Nope, that's not it at all. RTW is designed to add one more hurdle to increasing Union membership, that's all. Actually, it's a lot tougher for BA's & Stewards in RTW States because the membership is fragmented yet they demand more. It's a drain on our resources and our time, which is the point in the first place.
The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana
- Thread starter Teamster89
- Start date
Nope, that's not it at all. RTW is designed to add one more hurdle to increasing Union membership, that's all. Actually, it's a lot tougher for BA's & Stewards in RTW States because the membership is fragmented yet they demand more. It's a drain on our resources and our time, which is the point in the first place.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
This is what I was attempting to convey ... I think we are in agreement.
You'd be proud Pobre, I did a little research on you and you're just another Union Buster. You come here spewing all this crap about freedom and tyranny when all you want is to bust the Union so the Company can run roughshod over these guys. Best of luck to you, as you're going to have your work cut out for you.
So you list a few companies, yet bring no facts to the table. That's because you have none. LAME
You think you are baiting me but I can do this all day long.
Job loss? Really? I think not. We've been gaining membership and jobs and you know it. We've weathered this recession quite well.
Not allowing non-members to vote? Gee, I just don't seem to have a problem with that one. Membership is the price of admission.
You know what Pobre, I think you should use some of your 'talent' (and I use that loosely) to become a tax protester. You sound like all those whackos arguing that the 16th Amendment not being ratified means you can not pay your taxes (yet you don't seem to mind using the public roads, public rights of way for your electricity, etc). Hey wait, are you really Wesley Snipes? OMG! I loved Drop Zone.
So keep it up drivel boy, it's been very entertaining.
------------------
I doubt anyone here has been moved by Pobre's drivel, but you might research a few of his early posts and you'll see he's nothing but a Union Busting shill. I guess if you think going to Dr. Kevorkian for your physical and Jeffrey Dahmer for cooking tips is a good idea, then Pobre's your man.
Ah I hope so. I know we beat up on you guys in Management, always saying you can't do anything right yada yada. We get it pretty bad from the members too because someone always thinks they are getting screwed even if it's just that they aren't thinking it through (I had two guys almost go to blows today over a grievance settlement). I don't remember "water walker" being part of the job description.
Perhaps only because an inordinate amount of our resources are going to organizing when it could be used for policing and negotiating. I think what has kept the numbers high is the gains SEIU has made in the service sector. I have tremendous respect for that Union and their membership because they are at the bottom rung but are fighting like badgers to better themselves by working together.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
crowbar;
Let me get this straight; you ask for an example, and when you're presented with one (actually more than one), you say that I "bring no facts to the table"? And you dismiss the union's very real job loss problem by claiming that "We've been gaining membership and jobs"? Really? ["No...Teamsters don't stick their heads in the sand and deny reality. Not THEM!"...smile]
Sorry if you consider it all "drivel", "crowbar"....but I'm even sorrier for the union if that's the type of "representation" guys like you have to offer potential members. You see, they (the potential members) might not quite buy into the "I think not" claim in terms of there being Teamster job losses....particularly in light of the numbers the union itself have published. Maybe you believe that you and your associates can somehow hide the loss of more than a MILLION of once-upon-a-time Teamster jobs from them. And that perhaps you can get them to buy into the idea that the union will cover their butts in terms of job maintenance.
But assuming you can't (which, in light of the overwhelming evidence available, is rather a decent assumption one would think), what else do you have to offer? Can't really talk about the 100 largest trucking firms of 35 years ago - virtually all of which were "organized" - and as to just how many of them exist now, can you? Nor, I suspect, could you talk-up "union" with new hires at places like UPS, when the best ammunition available to you is the Teamster-"negotiated" wages that have been left virtually unchanged for new hire P/T'ers for almost 30 years. Tough row to hoe, isn't it?
In any case, I think the style and substance of your response is quite revealing in terms of why organizations like the Teamsters are absolutely terrified at the thought of "right to work" legislation. Not being able to dictate "membership" scares the Hell out of ya', doesn't it?
Yep, "crowbar"...no doubt you "CAN do this all day". Unfortunately, what you "can do all day" isn't very effective in attracting VOLUNTARY membership, is it? Of course, according to you "membership is the price of admission"...as if it's YOU who has the jobs to offer! Gosh, why wouldn't potential members be attracted to THAT type of logic!?
