goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Institutional Control on September 21, 2012, 08:51:46 AM

Title: Unions
Post by: Institutional Control on September 21, 2012, 08:51:46 AM
Why do conservatives hate them? They prefer low wages without benefits?
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: steve dave on September 21, 2012, 08:54:38 AM
well, the AA pilots union has pretty much mumped air travel on AA so I'm against them
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: ben ji on September 21, 2012, 08:59:04 AM
Not a big fan because I think I am more valuable to the company than alot of my co-workers, hence I dont want to be valued the same as them.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Institutional Control on September 21, 2012, 08:59:33 AM
well, the AA pilots union has pretty much mumped air travel on AA so I'm against them

Is it a coincidence that AA has problems negotiating with all the unions it deals with?

AA has to be the most mismanaged corporation ever.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: steve dave on September 21, 2012, 09:09:22 AM
well, the AA pilots union has pretty much mumped air travel on AA so I'm against them

Is it a coincidence that AA has problems negotiating with all the unions it deals with?

AA has to be the most mismanaged corporation ever.

well, they are bankrupt in case you missed that
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Institutional Control on September 21, 2012, 09:17:42 AM
well, the AA pilots union has pretty much mumped air travel on AA so I'm against them

Is it a coincidence that AA has problems negotiating with all the unions it deals with?

AA has to be the most mismanaged corporation ever.

well, they are bankrupt in case you missed that

When aren't they bankrupt?
Title: Unions
Post by: felix rex on September 21, 2012, 09:37:59 AM
Not a big fan because I think I am more valuable to the company than alot of my co-workers, hence I dont want to be valued the same as them.

Yeah
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: EMAWmeister on September 21, 2012, 09:42:33 AM
Look at the chicago teachers union and you'll have your answer.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Panjandrum on September 21, 2012, 09:43:35 AM
Not a big fan because I think I am more valuable to the company than alot of my co-workers, hence I dont want to be valued the same as them.

Yeah

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Kat Kid on September 21, 2012, 09:53:19 AM
Look at the chicago teachers union and you'll have your answer.

I'm looking.  What is your answer?
Title: Re: Re: Unions
Post by: EMAWmeister on September 21, 2012, 09:58:18 AM
Look at the chicago teachers union and you'll have your answer.

I'm looking.  What is your answer?

Holding the Chicago Public School system hostage and having absurd demands like not being evaluated. I mean what the eff.
Title: Re: Re: Unions
Post by: Institutional Control on September 21, 2012, 10:04:00 AM
Look at the chicago teachers union and you'll have your answer.

I'm looking.  What is your answer?

Holding the Chicago Public School system hostage and having absurd demands like not being evaluated. I mean what the eff.

I thought it was the method of the evaluation they were objecting to, they weren't demanding to not be evaluated.
Title: Re: Re: Unions
Post by: Paul Moscow on September 21, 2012, 10:08:23 AM
Look at the chicago teachers union and you'll have your answer.

I'm looking.  What is your answer?

Holding the Chicago Public School system hostage and having absurd demands like not being evaluated. I mean what the eff.

I thought it was the method of the evaluation they were objecting to, they weren't demanding to not be evaluated.

Correct, they ended up getting student test scores to account for 30% of the overall teacher evaluation
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: EMAWmeister on September 21, 2012, 10:11:15 AM
Quote
Quote
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I thought it was the method of the evaluation they were objecting to, they weren't demanding to not be evaluated.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />Correct, they ended up getting student test scores to account for 30% of the overall teacher evaluation
So the rest is a combination of education and experience I presume?
Title: Re: Re: Unions
Post by: Kat Kid on September 21, 2012, 10:19:01 AM
Look at the chicago teachers union and you'll have your answer.

I'm looking.  What is your answer?

Holding the Chicago Public School system hostage and having absurd demands like not being evaluated. I mean what the eff.

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.  Illinois Law mandates that they are evaluated and it has a range of percents over what portion of their evaluations should come from student standardized test scores.  I bet you would not like it if at your job 40% of your eval (with an extra 5% increase every subsequent year) comes from how well the people on your team perform with zero regard to the effort or previous training of those working under you.  The incentives built in for teachers in such a system are obvious and mostly unproductive if the goal is raising student achievement.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Paul Moscow on September 21, 2012, 10:23:57 AM
Quote
Quote
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I thought it was the method of the evaluation they were objecting to, they weren't demanding to not be evaluated.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />Correct, they ended up getting student test scores to account for 30% of the overall teacher evaluation
So the rest is a combination of education and experience I presume?

No you dolt. The remaining 70% is mostly in-class observation (by the principal). The only part of teacher evaluations that is really different now than a month ago is that student surveys are no longer a part of the evaluation.
Title: Re: Re: Unions
Post by: EMAWmeister on September 21, 2012, 10:47:09 AM
Look at the chicago teachers union and you'll have your answer.

