPING the employees. And I've seen it in a variety of different instances. And I do feel as if unions hold a figurative gun to the head of employers with threats of strikes and work shutdowns if their demands, even unreasonable ones, aren't met. My husband's work gives good benefits and a fair wage, so why does the union want in there?? It's about money, period.
Power

Summerville, GA

#14 Mar 5, 2007
Steve Campbell wrote:
Does the Whitehouse response surprise anyone. Bush is wealthy he had everything handed to him, what does he care about the working man.
As much as John Kerry, John Edwards, the Clintons, jimmy Hoffa and the MOB do.

It would be alot easier to accept they are on the working mans side if they
a. paid their full taxes
b. let their employees unionize
c. were not chock full dirty money

did i mention organized crime and Jimmy Hoffa?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

McComb Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Bubbles Pet Salon (Jun '15) 3 hr Candy Desgrange 2
News Honored seniors feel volunteerism is important May '16 Brian b 1
News Johnson Rubber says it won't close (Feb '08) Apr '15 Wentworth 26
Sheriff Jim Beutler (Oct '09) Mar '15 diemerbarb 7
Common Pleas Court-March 4 (Mar '15) Mar '15 Bill Myers 1
News Norbalt Rubber's parent bankrupt, seeking buyer (Apr '08) Feb '15 cashin in 3
Olivia orduno (Dec '14) Dec '14 Goirish2015 1

McComb Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

McComb Mortgages