Republicans Not Alone in Attacking Unions

I have always had mixed feelings about some of these issues but my stance has become more clear.
Yea boy, me too.

The bill itself will be shot down, correct.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't asking for it to be shot down, just predicting. This law would severely restrict the law suits, which IMO isn't a bad thing on the surface but could turn bad.

The NLRB has it's advantages within the scope of the current free market system and mixed economy, where companies will run rampant on the worker and vice-versa. However in an ideal setting (in my eyes, heh heh) , there is no use as labor should be able to make their own decisions and take action when necessary, without gov't intervention.

Unfortunately there are companies out there (more than there used to be) that will engage in all sorts of employee abuse, such as very low wages, zero benefits, too much forced overtime in poor to dangerous working conditions and down right harassment. These are the things that the NRLB was created to curtail.
Also unfortunately we don't live in an ideal setting where companies and employees treat each other with respect and dignity which IMO creates the need for the NRLB and even unions to an extent. BTW, I don't trust unions anymore than I trust corporations or the government.

My opinion is that closed shops allow the union to run how it sees fit and offers less incentive for union representatives and organizers to effectively address concerns of it's membership. When joining a union is optional, only then will said union fully represent it's members, as doing otherwise would cause more fallout and less dues paying membership.

In an ideal setting your second sentence would be totally correct. However, that hasn't been my experience. Texas is a right to work state, union membership is optional, yet the teamsters (the only union I have direct experience with) do a pretty poor job overall of protecting the employee's rights.
They make side deals on a national level to basically ignore clear contract language, one example is the over 9.5 rules. Don't forget, the unions are also businesses and first look to the greater good of the organization before that of the members. We've had quite a few people drop out of the union and the only thing that does is piss off the union reps. Once out, the level of protection goes down, legal or not. UPS would dearly love for an entire center, an center, to have all members drop out.


Again, I have mixed feelings on at least some of these issues and am open minded to both sides of the argument.

I understand the mixed feelings.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
Not sure why but can't quote your post...lol

I see what you are saying and that was for a long time I would openly agree. However I don't think UPS would "love" the consequences of a non-union workforce, especially without the NLRB and wage laws, assuming the way the company treats its employees now continues beyond. There would be, for sure, many major issues and instances that would threaten the companies economic outlook if some anti-statism were injected (or, more accurately rejected) into the workforce.
Wildcat.jpg


heh.
 
Not sure why but can't quote your post...lol

I see what you are saying and that was for a long time I would openly agree. However I don't think UPS would "love" the consequences of a non-union workforce, especially without the NLRB and wage laws, assuming the way the company treats its employees now continues beyond. There would be, for sure, many major issues and instances that would threaten the companies economic outlook if some anti-statism were injected (or, more accurately rejected) into the workforce.


heh.

I must be missing something. What consequences would the company suffer from a non-union workforce? What major issues would threaten UPS' economic outlook ?
 
Top