I'm looking.  What is your answer?

Holding the Chicago Public School system hostage and having absurd demands like not being evaluated. I mean what the eff.

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.  Illinois Law mandates that they are evaluated and it has a range of percents over what portion of their evaluations should come from student standardized test scores.  I bet you would not like it if at your job 40% of your eval (with an extra 5% increase every subsequent year) comes from how well the people on your team perform with zero regard to the effort or previous training of those working under you.  The incentives built in for teachers in such a system are obvious and mostly unproductive if the goal is raising student achievement.

Fair enough. I misunderstood the ABC article I read on it then.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: star seed 7 on September 21, 2012, 10:51:30 AM
union people are wierd.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: mortons toe on September 21, 2012, 11:05:55 AM
union people are wierd.

yeah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCBk9ip7AjE)

and yeah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzGuVd9E_lA)
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: p1k3 on September 21, 2012, 11:07:49 AM
Unions bid up the employee's salary to above market price, and businesses often go bankrupt. Especially in this economy.

Don't try and grocery shop in California. Most of the grocery stores are unionized so their products are $$$$. Is there any reason a cashier should be making $21/hr? No, there isn't. Link:

http://yourbreadandbutter.com/news/employers/nob-hill

This is the site for UFCW Local 8 in California. They represent about 30,000 food workers all over the state.

Title: Re: Unions
Post by: star seed 7 on September 21, 2012, 11:18:36 AM
union people are wierd.

yeah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCBk9ip7AjE)

and yeah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzGuVd9E_lA)

people who hate unions are weird too.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: michigancat on September 21, 2012, 11:20:15 AM
Unions bid up the employee's salary to above market price, and businesses often go bankrupt. Especially in this economy.

Don't try and grocery shop in California. Most of the grocery stores are unionized so their products are $$$$. Is there any reason a cashier should be making $21/hr? No, there isn't. Link:

http://yourbreadandbutter.com/news/employers/nob-hill

This is the site for UFCW Local 8 in California. They represent about 30,000 food workers all over the state.



Nob Hill is a fantastic store. Way better than Safeway (dump).
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: michigancat on September 21, 2012, 11:20:56 AM
Unions bid up the employee's salary to above market price, and businesses often go bankrupt. Especially in this economy.

Don't try and grocery shop in California. Most of the grocery stores are unionized so their products are $$$$. Is there any reason a cashier should be making $21/hr? No, there isn't. Link:

http://yourbreadandbutter.com/news/employers/nob-hill

This is the site for UFCW Local 8 in California. They represent about 30,000 food workers all over the state.



Nob Hill is a fantastic store. Way better than Safeway (dump).

but safeway gets an A, too!

http://yourbreadandbutter.com/news/employers/safeway

hmmmm
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 21, 2012, 11:29:16 AM
Public employee unions shouldn't be allowed to donate to political campaigns. Definite conflict of interest. Individual employees have every right, but unions that negotiate with governmental agencies should not.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: p1k3 on September 21, 2012, 11:29:59 AM
Unions bid up the employee's salary to above market price, and businesses often go bankrupt. Especially in this economy.

Don't try and grocery shop in California. Most of the grocery stores are unionized so their products are $$$$. Is there any reason a cashier should be making $21/hr? No, there isn't. Link:

http://yourbreadandbutter.com/news/employers/nob-hill

This is the site for UFCW Local 8 in California. They represent about 30,000 food workers all over the state.



Nob Hill is a fantastic store. Way better than Safeway (dump).

but safeway gets an A, too!

http://yourbreadandbutter.com/news/employers/safeway

hmmmm

Yeah Safeway sucks. FWIW that website gives every business an A as long as they bow to their master, Jacques Loveall.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 21, 2012, 12:12:40 PM
Why do conservatives hate them? They prefer low wages without benefits?

Why do libs assume that everything is all or nothing?
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: TheHamburglar on September 21, 2012, 12:17:34 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: sys on September 21, 2012, 12:35:16 PM
there is a significant distinction between public and private unions, imo.  including private unions that benefit from public pro-union mandates (like any project recieving public money must use union labor, etc.).  employees have a legitimate interest in collectively organizing to receive fair treatment from private employers.  that relationship is not the same when dealing with public entities, as the unions can, under certain circumstances, influence government decisions relating to employee/union treatment.  it's the flip side of crony capitalism - when an entity controls, or at least influences, both sides of a negotiation between nominally opposing camps, that negotiation is inherently corrupted.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Institutional Control on September 21, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
Why do conservatives hate them? They prefer low wages without benefits?

