The Law of Supply and Demand At Work

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Tom -- I admire your zeal and conviction in what you believe but ----- You were not required to join the union by the company but was required by the union to keep your employment. Who do you work for, the company or the union ??? Were you placed on that job out of a local ??? "Closed shop" mean that the international is garanteed their cut of your dues to use as they please. Locals get there cut of your dues also. Disputes are handled by the locals. How often has the international came to your union's aid using their funds.



The company I worked for was an "open shop" and everyone had the choice to join the union or not and still keep their job, they were hired by the company. I was union for 30+ years and paid my dues. Yes, the non-union guys had the same rights as myself and had to be represented. They "chose" to be freeloaders and not pay their way. Isn't that the American way -- Freedom to Choose. International got their share of dues based on potential local membership. Locals had less money to "truely" represent their member because they had to pay for the non-union members out of their share of dues. Did international use their money or time to come and recruit the non-members -- NO. They got and kept their money to use for their own purposes and to play politics.



I agree that there is plenty of BS in the name of UNION. Usually it is used by lazy union workers to get of of having to work. Why should they -- they get paid the same as the good workers because the union says so. Socialism or unionism ??? You can not decide -- we will decide for you.



TJR -- I like the "drank the Kool-Aid" analogy. Not all the "Kool-Aid" was spiked :)



Myself -- I appreciate what the union did for me for all thoses years and what I have received in benefits. Could we have gotten more ??? Would I have gotten this without the union ?? I do not know and neither does anyone else. The union wants to tell me that I would have less but there are companies in this area that are non-union and have better benefits. Unions are too slow to change with the times. They are not in control anymore. ERRRR except in "closed shops"



Terry
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you served in a war, you get the rights as a veteran. You didn't serve, you get no rights entitled to a veteran. You don't expect to not be in the military then ask for the same "benefits" they get.
Click to expand...

:huh:



That's not correct, Tom. Serving in a war isn't a requirement to receive veteran's benefits. All who serve in the Armed Forces for at least 180 days and receive an honorable discharge are entitled to veteran's benefits. I will retire from the Navy next year with 20 years' service, and have never directly served in any war/conflict. Yet I'll get full veteran's benefits. Some veterans who served in combat may get a little bit more if they have a combat related injury or disability.
 
TJR -- was that your goal when you said "Kinda like unions" very early in this tread. Or are you just trying to learn others reactions to negative statements.



Provication, if that is a word, is not a way to learn others' intent; but a reaction to your comment. As you may write down everyones reactions, include the prodding that incurred.



As you learn Human Nature -- take into account repeated rejection of the others thoughts. It does not set well !!!



Terry
 
Nope, TSSS, my goal was not to hijack the thread with my "Kinda like unions" comment, it just started a tangent that allowed me, Caymen, Rocco and others to discuss perspectives. I wasn't trying to provoke anything other than discussion and introspection.



I hope I did not come off as repeatedly rejecting others thoughts. I am open to everyone's thoughts and respectful of them (or so is my sincere attempt), mostly because I want to hear them and learn about people from them.



TJR
 
TJR - why did you make that statement when you knew it would invoke the reply from Caymen. After all it was typed after his response. Do not say that you did not know that would happen. I have read many other posts.



The progressing discussions were in response to your "invitation" to expand the discussion outside of the original post. You were engaged and the decussion began.



No, you are not rejecting others opinions. I agreed with you on "Kool-Aid" and I agree on others that have been stated things; both sides.



To prod others on things that you know will envoke reactions does not let you learn about people; just their reactions.



PEOPLE are out there to learn. Just watch and learn; some good and some bad. If you want to learn about people, do not try to push a response. Just respond, then listen. Many times NO response is the best. LOL -- Sometimes a little "throw in" will help the responses evolve; but they are not always necessary. PEOPLE watching and listening is great !!!



Terry
 
Oh, I get you Terry (TSSS), but I wasn't so much looking for a "reactionary" response as a "response."



Yes, I knew of Caymen's union background and his "shoot from the hip" reputation, and for those reasons I found his negative viewpoints on OPEC "somewhat" hypocritical (other's did too) and wondered if he considered another viewpoint. Hey, no offense, I am a hypocrit from time to time, everyone is I suspect. I had hoped that through my comment and the discussion, that he and others could be introspective enough to see the hypocrisy, but largely I have given up on that. It's a hard thing to step outside oneself and put on a different mental model.



