Joe The Plumber Joins A Union (UAW)

Joe, the most important word in your statement is "choose." Workers in a union shop often don't get to choose.

Also, when you're shopping and you see two comparable items, they're both just as good and it really doesn't matter which item you select, do you choose the more expensive one? Why should employers be stuck not having a choice? They're in business to make money, that is their only function in life, the reason they exist. And why is it easier to get a divorce than to fire a poor performing union employee?

 

These are arguments against unions, not arguments in favor of union freeloaders

- - - Updated - - -

Lol you're making an argument you admit you don't agree with, and I'm supposed to take that seriously??? Why is freeloading union benefits more Nobel than freeloading HOA benefits?

 

If unions really cared about the rights of workers they'd also care about the right of workers who don't pay them.

 

They do, just not about freeloaders

 

They do, just not about freeloaders. Do you think negotiating contracts is free? Filing with the nlrb? Handling grievances?

 

Their circumstances don't allow for the standard of living they desire then.

I'm sorry you don't like reality.

 

So... You still can't tie unions and HOAs together comparably related to the purpose of unions from the perspective of joint representation.

 

That isn't the perspective I'm referring to and you know it. You're getting something for free which other people are paying for. There is essentially an existing agreement when you came in where everyone pays for either lawn care or representation in that community.

 

Gee, we've never heard that argument before. Joe, we've been making that argument against the 47% for years and you want to use that as yours?

 

Yes I know you folks don't understand that people move in and out of the 47%

- - - Updated - - -

Yes I know you folks don't understand that people move in and out of the 47%

 

True enough. Maybe non-members can be billed? Or as it is where I am, conscientious objectors simply file an objection and direct the money they would have paid to the union to a charity.

 

Yes there is a difference.

There are many communities without HOAs that offer the same qualities, amenities, and services.

Which means, these people can make the conscience decision not to live in a community with an HOA and not sacrifice.

This is not possible for employment at a company with unions.

Secondly... most of the hardest working and intelligent people don't need unions to benefit them. They can justify their own high wages and work requirements simply because the company doesn't want to lose them. Unions, in many cases, represents and defends those people who are more interested in their paycheck than they are in helping to make the company successful.

 

How is that a problem for someone who doesn't want to be represented by the union?

 

We agree on who should be able to contribute.

Yes, unions take dues... But if you work for a corporation, your labor is used to make profits. Nothing wrong with that at all. But the profits are the companies. Just like the unions have management that is then giving money they didn't earn to politics, corporations have management that is giving away money they didn't earn to politics. They are corporate profits. If the CEO wants to give his private money away, go for it, but the corporate money is not his donate to politics for the same reason the union money isn't, it wasn't earned by him.

 

Joe, from the looks of things the workers at US Steel had it pretty sweet even though the company was losing money, and they absolutely had a better health insurance plan than I do. But when the company is going through hard times it would appear the workers don't want those hard times falling upon them. The golden goose needs to keep laying those eggs.

 

Did it occur to you he did not have the freedom to NOT join the union in order to get a job there?

So you DO support right-to-work so he would not be forced to do so don't you?

 

No they are free to negotiate a higher position or a higher wage.

Learn the difference between accepting an agreed upon wage and force union membership, a third party taking your money and then engaging in activity you do not support.

- - - Updated - - -

All the non-union auto plants have that and don't have to give their money to a cause they do not support.

 

The profits of the company do not belong to the employees, they belong to the owners. The wages the company pays the employee belong to the employee, do you believe it alright for a third party to take part of those wages and use them for political causes you don't believe in?

 

Same reason it's alright for someone to donate the portrait you painted to a political cause you don't believe in. Because you sold it to them.





​

 

LOL! Funny, how you reactionaries always tell those of us if we don't like our jobs for whatever reason to quit and look for something else! Now you're complaining about Joe the Plumber turned Joe the Jeeper when he gets a union job! The tears are coming out of my eyes!

 

Funny how you reactionaries can't get your story straight. No one forces to take a job and there is no third party involved. Here the union, a third party, is forcing him to join a union.

 

If he doesn't like it then he should Q-U-I-T !!!!!

 

If that was their only use you might have a point. In fact you already can opt out of paying non-representation related fees

 

I am from the CEO side, but believe a reasonably constructed Union representation can do a bery good job for both company and management. The biggest asset a company has are the people that work for it. Properly motivated by management with good employee representation (by the Union but not necessarily) will produce a better result than confrontational demanding management.

The day of the autocratic opinonated boss or Union representative has gone. But lets face it most if the good things that employees have now came as a result of Union representation. Most of the reason for having unions came as a result of bad bosses who maltreated employees.

 

The law doesn't allow him to quit the union or he would I am sure. Shouldn't he have the freedom and liberty to do so and still retain his job?