Anyway, sorry if it looked like I was trying to upset your little apple cart. No doubt you've made a very good case as to why you - and those like you - need to be able to dictate to those who might not agree with you the terms of THEIR employment. And perhaps you've demonstrated the necessity of your being able to extract funds from your co-workers regardless of whether they see such an expropriation as being to their benefit or not.
Unfortunately, I'm not buying into it. And, beyond that, I can't help but think that quite a few reasonable and responsible potential members won't be buying into it, either. My suggestion is that you come up with something REAL to offer them. I just don't think being a blow-hard is going to cut it much longer. Hell, in light of the evidence (and in spite of such "credible" claims as "we've been growing"...smile!), it hasn't been cutting it for some time now.
That said, I'll sign off and let you stick that head of yours back in the sand. Have fun!
Let me get this straight; you ask for an example, and when you're presented with one (actually more than one), you say that I "bring no facts to the table"? And you dismiss the union's very real job loss problem by claiming that "We've been gaining membership and jobs"? Really? ["No...Teamsters don't stick their heads in the sand and deny reality. Not THEM!"...smile]
Sorry if you consider it all "drivel", "crowbar"....but I'm even sorrier for the union if that's the type of "representation" guys like you have to offer potential members. You see, they (the potential members) might not quite buy into the "I think not" claim in terms of there being Teamster job losses....particularly in light of the numbers the union itself have published. Maybe you believe that you and your associates can somehow hide the loss of more than a MILLION of once-upon-a-time Teamster jobs from them. And that perhaps you can get them to buy into the idea that the union will cover their butts in terms of job maintenance.
But assuming you can't (which, in light of the overwhelming evidence available, is rather a decent assumption one would think), what else do you have to offer? Can't really talk about the 100 largest trucking firms of 35 years ago - virtually all of which were "organized" - and as to just how many of them exist now, can you? Nor, I suspect, could you talk-up "union" with new hires at places like UPS, when the best ammunition available to you is the Teamster-"negotiated" wages that have been left virtually unchanged for new hire P/T'ers for almost 30 years. Tough row to hoe, isn't it?
In any case, I think the style and substance of your response is quite revealing in terms of why organizations like the Teamsters are absolutely terrified at the thought of "right to work" legislation. Not being able to dictate "membership" scares the Hell out of ya', doesn't it?
Yep, "crowbar"...no doubt you "CAN do this all day". Unfortunately, what you "can do all day" isn't very effective in attracting VOLUNTARY membership, is it? Of course, according to you "membership is the price of admission"...as if it's YOU who has the jobs to offer! Gosh, why wouldn't potential members be attracted to THAT type of logic!?
Anyway, sorry if it looked like I was trying to upset your little apple cart. No doubt you've made a very good case as to why you - and those like you - need to be able to dictate to those who might not agree with you the terms of THEIR employment. And perhaps you've demonstrated the necessity of your being able to extract funds from your co-workers regardless of whether they see such an expropriation as being to their benefit or not.
Unfortunately, I'm not buying into it. And, beyond that, I can't help but think that quite a few reasonable and responsible potential members won't be buying into it, either. My suggestion is that you come up with something REAL to offer them. I just don't think being a blow-hard is going to cut it much longer. Hell, in light of the evidence (and in spite of such "credible" claims as "we've been growing"...smile!), it hasn't been cutting it for some time now.
That said, I'll sign off and let you stick that head of yours back in the sand. Have fun!
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
You are wasting your time man. If he can't simply open his eyes and mind and see that FORCED unionization isn't wanted by the majority of Americans then he will never see the truth.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
crowbar;
On considering the situation, I've come to the conclusion that I probably shouldn't let pass what you claimed was a "quote" from me; i.e. - line after line of the phrase "union busting drivel". Showed a great amount of "integrity" there, didn't you "crowbar"? [smile] One can't help but think that such demonstrations of "ethics" (or, rather, lack thereof) go a long way toward explaining why unions, when trying to enroll responsible individuals, feel they need to be able to FORCE people to join.