But, I do think one can actually LEARN things about people by their words, their actions and their reactions.



Good discussion. Go Unions!



TJR
 
Federal Law requires a union to represent all members of a class of worker represented by the Union whether that person is a union member or not. If the union must represent the person, why shouldn't that person be required to be a union member? If they don't want to be a union member, shouldn't the law allow the union to refuse representation to a non-member?



And if a company wants to sign an agreement with a union that states they will only hire people that will join the union, then why shouldn't they be allowed to do just that? Isn't that the right of a company - to make whatever agreement with its workers it wants to? Shouldn't a company be able to put any restrictions it decides are reasonable on who it will and will not employ? Closed shops are agreements between a union and an employer, aren't they? So why should someone else dictate to both parties, teh union and the employer, they can't do that? Isn't that a form of restraint of trade? Aren't all you guys AGAINST the government telling a company what it can and cannot do?



Isn't a person that doesn't want to join a union free to find employment elsewhere if they come across a closed shop?



Devil's advocate, here...

 
I agree with everything you say, Rocco.



But consider your last question:



Isn't a person that doesn't want to join a union free to find employment elsewhere if they come across a closed shop?
Click to expand...



What about those jobs and industries that are almost exclusively union, and closed shop? Wouldn't that make "employment elsewhere" a little difficult?



Also, another question. Given that there are open and closed union shops, what is the rationale behind a closed shop? In other words, if being a union member has it's benefits and those benefits more than outweigh the costs (dues, etc), why would one have to be forced to be a member?



Before you answer, recognize that I heard the argument stated prior that one should be required to be a member because they are getting the benefits of the union, but that clearly isn't necessarily the case for an open shop, and surely any shop that had a few non-union members could "go-it-alone" in arbitrations and benefits negotations. So, the question is, if unions are so "great for the member", why not make it optional (why are their closed shops)?



Playing Devil's advocate here....



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why should someone that CHOOSES not to belong to the union enjoy the same rights the union brother fought for? When the union must make the sacrifice to strike. They are out of work. Sure there is a strike fund, but it only lasts so long. When it is cold outside, the picketers must endure the cold weather while the non-members can work.



Once the strike is over, that same non-union employee gets into trouble, the union steward must be at his side protecting his job and making sure all contractual obligations are met.



This is the same guy that walked pass the picket lines and worked while the union members stood up for what is right, it thier eyes.



Hey, I was never in the military, maybe I should try to stop by the VA hospital and get treated sometime.Maybe I need to contact the government and enquire about my pension I feel should be coming. Even though I chose not to be in the military, I still fell I am entitled to the same benefits as those that did make that sacrifice.



Just so everyone knows, I have the utmost respect for those in the military. Those that fought during times of war and times of peace, I salute you. Thank you for protecting our freedoms.



When I go to work, I do my utmost knowing there are thousands of men and women with thier lives at stake, to do the best job I can do. One screw-up and 5,000 lives could be lost in a matter of minutes.





Tom
 
Caymen, in the open vs closed shop debate I don't think anyone is saying that the non-union employee should enjoy benefits that the union employees fought and paid for.



So, with that said, if you were trying to answer my last question, I still don't see an answer.



Or, are you saying that many closed shops are closed because there is NO WAY to prevent non-union employees from enjoying the union-fought benefits, and therefore the only "fair" thing to do is require everyone be in the union?



If that's what you mean, can you cite specific examples of such benefits and explain how a non-union employee would benefit implicitly.



Thanks,

TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rocco said something I did not know that is a federal law...



Federal Law requires a union to represent all members of a class of worker represented by the Union whether that person is a union member or not.
Click to expand...



With that being said, why should anyone choose to pay union dues, when they get the union protection for free?