Why do libs assume that everything is all or nothing?

I can't speak for all libs, for me I assume it's my simple mind.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: michigancat on September 21, 2012, 12:51:45 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.

You can choose to not work with union companies. Go to another industry if it's that big of a deal.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: TheHamburglar on September 21, 2012, 12:59:52 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.

You can choose to not work with union companies. Go to another industry if it's that big of a deal.

This doesn't change the fact that there are alot of manufacturing union shops and they can be giant productivity drains.  Me not working with them (I don't anymore) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 21, 2012, 01:02:44 PM
I don't like them because it isn't 1924 and they are unnecessary in today's society.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: michigancat on September 21, 2012, 01:04:54 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.

You can choose to not work with union companies. Go to another industry if it's that big of a deal.

This doesn't change the fact that there are alot of manufacturing union shops and they can be giant productivity drains.  Me not working with them (I don't anymore) doesn't mean they don't exist.

If the union shops weren't productive enough they wouldn't be in business. free market and whatnot.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: TheHamburglar on September 21, 2012, 01:07:14 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.

You can choose to not work with union companies. Go to another industry if it's that big of a deal.

This doesn't change the fact that there are alot of manufacturing union shops and they can be giant productivity drains.  Me not working with them (I don't anymore) doesn't mean they don't exist.

If the union shops weren't productive enough they wouldn't be in business. free market and whatnot.

You mean like Ford and GM that weren't productive enough to stay in business, but our government said eff the free market and bailed them out otherwise they probably wouldn't be in business because they lost sales to Toyotas being built in Alabama?

Or how about that Hawker Beechcraft plant in Salina that used to employee 600?  The one they closed down in an effort to save HBC, but HBC had to file for bankruptcy anyway and are being bought by a Chinese company.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 21, 2012, 01:08:36 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.

You can choose to not work with union companies. Go to another industry if it's that big of a deal.

This doesn't change the fact that there are alot of manufacturing union shops and they can be giant productivity drains.  Me not working with them (I don't anymore) doesn't mean they don't exist.

If the union shops weren't productive enough they wouldn't be in business. free market and whatnot.

You mean like Ford and GM that weren't productive enough to stay in business, but our government said eff the free market and bailed them out otherwise they probably wouldn't be in business?

Ford was not bailed out. GM is a good point, though.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 21, 2012, 01:11:17 PM
I don't like them because it isn't 1924 and they are unnecessary in today's society.

They might not be necessary with the amount of government regulation that we have today, but if a company's employees want to unionize, I say go ahead and knock yourselves out, guys.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: michigancat on September 21, 2012, 01:12:55 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.

You can choose to not work with union companies. Go to another industry if it's that big of a deal.

This doesn't change the fact that there are alot of manufacturing union shops and they can be giant productivity drains.  Me not working with them (I don't anymore) doesn't mean they don't exist.

If the union shops weren't productive enough they wouldn't be in business. free market and whatnot.

You mean like Ford and GM that weren't productive enough to stay in business, but our government said eff the free market and bailed them out otherwise they probably wouldn't be in business because they lost sales to Toyotas being built in Alabama?

Or how about that Hawker Beechcraft plant in Salina that used to employee 600?  The one they closed down in an effort to save HBC, but HBC had to file for bankruptcy anyway and are being bought by a Chinese company.

yeah pretty much. Why would you have a problem with a Chinese company owning HBC?
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: TheHamburglar on September 21, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.

You can choose to not work with union companies. Go to another industry if it's that big of a deal.

This doesn't change the fact that there are alot of manufacturing union shops and they can be giant productivity drains.  Me not working with them (I don't anymore) doesn't mean they don't exist.

If the union shops weren't productive enough they wouldn't be in business. free market and whatnot.

You mean like Ford and GM that weren't productive enough to stay in business, but our government said eff the free market and bailed them out otherwise they probably wouldn't be in business because they lost sales to Toyotas being built in Alabama?

Or how about that Hawker Beechcraft plant in Salina that used to employee 600?  The one they closed down in an effort to save HBC, but HBC had to file for bankruptcy anyway and are being bought by a Chinese company.

yeah pretty much. Why would you have a problem with a Chinese company owning HBC?

Because all of those jobs are going to end up in China or Mexico or somewhere else.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: michigancat on September 21, 2012, 01:18:18 PM
Because all of those jobs are going to end up in China or Mexico or somewhere else.

so what? They weren't productive enough. people in China gotta eat, too.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 21, 2012, 01:23:01 PM
I've worked in a non-union manufacturing shop for 5 years while all of my customers were unions.  There was nothing more infuriating that working our asses off for a week for a "hot" part that an aircraft was waiting on, flying our corporate jet down to make sure it got there and be there when it got installed, only to watch it sit for 3 hours because mechanic that was supposed to install it was missing a few fastoners and we couldn't walk 75 feet down the building to get them because that wasn't his job and the union had a person specified to do that job.  No one in their management could walk down and grab it because they would get a union complaint filed against them.

