Joe The Plumber Joins A Union (UAW)

Seems to me that you and your company needs to work to improve relations with the union.

Are you talking rule book slow down?

I'm sure most members don't put much value on a pile of burritos. How about working to improve company-employee relations. You'll get bigger returns. .

 

I say if they don't want to be members of the union, so be it, but they shouldn't be covered by the contract if they pay nothing towards it. If they get into trouble or get laid off out of seniority, tough luck, the union should not be forced to represent them.

 

Then we have a lot of Vietnamese and Philippinos sneaking in

 

Unions have done things because of greed, just like ceos and boards do. Part of human nature. A big reason I felt unions needed to be shut down. Soon, though, the tide will shift and unions will go on the upswing. IMO.

 

Problem is the employer treats them better to get more people to leave, just to get rid of the Union.

 

Sometimes unions are good, sometimes unions are bad.

That is all.

 

I've seen them give non Union workers an extra day off and force the union workers to use vacation since the business will be closed!

 

Ignorance is not easily persuaded. Your comments made it clear that you had no clue what you were talking about. Maybe some day you will be the wiser. Right now you do not know much about what is truly healthy food, and what is not. Take the soda pop off such as a Taco Bell menu, and you will eat pretty well. It is very different from burger joints in that respect.

 

Yes, as I said tough call. The best of both worlds is when labor and management can work to the common goal. Good product and some profit.

 

I'm glad they gave the opportunity, I'm not crying just defending that kind of work. I worked there until I got the job I wanted, gave my notice and left.

 

Th problem is that the union represents all workers in negociation of the contract. Any dude that gets the wage, the representation of grievances and the benefit package of the union job, is nothing but a moocher if he is not paying his share. Its like enjoying the apartment and not paying a share of the rent. I don't see why anyone would pay membership dues if they get the same benefits without. if you set up a separate scale for the non-union, they you have the 'scabs' competing for the same jobs as the union members that will inevitably lead to a broken union and lower wages. the unity of the workers= the result. You can't have one without the other.

 

I really don't care what another private citizen's decisions are about his own life.........

 

In your mind perhaps. But rather then argue the point, both you and I will have to agree to disagree on this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Your certainly entitled to your viewpoint.

 

That's their problem.

 

That would be the preference of a lot of people. It isn't a question of whether or not non-members should be "allowed" to benefit. The question is whether the union should be allowed to prevent non-members from negotiating for themselves. Unfortunately, unions in the US have rigged the system where once they get a foothold in a company they get "exclusive representation" which means that nobody but that union can negotiate contracts. Even people who haven't joined the union cannot negotiate for themselves. That is the only reason that unions in states where mandatory union membership isn't allowed are required to extend benefits to all employees instead of just members...because they still deprive non-members of the right to negotiate with their employer.

It should also be noted that unions don't have to implement this exclusive representation. It is not a requirement. They insist on it when negotiating. Then they get angry because the law allows them to do that but only under the condition that they represent the people that don't want them there and whose voices they've stolen.

So, yeah, if you want non-members to not be able "to benefit from anything the union gets" then first you need to give the non-members the ability to negotiate for themselves. I'm all for that. Apparently so are you. But the unions will never give that up because most of them exist to benefit the union bosses, not workers. They are mainly run by shysters who will happily screw over workers for their own benefit.

PS. The following post I dug up from a supposed union official should shed some light on the situation. Notice how he revels in the idea that he and his cohorts managed to silence 85% of the workers. That doesn't seem like an organization that cares about blue collars to me, does it to you? Sounds more like a racket.

 

NO ONE is forcing them to work for that wage. You are dictating to an employer what he must pay. NO ONE is dictating to an employee what they must take.

Messing with a FREE MARKET in the way you Liberals suggest will only cause inflation and loss of employment.

You Liberals need to study Economics.

 

There's no free lunch.

 

I did a lot of crap jobs, maybe the worst working for a pile driving company on and in Chesapeake Bay in March. My choice.... also did some jobs that I wouldn't trade for the world. LOUSY pay but I got to work on a flight deck, electrifying and later fly aircrew, again my choice and no unions.

 

The "moocher" is the union scum. Do they OWN the company? Start your own THEN pay what you want, the so called "scabs" just want an HONEST living, union scum to steal one. Like I said, I love it when one bites the dust like this one!.

http://www.cwalocal1080.com/red.html

One of our members walking the picket line was E. Gerald Hogan. Chief steward, CWA Local 1103. On August 15th 1989, a Thursday morning, Gerry Hogan was killed. His death was a result from injuries he sustained when he was run down by a "scab" as he walked picket duty. The driver of the vehicle which killed him was a managers daughter, who was working as a "scab" during the strike

Now for the truth.......... no charges filed, WITNESSES said the dead pond scum jumped on the hood, fell and hit his head!!!! Darwin would be proud!!!! Happy Trails dumbass!

 

Great watching liberals laugh at someone who joins a union.

They get it

 

Regardless of all those "liberals" laughing in your noggin, the spectacle of Sam Wurzelbacher now having a job thanks to the bailout of Chrysler/Jeep after the Bush economic collapse of 2007 is something we should all be happy about - and he does not need to relocate to China as Willard Romney had falsely claimed.

That's a good thing!

 

I'm sorry if you thought your repeated partisan hackery meant anything.
This one looks like a copy-and-paste of yourself.
Usually I don't even read it unless it's a response to me, but I did see this one earlier in the thread.

Eh, that's neither here nor there.
Point is, you get it. Dumb old Joe.... joining a union... hahahaha.

 

He should have gone to South Carolina---a right-to-work state. He could get a job with Boeing or BMW or the new Volvo plant which is being built.

 

Michigan, also a Right to Work state, and is the locale of all the automotive companies.

 

I'm not interested in your attitude. I'm just glad that Chrysler/Jeep was saved, and Wurzelbacher now has one of the jobs it provides for Americans.