I have seen shops lay off older employees because, frankly, they got older and can't do what a younger person can do. Lets say the shop you work at decides to change the rules to target one specific person. once that person is gone, the rules get changed back. I have seen it. You have two employees, one hangs out with the boss while the other goes to work and goes home. Both do an equal amount of work. The guy that hangs out with the boss, even though he has less seniority, gets to keep his job while the other guy gets layed off. With a contract, the guy with the least seniority gets layed off. If that guy is non-union with the higher seniority, a union member that pays dues, gets put out on the street.



IMO, to be fair with all employees, either you are in the union or you don't work there. Don't like it, get another job. Cant get another job in your field anywhere in your area, move somewhere else. Don't want to move, join the union. It costs money to keep the lights on at the union hall. Why should I be the one to pay it when I could not join the union and enjoy all the benefits of being union, without joining?





Tom
 
TJ,

Federal law compels unions to represent non-members in the same class (jobs) as the union members. And no company will set up a separate salary/benefit structure for non-union members in the same jobs as union members. So non-union members get the same benefits and same representation as union members. No option to the union, although the non-member has the right to not ask for a union rep at any kind of company hearing.



And my guess is that non-members don't get the same quality of representation in termination and discplinary hearings as would a union member.



However, the non-member does get the same benefits as the union member and with possibly very few exceptions will not get to negotiate a separate deal.



While I was playing devil's advocate with my questions you did ask one that is fair:



What about those jobs and industries that are almost exclusively union, and closed shop? Wouldn't that make "employment elsewhere" a little difficult?
Click to expand...



Nope. Employment is still possible for those people - just not in the field they mave have preferred. Everyone has a right to choose the manner in which they would like to make a living, but no one has the right to actually work in that job/profession. That is up to the job market and whatever restrictions employers place on employment.



Which brings us back to this question: Does an employer have the right to employ whomever they wish, and form agreements with whomever they wish, and set any criteria for employment they wish? If so, does the employer have to right to make union membership a requirement for employment?



Doesn't "Right to work" dictate to an employer what conditions they can and cannot set as terms of employment?



Or are you saying that everyone that chooses a specific way to make a living and is capable of doing that job has the right to work in that job regardless of the market or the employers wishes?



:)



Then there is the cry of: "but I don't agree with their politics! Why should I have to pay to support the union's politcal activity?" The answer to that is you don't. Not now. Not ever. There is also a federal law that allows a union member to request the portion of his/her dues that are used for political actvity be refunded or not witheld (I'm not sure which). Of course, most union members are unaware of this just as most non-union members are unaware of the representation law.



Oh, and I understand that many employers only sign those closed shop agreements because they fear a strike if they don't. But the unions never would have existed in the first place if their predecessors in business had treated the worker equitably and fairly. And without unions, how long do you think it would be before the situation was right back where it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? "If you don't come to work on Sunday, don't come to work on Monday."



Right now we are seeing laws passed that protect businesses at the expense of the worker (look at the retirement fund situations for blatant examples of that. Remember, there are more non-union negotiated retirement funds that are being wiped out than union negotiated ones. We just hear about the union ones because they are the biggest. But my retirement was wiped out with my previous company because of Federal law that allowed them to change the way it was calculated. After 10 years of employment they gave me $700 out of the fund. This was 20 years ago. The rest of the money went into the pockets of the top execs in the form of bonuses. We were not union.) Does anyone actually believe it is better today than it was even just 30 years ago?



Now federal law has been changed to allow companies to divest themselves of the debt they owe their retirment fund, a fund they chose to underfund over many years, if that company declares bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the average Joe can no longer divest<
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rocco,,



Very well said.



I like what you said about businesses can unload themselves of debt, by the average Joe is not longer allowed to.



It changed when a Republican is in office. Does that suprise you? Doesn't suprise me one bit.





Tom
 
Rocco gave an example of employer abuse:
...without unions, how long do you think it would be before the situation was right back where it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? "If you don't come to work on Sunday, don't come to work on Monday."
Click to expand...



That's a good question.



Actually, it happened to me at a job I had, working in my non-union industry (IT). Here is that story, and it's a long one.



The company I had been with for nearly a decade (that's like 30 years in any other industry) was starting to "circle the drain" in 1999, and 2000. The company rode the gravy train and exploited the gold rush of custom software development in the mid 1990s and as that sector of the market all but disappeared, customer couldn't be attracted and money was running out.