On considering the situation, I've come to the conclusion that I probably shouldn't let pass what you claimed was a "quote" from me; i.e. - line after line of the phrase "union busting drivel". Showed a great amount of "integrity" there, didn't you "crowbar"? [smile] One can't help but think that such demonstrations of "ethics" (or, rather, lack thereof) go a long way toward explaining why unions, when trying to enroll responsible individuals, feel they need to be able to FORCE people to join.
Gee, let me repost what 804brown did so you can see the facts:
I'm pretty impressed by the number of 16-24 year-olds that are joining. That shows our message is starting to be embraced by the next generation. Union membership, like the economy, goes in cycles. Right now Corporate America is laying the seeds for the next surge by short changing the American Worker. It's only a matter of time before people see that, left to their own devices, Corporate America is more interested in fostering a new age of psuedo-indentured servitude than rewarding employees for their labor.
Fact is, we can't all be business owners, professionals, or corporate stiffs. Some of us still actually do the labor that keeps America working. Those are the people for who Unions guarantee a fair shake by collective bargaining strength. The proof is in the numbers: the higher pay, the better benefits, the pensions, grievance procedure and better working conditions and job security.
Oh sure, RTW promises freedom: freedom from higher pay, freedom from paid healthcare, freedom from being provided for by a pension, freedom from being able to have a say in your working conditions, freedom from being able to air your grievances in a protected process. Most of all , freedom from knowing you have a job to go to every day. Oh sure, you could run circles around your older co-workers when you started at UPS, but now you're in your 40's, you have a mortgage, cars, kids college to pay for and a wife with needs. You ready to start all over? RTW will guarantee you get that chance. Sure, companies live and die mostly because of the cycle of their marketplace or decisions from the top, sometimes the members of the Union don't help the cause but in may ways they can be a tremendous help because a Union contract provides specific numbers on the payroll side and a relief outlet for the pressure caused by economic stresses.
Right now RTW are celebrating a victory and hopefully it's short lived. They've won in Indiana, their first victory in over 10 years after many losses. Like circling sharks they smell blood in the water. Just remember what happened in the last decade, with promised riches never appearing. Remember your friends who had rampant un-regulated capitalism rammed through their holiest of holies and how their families suffered. However, isn't is odd that these RTW'ers blame Unions for our economic decline, when membership (which peaked at 35% in the 1950's) has been at it's historical lowest rates all during the past few recessions? I find that telling. (and when you adjust for private/public sector, it's even more damning)
One thing they can't run from is facts. Pobre can list some companies, but isn't parting with any wage or benefit information. Fact is you are going to make, on average, $209 more each week as a Union member in blue collar or service industries. Those are Government Bureau of Labor Statistics facts, not something I made up. Now if you take into consideration that most Union workers do not pay for their healthcare and have employer provided pensions, that $209 can easily double. I think of the white collar people I know, slaving away at a computer for $30k a years, never getting anywhere, getting more bad news every year as their healthcare costs go up and I feel sorry for them as they've bought into the lie that RTW is pushing. Facts are RTW just pushes wages down, which was exactly the goal of the business interests behind RTW in the first place not any cause as grand as "freedom". Oh wait, maybe they meant "freedom from having to pay higher wages". Live in a RTW state? Congratulations, overall your workers, union or not, make 3.2% less than non-RTW states. Boy, gotta love how that freedom puts dinner on the table! Oh you wanted health insurance or your family? Gee, 2.6% fewer of you are even going to be offered one of those overprices undercoveraged plans. But wait! There's one more serving of Freedom! Getting up there in years? Oh you wanted to retire? I'm sure you've put some money away, making 3.2% less and all, and paying too much for your health care (that's if your employer hasn't already fired you because he found someone younger and dumber willing to break his body for the boss). Well we have 4.8% of you are just going to get the heave-ho when you leave. Such a deal! Enjoy that life of luxury in the trailer park while the rest of us pay for your needs. Serve me up some Freedom!
As for the claim that a Union Shop/ Agency Shop is "unwanted by the majority of Americans", when was the national referendum on that issue? Oh, just another 'fact' you pulled out of your ass isn't it.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
"crowbar"
You've made it abundantly clears with your last couple of posts and the "quotes" contained in them that you're not in a position to relate any "facts" whatsoever. You're a liar, plain and simple.
