Teamsters Play Hardball with Darigold

[Dru]

team of s

[TBay]

In the past-

Organized labor was effective during the US Industrial Revolution(which happen to coincide with the US Immigration Era), where they lobbied and secured safe working conditions and reasonable compensation.

The Case Today-

Unions no longer have the term 'reasonable' in their vocabulary, and as for safe working conditions, hell most everyone's work condition is safer/healthier than the homes you live in. these days its Unions that are chasing away the jobs to Right-To-Work-States like Utah (where i currently reside)and over seas. Companies are 'fed-up' with the asinine demands of Unions. Companies (one's with some sense of american pride left) realize that in the Right-To-Work-States they know that they can get an honest worker for honest pay and that competition tends to bring out the best; unions remove competition and breed high-priced medocrity.

But, unfortunately for all, globalization in inevitable, and jobs are lost to overseas and automation. Unions are just expediting the process.

thank you (unions) and good night.

[marylou]

Organized labor was effective during the US Industrial Revolution

 

yep.

 

(which happen to coincide with the US Immigration Era)

 

it's over?

 

where they lobbied and secured safe working conditions and reasonable compensation.

 

They don't do that any more? Heck, my union must be horribly out of step!

 

Unions no longer have the term 'reasonable' in their vocabulary

 

Huh? That's crazy! You really think unions want to put their signatories out of business? Then where will the workers work?

 

and as for safe working conditions, hell most everyone's work condition is safer/healthier than the homes you live in

 

I can't speak for people with desk jobs, but blue coller working environments still aren't all that safe. For one thing, enforcement of safety regs is pretty lax at times. In my work we all have to be super diligent, union workers and our managers alike, to make the best attempt at a safe working enviroment. We still have accidents though.

 

Companies are 'fed-up' with the asinine demands of Unions.

 

Such as...

 

Companies (one's with some sense of american pride left) realize that in the Right-To-Work-States they know that they can get an honest worker for honest pay

 

So unionized workers are not honest? Nor is their work? Dang, I'm pretty wiped out today for putting in a dishonest night of work last night!

 

and that competition tends to bring out the best; unions remove competition and breed high-priced medocrity.

 

Dunno about that, the non-union competition nips at our heels all of the time.

 

But, unfortunately for all, globalization in inevitable, and jobs are lost to overseas and automation. Unions are just expediting the process.

 

By your argument, so are the minumum wage, the right to unionize, the 40 hour work week, and all of the health and safety regs put forth by the gummint. It sure would bring the cost of US labor down!

 

So, would you say we should move to do away with all of those, too?

[Greg_W]

marylou has morphed into MtnGoat.

[marylou]

Fortunately only on this subject. People want to trash unions, they first oughtta to start with the facts.

[Greg_W]

Fortunately only on this subject. People want to trash unions, they first oughtta to start with the facts.

I would posit that both sides have put out some good information to support their positions. As in everything, it seems, there is both positive and negative. The key will always be to accentuate the positive while suppressing the negative. In the meantime, we have only to spray.

[Dru]

One nice thing about Unions I have found is that when the management start playing "random Acts of Management" Dilbert style the Union can flex muscles and try and reign them in A friend of mine was getting shafted by her immediate supervisor. She grieved it to the Union and the supervisor was told by HIS supervisor to chill out.

[marylou]

Believe it or not, this is a two-way street. Union leadership can assist management in doing the same thing with a troublesome member.

[Dru]

well i guess the only unions i have experience with are the public service union, and the IWA (loggers and mill workers). your artsy fartsy off-Broadway performers unions are a whole different basket of fruit.

[richard_noggin]

Man!! tat's a lot of spray by a bunch of punkass mofo's that know nothing about union labor or labor history.

This country was build with the blood and sweat of hard working family UNION labor.

And if anyone of you would like to spray about it in detail I know of a couple of roughnecks at the sidetrack Tavern on Marginal way that would gladly discuss the in's and out's of their livelyhood.

I have never seen a Union member getting rich from union wages, but I have seen a lot of Familys raised with Union barging power for a decent wage and medical

You assholes have taken spray to a whole new level !!

[mothboy88]

Believe it or not, this is a two-way street. Union leadership can assist management in doing the same thing with a troublesome member.

 

I work in health care for the state. Most of the proffessions in my workgroup (including mine) are non-union. A few are. The only people I have ever seen fired were those in the unions. The union contracts in our case are very concrete in how poor job performance is dealt with. The union rep was present for the meetings with the supervisor once job perfomance became an issue and had no problem with the process since the rules were followed.

 

Conversely, I have seen cases of egregiously poor performance of non-union workers where the process to fire them is so vague that it seemed almost impossible to get rid of a bad seed from a government job.

 

Just a wierd irony I have observed in my little state sector universe.

[mothboy88]

I have never seen a Union member getting rich from union wages

 

Though you and I may have never actually witnessed people getting rich on union wages it apparently happens.

