Rand Paul "Right To Work" Link

[MrFedEx]

http://biggovernment.com/laborunion...-full-of-irony-and-union-failure/#more-259940
more info on this story.
a quick summary for MrFedx ;
Unfortunately for the IAM, if it were not for its poor representation in South Carolina, where the union had existed before getting kicked out, it could have had Boeing members in both Washington as well as South Carolina and the NLRB fight would never have had to take place.

De-certifying was a prerequisite for Boeing's move. Both South Carolina and Boeing knew that it would be pointless to move out of Washington State if there was a union shop in the new location. The only reasons they moved were lower labor costs, and to punish the Washington workers for daring to strike in 2008. If you research the story a bit, the union was only interested in preventing outsourcing, and was willing to make wage concessions to Boeing. That's why the NLRB ruled in favor of the union.

Boeing used to have a large facility in Wichita. They threatened to close the plant, but then "sold" it and reopened it as non-union Spirit Aerospace. Same plant, same workers, and the union abolished. Nothing underhanded there.

 

[Babagounj]

Please show me the cases where people are paid to do no work at all.

One of the benefits negotiated by the United Auto Workers was the jobs bank program, under which laid-off members received 95 percent of their take-home pay and benefits. More than 12,000 UAW members were paid this benefit in 2005.

 

[trplnkl]

Please show me the cases where people are paid to do no work at all.

Since you worded your question this way I guess you are admitting to the part about doing less work for more money.

Last year there were several reports of UAW members that were being paid full wages while being laid off. There were reports of NY teachers being paid full wages to sit in empty class rooms all because they had tenure. If that's not no work at all, I don't know what is.

 

[MrFedEx]

One of the benefits negotiated by the United Auto Workers was the jobs bank program, under which laid-off members received 95 percent of their take-home pay and benefits. More than 12,000 UAW members were paid this benefit in 2005.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we talking about the Boeing Co. and the IAM? I don't doubt that what you've said about the UAW is true.

 

[brett636]

I love people like you. You enjoy the benefits of a union, but rail against unions in principle. "Right To Work" really means a right to work for less..much less. It's a gift to the corporations. Do you even think about the implications of what you say?

Have you ever been in a union meeting where your BA states point blank he wishes your job didn't exist? Doesn't exactly give you that warm and fuzzy feeling about a union I can tell you that. I support unions in principle, but its too bad its the union leadership which dishonor those very same principles by embracing the pipe dream known as socialism.

 

[moreluck]

"....Have you ever been in a union meeting where your BA states point blank he wishes your job didn't exist? ......."

In fact, YOU are the one who holds the power for HIM to keep his job.....by the dues you pay!!!

 

[brett636]

"....Have you ever been in a union meeting where your BA states point blank he wishes your job didn't exist? ......."

In fact, YOU are the one who holds the power for HIM to keep his job.....by the dues you pay!!!

Thankfully that particular BA is gone, but he hung around a lot longer than a lot of members wanted. My only guess is he had some friends in high places keeping him there, and it wasn't until he was on the verge of retirement that he was supposedly "forced" out. My point is he could have been gone much sooner had the membership been able to withhold their dues until he was gone.

 

[trplnkl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we talking about the Boeing Co. and the IAM? I don't doubt that what you've said about the UAW is true.

Well , as usual I couldn't tell for sure what your were talking about. I was not talking about boeing co. specifically but unions in general.

 

[MrFedEx]

Well , as usual I couldn't tell for sure what your were talking about. I was not talking about boeing co. specifically but unions in general.

OK. Sure, there are some union slackers. That doesn't mean that everyone who is in a union is lazy. There are lots of worthless private sector workers and management that are just as bad.

 

[trplnkl]

OK. Sure, there are some union slackers. That doesn't mean that everyone who is in a union is lazy. There are lots of worthless private sector workers and management that are just as bad.

I never said that all union workers were lazy. I worked side by side (ok as side by side as you can get in the UPS environment) with lots of drivers, preloaders, etc., only a handful could be considered lazy. The difference is, without the union a company or even a public agency is free to fire the lazy worker that won't change their ways, not so true for union protected slackers. I also know that in some companies, the protection is direly needed to help good hard working individuals that simply have a personality conflict with a manager or one that makes an honesty mistake that doesn't really matter in the long term. One problem I have with unions is that the contractual rules are set up to protect the worst employees, the best don't really need all that much protecting.
I'm really glad to see you say "That doesn't mean that everyone who is in a union is lazy". That means you recognize that all people in the (insert any group) are not ( insert any atrocious name) just because some are( insert any atrocious name).