As for your "growth"...funny, when I joined the Teamsters, they were claiming at the time that there were over 2.4 million members (they've since reduced that claim, I believe, to around 2 million, but it doesn't really matter). Now, with all the alleged "organizing" that's gone on over the last 40 years or so, how many Teamsters are there left today? And remember...forty years ago those 2 million and more jobs were GOOD jobs; what have the Teamsters "organized" to replace them? Lot of Teamster LTL truck drivers been able to switch over to emptying bed pans in order to get their pension time in, for example? How about the dockworkers of the hundreds of Teamster-organized trucking companies that went out of business...they been able to maintain their health benefits by changing sheets in some recently "organized" motel, have they?
With that in mind, I got a kick out of your wage comparisons. The UNEMPLOYED Teamsters - the majority of the union's members over the last few decades - make a lot more than their "unorganized" but WORKING brethren, do they?
In short, GET REAL!
I can't stop you from being dishonest; unfortunately, that is an affliction you share with far too many of today's Teamsters. But I certainly can point out the bullsh_t you're trying to feed people for what it is.
Lastly, you're aware as much as anybody that ANYONE - got that? ANYONE - can join a union simply by signing a card...IF THE UNION WILL LET HIM! That is - along with the millions of jobs guys like you have pissed away - your "referendum". And I'm afraid it is something you're just going to have to live with.
You've made it abundantly clears with your last couple of posts and the "quotes" contained in them that you're not in a position to relate any "facts" whatsoever. You're a liar, plain and simple.
As for your "growth"...funny, when I joined the Teamsters, they were claiming at the time that there were over 2.4 million members (they've since reduced that claim, I believe, to around 2 million, but it doesn't really matter). Now, with all the alleged "organizing" that's gone on over the last 40 years or so, how many Teamsters are there left today? And remember...forty years ago those 2 million and more jobs were GOOD jobs; what have the Teamsters "organized" to replace them? Lot of Teamster LTL truck drivers been able to switch over to emptying bed pans in order to get their pension time in, for example? How about the dockworkers of the hundreds of Teamster-organized trucking companies that went out of business...they been able to maintain their health benefits by changing sheets in some recently "organized" motel, have they?
With that in mind, I got a kick out of your wage comparisons. The UNEMPLOYED Teamsters - the majority of the union's members over the last few decades - make a lot more than their "unorganized" but WORKING brethren, do they?
In short, GET REAL!
I can't stop you from being dishonest; unfortunately, that is an affliction you share with far too many of today's Teamsters. But I certainly can point out the bullsh_t you're trying to feed people for what it is.
Lastly, you're aware as much as anybody that ANYONE - got that? ANYONE - can join a union simply by signing a card...IF THE UNION WILL LET HIM! That is - along with the millions of jobs guys like you have pissed away - your "referendum". And I'm afraid it is something you're just going to have to live with.
Last edited:
Denial, denial, denial! Might want to seek some psychiatric help for that. I used readily available Government Bureau of Labor Statistics facts for everything you called lies. A simple google search for "union wage difference" etc will get anyone there who wants to fact check.
You're not a Teamster, you're a Union Buster: the scum of the earth.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
crowbar;
Just can't fix stupid, can 'ya? Nor, apparently, dishonesty either.
I'm going to bow out of this "discussion" now "crowbar"....leaving you to speak all by your lonesome on the subject of "denial" [smile]
Have fun!
Just can't fix stupid, can 'ya? Nor, apparently, dishonesty either.
I'm going to bow out of this "discussion" now "crowbar"....leaving you to speak all by your lonesome on the subject of "denial" [smile]
Have fun!
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
"Crowbar"
An addendum - In terms of what I "called lies", you have "readily available Government Bureau of Labor Statistics facts" at your fingertips to document what you "quoted" me as saying, do ya'?
No, YOU aren't "dishonest", are ya'?! [smile]
An addendum - In terms of what I "called lies", you have "readily available Government Bureau of Labor Statistics facts" at your fingertips to document what you "quoted" me as saying, do ya'?
No, YOU aren't "dishonest", are ya'?! [smile]
Leaving so soon? Still no facts to back up your claims?