There were several paycuts and round after round of layoffs, but since I was with the company for a long time (golden handcuffs like Fast Eddie), and since it was the same song most everywhere else, I and a handful of others stayed, and worked hard, and hoped.



However, the business just wasn't there, and our president and chief marketing person wasn't actually a "rainmaker", so though we were busy, we were not in a CRUNCH mode (lots of work, too little time to do it). However, that didn't stop the president from instituting a Sunday work day, starting at 8:00am through 2:00pm...work through lunch. This was an indefinate work schedule change, and it was mandatory for all managers (which I was one).



I told him I wouldn't be doing it, but that I could come in "now and then" as times needed it on the weekend, and that he had my full support late nights, etc. I explained that Sunday was a time for church and family and that the main reason I work is to support my family, and that if I have no time with them, there is not much reason to work.



The president asked me to reconsider, I didn't change my mind. And, within weeks, I was removed from management (the inner circle) and on the outside looking in on all decisions and that much closer to the chopping block when the next layoffs came.



I quit about 6 months later.



The company spiraled around the toilet for a year or so afterwards, than died.



I found a new job, a transition job, and I started my own company (one I still run on the side today...one that has been VERY lucrative this year). I am better off because of my earlier departure from that failing company, made earlier because of the inappropriate demands and inflexibility of my employer.



I guess I would have liked to have had some collective bargaining to make things a little easier on me then, but I am not so sure it would have made a difference in that case. When times were good with that company, I an other employees were treated very well (how many industries pay 6 figure salaries AND give 25% annual bonuses...that job did, for several years running). But, when times were bad, well the employees took it on the chin like everyone else.



Sure, the execs borrowed against company profit to sell back some stocks in a deal that no-one else knew about or could have used right before the hard times, and that ticked off many, but that hurt the execs more in the long run than anyone. Three partners drove a $30M company into the ground, a company that they could have pocketed $10M apiece for if they sold in 1997...but they got greedy. That happens ALL over, union or no.



The jobs are out there. If a company puts demands on you that are not appropriate, one recourse is to leave. I know it's daunting, but working for someone else sucks most of the time, union or no.



TJR
 
TJ,

When a company is going under, there is not much you can do other than take pay and benefit cuts and hope upper management is playing fair with the worker, or find another job. But when the workers have to do this, shouldn't management have to do the same? And if workers lose all company funded retirement and post retirement benefits, why should management be exempt from the same fate? (I'm talking about a publicly held company. Once again - owners of privately held companies have, and should have, different rules.) Even worse: why should stockholers get screwed while the CEO retires with a multimillion dollar package?



You faced the whole gamut of those types of problems and it's not fun. I know as I've been through the same things. One does what one has to do in order to survive. But when a commitment is made to do certain things after a worker retires the government should make sure the employer is properly funding the cost of those commitments and, if not, make them do so. Not wait until the retirement fund is billions in debt and there is no money to fund it any longer due to business downturns. Also, the government shouldn't allow businesses to raid the retirement funds for the benefit of anyone but retirees.



Tom,

A lot of the things that were done to workers over the last 25 years have been passed by Democrats in congress and the Presidency. It's not just a Republican thing. It's a money thing. When you talk to a Congressman about passing laws that benefit you at the expense of others, money talks and BS walks.

 
Rocco,



And that is one of the reasons I feel no political pary, official, and/or anyone else in the governemnt that gets paid by my tax dollars allowed to take bribes, I mean contributions. Sorry for saying bribes, I get them two mixed up since they are essentially the same thing.





Tom
 
Tom,

You and I are of the same mind when it comes to that. All contributions should be limited to no more than $100 per person. And corporations/unions shouldn't be allowed to donate ANYTHING.



And all lobbyists should also be outlawed. If an individual wants to lobby his congressman and others on his own time, that's one thing. But people that are paid to wine and dine and bribe a Congressman with junkets to the Grand Caymens to view the deplorable conditions that exist on the local golf courses should be abolished.



Of course, we're asking the foxes to guard the henhouse.



:)

 
The industrial revolution and the production increases it created lead to our 5 day work week. At least that is what I was taught in school and continue to read in history books.
 

Latest posts

Top