You can choose to not work with union companies. Go to another industry if it's that big of a deal.

This doesn't change the fact that there are alot of manufacturing union shops and they can be giant productivity drains.  Me not working with them (I don't anymore) doesn't mean they don't exist.

If the union shops weren't productive enough they wouldn't be in business. free market and whatnot.

You mean like Ford and GM that weren't productive enough to stay in business, but our government said eff the free market and bailed them out otherwise they probably wouldn't be in business because they lost sales to Toyotas being built in Alabama?

Or how about that Hawker Beechcraft plant in Salina that used to employee 600?  The one they closed down in an effort to save HBC, but HBC had to file for bankruptcy anyway and are being bought by a Chinese company.

yeah pretty much. Why would you have a problem with a Chinese company owning HBC?

Because all of those jobs are going to end up in China or Mexico or somewhere else.

The Japanese own Toyota and they employ a shitload of Americans. There are way more factors involved than just individual wages here. Education level, work habits, distribution costs, tariffs, etc. all play a major role.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: AST on September 25, 2012, 10:06:18 PM
I think it's because unions suck, that's why they're hated.  Lot's of college grads are out of work and people are going to walk out when their guaranteed salaries with kick-ass benefits and 2 months of vacation and sick leave a year are not good enough.  How about we try a little free market again in this country?

Unions should be temporary, to address specific gross "wrongs" when they might arise in a marketplace, like chicago meat packing, coal mining, childr labor.  It should not be something you are born or married into and set for life.

Yea, I just said a big f.u. to auto workers, carpenters and pipe fitters, DEAL WITH IT!  Someone else will do your job for less you lazy m.f.'ers!
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: Kat Kid on September 25, 2012, 10:31:15 PM
I think it's because unions suck, that's why they're hated.  Lot's of college grads are out of work and people are going to walk out when their guaranteed salaries with kick-ass benefits and 2 months of vacation and sick leave a year are not good enough.  How about we try a little free market again in this country?

Unions should be temporary, to address specific gross "wrongs" when they might arise in a marketplace, like chicago meat packing, coal mining, childr labor.  It should not be something you are born or married into and set for life.

Yea, I just said a big f.u. to auto workers, carpenters and pipe fitters, DEAL WITH IT!  Someone else will do your job for less you lazy m.f.'ers!

Speaking from experience, being born into a union is basically like modern day slavery.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: AST on September 25, 2012, 10:51:53 PM
I think it's because unions suck, that's why they're hated.  Lot's of college grads are out of work and people are going to walk out when their guaranteed salaries with kick-ass benefits and 2 months of vacation and sick leave a year are not good enough.  How about we try a little free market again in this country?

Unions should be temporary, to address specific gross "wrongs" when they might arise in a marketplace, like chicago meat packing, coal mining, childr labor.  It should not be something you are born or married into and set for life.

Yea, I just said a big f.u. to auto workers, carpenters and pipe fitters, DEAL WITH IT!  Someone else will do your job for less you lazy m.f.'ers!

Speaking from experience, being born into a union is basically like modern day slavery.

In what way?  Please elaborate if you don't mind.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: p1k3 on September 25, 2012, 10:53:24 PM
The so called "Union Thugs" make a ton of money. You can search their LM-2 filing with the Department of Labor for any union in the nation.

The problem is that most union employees are  :dubious: at the companies they work for for being greedy bastards, but in reality the union thugs are raking it the eff in. Most of them don't know or care that this is public information, and if they did they wouldn't do anything to change it anyway.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: p1k3 on September 25, 2012, 11:07:44 PM
UAW AFL-CIO had over $1,000,000,000 in assets in 2011  :sdeek:

No wonder GM can't keep it's head above water.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: raquetcat on September 27, 2012, 11:13:10 AM
Imo a union's purpose is to protect it's members from abuse by an employer, and help negotiate fair (very debatable term) wages and benefits for it's employees. I've worked with unions that have done exactly that and the company and union got along great, (also heard of many stories like hamburglar mentioned). It's when the company or the union turns into greedy bastards that there becomes problems. If a union demands too much then it shouldn't be a surprise if the company goes out of business or has to lay people off, the same with businesses being greedy and having to deal with a strike.
Title: Re: Unions
Post by: steve dave on September 27, 2012, 11:18:41 AM
UAW AFL-CIO had over $1,000,000,000 in assets in 2011  :sdeek:

No wonder GM can't keep it's head above water.

how much of that was pension funds?