 

This CNN link describes the 2002 average annual salary of a west coast longshoreman as $106,833 and the average annual pay of marine clerks as $128,421. And this was prior to going on strike.

 

I would say someone making 128K a year would qualify as rich. Obviously this is an exceptional case but it does show unions are capable of inflating wages beyond reasonable limits. Which ultimatly hurts the average American who makes far less.

Edited March 2, 2004 by mothboy88

[marylou]

your artsy fartsy off-Broadway performers unions are a whole different basket of fruit.

 

Hm.

 

I am represented by the union that represents stagehands, so you must be confusing me with someone else. We are neither artsy-fartsy, nor off-Broadway. Oh, and we are not performers either.

[lancegranite]

Yo, IATSE local 720 (LV) in the house.

I'll say this, working union works for me.

We work all over the place!

good money, time off, way casual!

[richard_noggin]

I think there is more to the long shoremans wages than meets the eye such as hours worked and time as a temp put in to reach that wage.

So how much does a Lawyer make on average ...that produces nothing of worth...

How about sports players think they are worth those mega bucks?

How much do the cubical people that surf cc.com on company time make?

Unions are made up of workers for FAIR wages and conditions

As in all things that involve money in this country there is GREED and CORUPTION

All unions are not the same they are like people there are good ones and bad ones.

[lancegranite]

word.

I have worked in unions for 15 years...I have seen both sides of the coin, but all in all, the Labor unions in this country have kept the wage up, insured that qualified people are used, and created a system for safe working conditions. Like it or not, these guys, crooked or not, are all that's left to fight for decent working conditions.

 

Right now, our esteemed el' presedente is trying to get rid of overtime. Do you really think YOUR boss would pay you OT if he did'nt have to?

[Jim]

I've had some experience with unions. My old man worked in union shops all his life. When a machine lopped off the ends of two of his fingers it was the union that made sure he got the correct medical care and that his position was available when he came back. If it was up to the company he would have been tossed aside.

 

I worked for the teamsters back east for a while, loading trucks between undergrad and grad school. Yea, they did pinch your paycheck for dues but if it weren't for them there would be no collective bargining. And that's what big business wants, the ability to call all the shots.

 

On the other hand their are some stale unions around. A frined worked in the NYC mechanics shop for the subways. Bascically he was told to dial it back a bit because he was too efficient. That was in the 80s, now there's more of a cooperative atmosphere between the union and mgmt.

[TBay]

consider the following. note that it does not account for working conditions.

 

Lets take a look at numbers-

 

here is a list of indicating the unemployment rate for each state.

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/jobwatch.org.20040127.table3.pdf

cc.comers should note: the pacific states are effin up the national average (5.6%). i'll give a good reason later.

 

here is a map indicating the Right-To-work-States (23) and Union States (28).

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

 

Now the numbers (i used Excel)-

Unemployment Rates

Union States low: 4.0%(Mass.) high: 7.7%(AK) avg: 5.5%

RTW States low: 3.2%(N.D.) high: 6.4%(TX) avg: 4.8%

 

Now to fill in the blanks where the BLS graph (alone) j_b quotes misconceives.

Lets take a quick look at a long-time union stronghold, Michigan, coming in at a whopping 7.2%.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=5937 (stats posted 11/03)

-note the results of the research stated in the article,

"...In fact, George Mason University economist James Bennett found in 1994 that after adjusting for the cost of living and taxes, workers in right-to-work states took home over $2,800 more each year than workers in non-right-to-work states. In 2001 David Kendrick of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research did similar calculations for nine Midwestern states and found that take-home pay was higher under right-to-work laws."

looks like j_b failed to mention that the chart does not take into consideration the adjusted cost-of-living and taxes.

 

marylou, in response to your response of my response,clearly stated in the article "...The main obstacle to attracting new employers is a poor labor climate. Employers looking at Michigan see a state with high labor costs. Our state has the second highest per-unit labor costs in the nation. These costs in turn increase the cost of goods made in Michigan, putting employers here at a disadvantage and discouraging new employers from setting up shop in our state. As global trade brings more and more competitors into every industry, that burden becomes more and more difficult to bear, difficult enough to which they pick up shop and move elsewhere(italics added)."

 

marylou, what companies are leaving WA you ask? spend a weekend going door to door in Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties (4th worst rate)or Portland suburbia (OR tied for 2nd) and ask where there previous employers moved to?

 

organized crime anyone-

from stated article, "...In Michigan, nearly 900,000 workers are forced to pay dues to a union without regard to whether or not they support its political agenda or collective bargaining demands. Tens of thousands of Michigan workers are union members, not because they want to be, but because if they aren’t they will lose their jobs. This legally mandated subsidy in the form of dues adds millions of dollars to union bank accounts."

keep in mind that when you become a statistic, it will be i and other non-union workers that will afford your welfare, and as for your fat-cat-bosses, well they'll empty the union bank accounts into log-cabin castle tax shelters here in park city (trust me on this one, my employment allows me access to all property tax accounts in and around park city and i know who's who, you will be suprised).

