Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Union members, help me understand something.

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by jutland, Nov 17, 2012.

  1. mike from st pe

    mike from st pe

    Apr 30, 2007
    St Pete FL
    I thought that was why there was Union Apprentice Programs.
    The management, back in the good old days, invested in their workers.
  2. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    The executive compensation package is approved by the board of directors. Your snopes link doesn't give the whole picture.

    The most valuable employees at any company is the executive management team. They're also the folks with the most options. Compensation changes like this are done in order to retain them through the crash landing so the wings don't come off. Then, like big boys and girls, when their compensation changes became a PR liability for the company, they went ahead and worked for free because they were professionals.

    Now contrast that to the bakers union which preferred to take the whole plane down like a bunch of children rather than taking cuts for pressing the button on the Ding Dong machine.

  3. depends on how much i was making and how much i wanted to keep a job. But any of the cuts you mentioned id take to keep a decent job and benifits.....cause now they got ZERO(or what ever they get from Obama in unemplohment and Obamacare)
  4. ysr_racer


    Dec 28, 2001
    Happily in So. Cal.
    Yep, I've heard that same story mny times. Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
  5. berto62


    Mar 28, 2009
    Alachua Fl
    Bet these guys wish they had a union.

    Former skilled laborers imported from the Philippines to work for Grand Isle Shipyard Inc filed a class-action lawsuit against the company a year ago charging it with abusive and exploitative working conditions, including requiring them to pay between $2,000 and $3,500 a month to live in 10-foot by 10-foot rooms, six to a room, on a work barge and in a Galliano bunkhouse that had been converted from a bowling alley
  6. Hey, they can go right back where they came from if they don't like it.

    All I see is a bunch of soldiers in the sandbox under very similar conditions, and a contract that says they can't leave unless they're willing to go to jail. :dunno:

    Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

  7. Finestkind


    Apr 24, 2011
    "They're just taking from us," said Kenneth Johnson, 46, of Missouri. He said he earned roughly $35,000 with overtime last year, down from about $45,000 five years ago.

    Ok so here is a guy who is using overtime to supplement his income. If he accepted the job at 30k per then that what he should expect. If he makes more then that save it or spend it but do not always expect it the be there.

    I have a relative that was a mechanic for Eastern Airlines and lost his job. It tools months to find a job at car dealership but int he process he lost his house and wife.

  8. AWoods


    Dec 20, 2009
    Nope, there are at least 4 sides:

    -workers unions

    The investors take no blame. The customers take no blame. The fact is that the business would be fine without the unions, so the blame goes only to the unions.
  9. AWoods


    Dec 20, 2009
    Don't be so simplistic to compare a war-fighting force to what is supposed to be a free-market. There's a reason "the private sector" does not include the military.

    Yes, the military is fully of stupidity and injustice and even socialism, just ask any enlisted personnel. We tolerate that crap because we don't know of a better way to kill people and blow stuff up.

    I don't even know what your point is, other than to state the obvious.
  10. handyman


    Aug 3, 2008
    I disagree, you don't know.
  11. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    I'm familiar with this. You're assuming it's true? Or could it be an attorney fishing expedition? Grand Isle Shipyard is a big business owned by a much bigger corporation. You reckon they have an HR department that keeps them in compliance with labor laws?

    All of the welding/fabrication yards in south LA bring in foreign workers because they can't find enough skilled American workers to do the job. They house them, feed them and provide them with bus transportation to shopping venues.
  12. JW1178


    Jul 17, 2009
    Okay, a lot of you are very pro Free Market. Well, it's a free market, Union or not. Don't buy Union products. Don't hire Union. Don't open a business in a Union territory. If a Union comes, shut down. Capitolisim and Free Markets work both ways, wheather you are the worker or the employee, or even the customer. LET THE FREE MARKET SORT ITSELF OUT. Why should the owners be the only one dealing the cards? Why should everything be in their favor?

    If things were the was some on here would like, that would happen here. Those who control the money have the power and if they were unrestircited, they would make things this way here in the US. The smart and tallented would figure it out. I guess they would deserve to reap the bennifits of this because they are smart, right?

    Look at the sweat shop textile mills of the 1800's. Hey, why should they pay more than enough for someone to barely eat, if they don't like it they can leave and starve. Keep enough people starving you create the desparation to keep the labor force going.

    No comparison. You don't get a job in the Army as a Soldier, you JOIN the Army. There is a huge difference.

    Like I said, let the free market settle itself out. It just did with Hostess.
  13. Yes they did. They were sold like property and some of the remnants are still standing out away from their owners mansions in the Florida panhandle. They received painful education when they didn't perform properly. Some here think we should go back to that form of cheap labor. Others think we should have picked our own damn cotton for a fair wage.
  14. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Jan 16, 2005
    Some people post about "the company screwing the workers" as an "evil of capitalism." They are wrong.

    The whole point of free-market capitalism is that both parties - company and employee - are free to make the best bargain with what they have to offer and they are free to walk away if they are not satisfied. If the company is screwing the workers, capitalism has a built-in, self-regulating solution - they are free to walk away and find other jobs with a better company. The company that offers the conditions needed to get the labor it needs, will win the competiution - the company that does not, is out of business.