So Bureau of Labor Statistics facts are lies? Huh. Seems to me that there would have to be a whole lot of collusion going on, since that bureau has gone through many different Administrations of both Republican and Democratic flavors. Gee, someone might think that they are just putting the truth out there!
C'mon, don't be that way. I'm sure you can find some more things to blame Unions on. How about climate change? Oh wait, seems like Al Gore already blamed it on all the hot air coming from ultra right wing gas bags such as yourself. Sorry 'bout that, we hoped he would stay in his mansion and just keep on with the beard thing.
Well bye bye my Union Buster Padre. Best of luck on your next campaign, but we will expose you wherever your fungus grows.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
crowbar;
In truth, I'm rather satisfied with the way the thread turned-out in terms of demonstrating Teamster "integrity" and "maturity"....and you can "quote" me on that. Moreover, if you wish to brag to your fellow members about how well you represented them on it in terms of attracting new members to the union, then more power to you. No doubt they must be very proud of the way you've conducted yourself.
Again...have fun!
In truth, I'm rather satisfied with the way the thread turned-out in terms of demonstrating Teamster "integrity" and "maturity"....and you can "quote" me on that. Moreover, if you wish to brag to your fellow members about how well you represented them on it in terms of attracting new members to the union, then more power to you. No doubt they must be very proud of the way you've conducted yourself.
Again...have fun!
Sounds like you can add obsessive compulsive disorder to your list when you see that psychiatrist! I'm glad you're happy, I'm happy too. Every time a Union Buster is exposed it's a good day.
Check this out from Clark Howard:
Sounds like there are a whole bunch of dissatisfied people out there ripe for Union representation. See, in a Union shop we don't have to take our employers crap lying down. We have a grievance process to handle that and at Contract time we have a chance to correct their behavior. Oh I know you think we are all crying because of our lack of 'freedom' but it's quite the contrary. Over 100 years of negotiating good contracts and I'd say we're doing pretty good.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
crowbar;
Yep.....if you say so. After all, it's not like YOU would shade the truth now, is it? [smile]
Yep.....if you say so. After all, it's not like YOU would shade the truth now, is it? [smile]
See, what Clark is talking about the Teamsters had an answer to. Some wise people have said "If a Company has a Union representing their employees, there is a reason for it". When UPS tries to cut too many routes and pile the work on package drivers, we have a 9.5 hour grievance procedure with triple time (Triple Time!) to make is very, very expensive for them to do so. The intent is to make it cheaper for UPS to utilize the employees they have instead of overworking you like the horse in True Grit. Now some will rightly say that triple time hasn't been enough so we will most likely have contract proposals to deal with that too. Can you say quadruple time?
But even when layoffs are necessary we have an orderly process so you know where you are going based on Seniority, not favoritism, ageism, sexism or racisim. Job Security: just one more benefit of going Union that I bet a lot of those 80% were wishing they had.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
crowbar;
Yes, I'm sure someone like YOU understands just what "Clark is talking about". [smile]
I've heard somewhere that there are intelligent enthusiastic Teamsters, and there are honest enthusiastic Teamsters, but that there's a real shortage of intelligent AND honest Teamsters; they seem to be as scarce as hen's teeth. And, unfortunately, there seems to be a real abundance of the UN-intelligent and DIS-honest enthusiastic type. One wonders why....just like one wonders why "unionists" generally feel they have to COERCE workers into joining.
I can't help but think that the posts on this thread go a long way toward answering both those questions....and you can "quote" me on that. [again a "smile"]
Thanks
Yes, I'm sure someone like YOU understands just what "Clark is talking about". [smile]
I've heard somewhere that there are intelligent enthusiastic Teamsters, and there are honest enthusiastic Teamsters, but that there's a real shortage of intelligent AND honest Teamsters; they seem to be as scarce as hen's teeth. And, unfortunately, there seems to be a real abundance of the UN-intelligent and DIS-honest enthusiastic type. One wonders why....just like one wonders why "unionists" generally feel they have to COERCE workers into joining.
I can't help but think that the posts on this thread go a long way toward answering both those questions....and you can "quote" me on that. [again a "smile"]
Thanks