 

as, Benjamin Franklin, one of our founding fathers stated(and predicted), "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

 

once again, thank you unions for what you have done and what you have undone (and are undoing).

[scott_harpell]

good post Tbay

[Jim]

If things are so great in the rtw states, then why is there such a strong correlation between rtw and level of poverty? Hmmm. Maybe someone else is raking in the difference? http://www.citizencomputing.org/USPoverty99.html

[Bronco]

Man!! tat's a lot of spray by a bunch of punkass mofo's that know nothing about union labor or labor history.

This country was build with the blood and sweat of hard working family UNION labor.

And if anyone of you would like to spray about it in detail I know of a couple of roughnecks at the sidetrack Tavern on Marginal way that would gladly discuss the in's and out's of their livelyhood.

I have never seen a Union member getting rich from union wages, but I have seen a lot of Familys raised with Union barging power for a decent wage and medical

You assholes have taken spray to a whole new level !!

 

I don't know if you are LUCKY but I do know Alpine K was right on one account, you ARE an ironworker. This is the exact line of bullshit the ironworkers would lay on us "scabs" for taking food out of their kids mouths and associated threats, derogitory names, spit on us, vandalize our work etc... What about our kids? Oh, and if the opportunity came for what would have been even numbers on each side the ironworkers were very nice and cordial. It was only when we were outnumbered 20 to 4 that they got aggressive. What a bunch of pussies.

 

The shitty thing is, we weren't doing IRONWORK!!!

 

Nice how you imply that if we don't agree with you, the "roughnecks" at the tavern would be glad to "discuss" it with us. More intimidating behavior.

 

Thanks for verifying what kind of people ironworkers are

 

I think you are the one in need of an education on Unions. The only thing you know about Unions is what the ironworkers have spoon-fed you.

 

[edit] I guess maybe I don't have such a problem with all Unions, just a little pissed at the ironworkers still [edit]

 

Gee, I feel a lot better now. Have a great day!

Edited March 2, 2004 by Bronco

[j_b]

Unemployment Rates

Union States low: 4.0%(Mass.) high: 7.7%(AK) avg: 5.5%

RTW States low: 3.2%(N.D.) high: 6.4%(TX) avg: 4.8%

Lets take a quick look at a long-time union stronghold, Michigan, coming in at a whopping 7.2%.

 

big news! industrialists are moving to places where labor regulations are lacking. is this supposed to convince anyone that unions are bad? funny logic if you ask me.

 

 

-note the results of the research stated in the article,

"...In fact, George Mason University economist James Bennett found in 1994 that after adjusting for the cost of living and taxes, workers in right-to-work states took home over $2,800 more each year than workers in non-right-to-work states. In 2001 David Kendrick of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research did similar calculations for nine Midwestern states and found that take-home pay was higher under right-to-work laws."

 

what would you expect from an anti-union think tank?

 

here is what others have to say: "We find that previous research reporting real wage gains associated with right-to-work states is almost purely the result of border cities that benefit from their proximity to a non-RTW state."

 

"An analysis along gender lines reveals similar trends. On average, men in RTW states earn 7.8% less than their counterparts in non-RTW states; women in RTW states earn 6.8% less"

 

"Unlike previous research by Bennett (2001), we find that, even after controlling for regional costs of living, workers in right-to-work states earn less per hour. Particularly interesting is the affect on workers living in cities that are stretch across state line, placing it in both a right-to-work state and a non-RTW state. Seventeen out of 433 metropolitan areas in our sample (nearly 4%) spill over from a right-to-work state to a non-RTW state. Our analysis indicates that, in areas where a pure RTW state effect exists (i.e., no spill-over effect), the right-to-work penalty is larger (see Table 3). In fact, we find that living near a non -RTW state helps raise workers' wages."

 

http://www.lights.com/epi/virlib/Miscellaneous/wagep.PDF

 

and as jim pointed out, there is the issue of the real standard of living in rtw states as shown by poverty levels. why would the cost of living be lower in rtw states? wouldn't it be because people are poorer ...

[scott_harpell]

More intimidating behavior.

 

gee.... wunder who they learned that from?

[AlpineK]

Thanks for verifying what kind of people ironworkers are

 

 

Most ironworkers are gay...not that there's anything wrong with that.

[richard_noggin]

Bronco I don't know about Ironwork, but I do know what a scab and a rat are.

When a union man stands up for a good wage and medical a scab or rat will work for lower wages for the man.

Alpinwanker

Ironworkers...Gay

This site banned Trask

Looks like reason and logic just took the last plane out of seatac

 

 

Might want to check out some labor history there bucko