    If they are willing to work for the pay and conditions that get, then the employees are setting the standard. If the company cannot get enough employees of high enough quality to work in their conditions, they have to make improvements until they can.

    The problem the employees have is that they often think they are worth more than any company thinks they are worth, but there is no shortage of sufficient labor that is willing to do the employer's job for less, so there is no reason for the employer to pay what the employee "thinks" he is worth - only what the market says he is worth.

    This is where the union comes in - this is not a debatable theory or an opinion or something the unions deny; even the unions know they do 1 thing - 1 single function - they create an artificial labor shortage where there isn't a natural labor shortage, by controlling the supply of labor. The union controls the labor supply and creates this shortage to inflate wages above what they would be if everybody was free to contract as they choose.

    There is no version where that is right. There is also no version where every artificial gain the union members make isn't at the expense of everyone else.
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
  15. Z71bill


    Feb 19, 2007
    This is not that hard -

    What do you want?

    Higher wage rates for some workers with higher unemployment and less total wages (all jobs combined)?


    Higher total wages (all jobs combined) and higher total employment - but some individual jobs pay less?

    Take your pick -

    But don't tell me you want strong unions and a lower unemployment rate and more in total wages paid.

    If you increase the cost of something less of it will be demanded. Unions increase the cost of labor.

    Wages are sort of like gasoline -

    Some will be used even when the cost is really high -

    If gas was $10 a gallon many people would still buy it - have no choice must get to work - but over time people would figure out a way to use less gas.

    If labor cost was $20 an hour higher - some people would still have jobs - but over time companies would find ways to reduce head count.

    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
  16. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Jan 16, 2005
    Now I'll answer myself:

    " can't just quit your job and walk away, it's not that easy.":upeyes:

    Why is it not that easy? Because you, as a worker, can only get a job based on what value you bring to the contract. If you aren't bringing the skills and experience that makes you valuble to an employer, that is your fault. If you think your sklills and experience are worth more than the market says they are worth, based on the supply and demand of those skills, that's your fault. The hard solution is to icnrease your value as an employee, usually through education or experience. The easy solution is, "form a union to control the labor supply, thereby making my skills artificially more scarce."
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
  17. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    That's what's been happening. We just wish the unions (in this case) would realize that their actions are destroying the companies that their employees depend on for their livelihoods.

    The loss of 18,500 jobs is a great human tragedy in any event. That's a lot of stress for a lot of people, and more so since most of those people are likely very low-skilled workers who will have trouble finding another job. I've been an unemployed person with the ability to find another job that would replace the wages I used to make, and it's incredibly stressful. I feel sorry for those people, but ultimately most of them are in that situation because of the choices they've made in their lives. When I found myself in that situation, I decided I would never allow it to happen again, so I had to go back to school.

    We can't keep failing businesses open just to provide them with jobs. We can't afford to keep paying people to be unemployed.

    What are you talking about? The "owners" of this company just lost their investment. Hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth, wiped out. The owners are getting shafted too. Everyone is. That's what bankruptcy does.

    I hate to break it to you, but it has nothing to do with what anyone "would like." This is how the world works. Those who control the money have the power. How long do you think the US military would remain a viable force if they stopped getting paid?

    Yes. Of course the smart and talented (and lucky and hardworking) reap the benefits. How else could the universe work?

    I do not understand how you managed to make it to adulthood without learning that the world isn't fair. Life's hard. Get a helmet. Stop whining and start doing.
  18. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    Because it is their money at risk.

    It isn't. You're free to leave.

    But choosing not to leave but instead remaining and destroying someone else's property is despicable.
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
  19. You guys keep saying they were free to leave if they weren't happy with their jobs or pay. That's what they did. All of them. So what's the problem?
  20. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    1) It really is a great tragedy in human terms. This will affect hundreds of thousands of people, and the struggles and stress of the workers and their families and the folks who depended on selling goods and services to these workers is something we should not ignore. I've been unemployed before, and it sucks a lot.

    2) Not all of them made this decision. The actions of 5,000 workers resulted in the unemployment of almost 19,000 people (probably more, actually, if you count the SG&A personnel that are now jobless as well). That a small group of people held the rest of the company hostage is a travesty.

    3) Most frustrating, to me, is that it was STUPID. Stupid on the part of the baker's union. It was contrary to their own best interests, yet they can't seem to understand this simple fact. If I had even a tiny bit of faith that they'll learn from this and behave differently next time, then I'd be a lot more ok with it--but you know and I know that they didn't and they won't. The union bosses didn't lose their jobs, after all. The bakery workers are (collectively) too dumb to realize that they're both pawns and replaceable. It's sad.

    Fundamentally, I agree with you. The system worked. It did what it was supposed to do. However, it didn't have to go this way; there were probably less painful and less value-destructive ways to fix the situation. Yes, if you look at the last 20 years of the company's history, in hindsight there's plenty of blame to go around. However, in this case the ones who finally pushed the company over the cliff in the first place are the ones who will lose the most.