Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 932970" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>crowbar;</p><p></p><p>Do you realize the arrogance of your claim of....</p><p></p><p>"I am the Union. You are the Union"</p><p></p><p>...when the "you" in the situation has NO DESIRE TO BE IN "UNION" WITH YOU AT ALL?!?</p><p></p><p>Then there's your demand of....</p><p></p><p>"You want RTW? Then give me equal time, equal access, and card check"</p><p></p><p>...why should you be GIVEN anything? You want "equal" access, then EARN it! Employers PAY for the privilege; why should YOU be allowed to mooch off of what THEY have earned? See a problem there? As for "giving" you "card check"; well, why not....but then you'll be inclined to give the OTHER SIDE that gift as well, right? I.e. - they can organize a "card check" and throw your ass out any time they choose via any means they can get "cards checked" as well. Sound like a plan to you? Could you even comprehend working under a situation where "equal" really WAS the effective word? Think YOU are prepared to pay the wages, build the facility, provide the parking lot, make the payroll, etc? Yeah...right!</p><p></p><p>But you ARE right about the necessity of "a fair playing field". It SHOULD be a "fair playing field". Employers - and those who choose NOT to be in unions - should be granted the SAME rights as those enjoyed by unions and union members. If unions and their members can arbitrarily terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, then WHY SHOULDN'T EMPLOYERS BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY?! And if unions can negotiate wages and conditions for themselves, then WHY SHOULDN'T INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES BE GIVEN THE SAME RIGHT? Why should those who ordinarily on the basis of the market value of their skills, their initiative, and their work ethic, receive better compensation be held to the lower "mean" bargained by the union for those who AREN'T economically worth as much to their employer? And if unions don't wish to work for wages offered,and can seek another employer at any time, then WHY SHOULDN'T EMPLOYERS BE GRANTED THE SAME RIGHT AND BE ALLOWED TO FIND OTHER WORKERS when THEY want as well? You want "fair"....OK, then let's HAVE it "fair"!</p><p></p><p>Perhaps now you're beginning to see that any TRULY "fair" situation might bite you in the ass big time! Unions - at least as they're constituted today - apparently can't exist under any situation that's truly "fair"; to survive, they have to be "given" things (i.e. - in the way that you demanded that things be "given" to you). And, again, if they can't justify their existence on their own hook, then WHAT'S THE POINT OF THEIR EXISTENCE? Why should the rest of society subsidize a privileged few who demand to be "given" privileges over and above what they've earned?</p><p></p><p>Lastly employers DO "put their money where their mouth is". That said, what have unions done? Have they put THEIR money up? In fact, it seems what they've done is having TAKEN the money that could have been used to FEED the mouths of literally millions of American workers and their families and figuratively pissed it away. How many employer companies have the Teamsters put out of business over the last few decades, for example? And how much of THEIR money did the Teamsters put up to preserve those jobs? Say when CFWY was going under - and a few measly million dollars could have saved 16,000 Teamster members jobs? Did the union put up ITS money where ITS mouth was then? How about the union's claims at Hostess Bakeries now; i.e - where it's demanding that ALL "stakeholders" make a sacrifice. Just what sort of "sacrifice" is the union willing to make? Will there be any REAL "concession" involved? Will any funds already tendered to the Teamsters make it's way back to Hostess? Will any Teamster lose what HE or SHE has ALREADY invested, like the investors and debt holders will? Or, to get a little closer to home, just how much "blood, sweat, and tears" (and money) have the Teamsters SERIOUSLY put into organizing FedEx? They've had close to FORTY YEARS to achieve something there...and they've yet to make even an EFFORT worthy of the name! And that's in terms of a situation that literally threatens the livelihood of the unions primary remaining block of members. How do you think the current UPS p/t'ers look at? Think they don't realize that any full time future they might have had with UPS is most probably being taken away on the back of FedEx vans? And don't you think they might resent the fact that guys like you are demanding that they PAY for the way they're getting screwed-over?</p><p></p><p>Sorry, but when it comes to "putting their money where their mouths are", it's been my experience that unions - and, unfortunately, guys like you - are real big on "mouth"...and real small when it comes to the "putting" up. Nor do I see any reason why you, or those like you, should be allowed to "represent" those who most assuredly don't want such "representation". And I sure as the Devil don't see any reason why those thus "represented" should be coerced into PAYING for the "privilege"!</p><p></p><p>Just the way I see it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 932970, member: 16651"] crowbar; Do you realize the arrogance of your claim of.... "I am the Union. You are the Union" ...when the "you" in the situation has NO DESIRE TO BE IN "UNION" WITH YOU AT ALL?!? Then there's your demand of.... "You want RTW? Then give me equal time, equal access, and card check" ...why should you be GIVEN anything? You want "equal" access, then EARN it! Employers PAY for the privilege; why should YOU be allowed to mooch off of what THEY have earned? See a problem there? As for "giving" you "card check"; well, why not....but then you'll be inclined to give the OTHER SIDE that gift as well, right? I.e. - they can organize a "card check" and throw your ass out any time they choose via any means they can get "cards checked" as well. Sound like a plan to you? Could you even comprehend working under a situation where "equal" really WAS the effective word? Think YOU are prepared to pay the wages, build the facility, provide the parking lot, make the payroll, etc? Yeah...right! But you ARE right about the necessity of "a fair playing field". It SHOULD be a "fair playing field". Employers - and those who choose NOT to be in unions - should be granted the SAME rights as those enjoyed by unions and union members. If unions and their members can arbitrarily terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, then WHY SHOULDN'T EMPLOYERS BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY?! And if unions can negotiate wages and conditions for themselves, then WHY SHOULDN'T INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES BE GIVEN THE SAME RIGHT? Why should those who ordinarily on the basis of the market value of their skills, their initiative, and their work ethic, receive better compensation be held to the lower "mean" bargained by the union for those who AREN'T economically worth as much to their employer? And if unions don't wish to work for wages offered,and can seek another employer at any time, then WHY SHOULDN'T EMPLOYERS BE GRANTED THE SAME RIGHT AND BE ALLOWED TO FIND OTHER WORKERS when THEY want as well? You want "fair"....OK, then let's HAVE it "fair"! Perhaps now you're beginning to see that any TRULY "fair" situation might bite you in the ass big time! Unions - at least as they're constituted today - apparently can't exist under any situation that's truly "fair"; to survive, they have to be "given" things (i.e. - in the way that you demanded that things be "given" to you). And, again, if they can't justify their existence on their own hook, then WHAT'S THE POINT OF THEIR EXISTENCE? Why should the rest of society subsidize a privileged few who demand to be "given" privileges over and above what they've earned? Lastly employers DO "put their money where their mouth is". That said, what have unions done? Have they put THEIR money up? In fact, it seems what they've done is having TAKEN the money that could have been used to FEED the mouths of literally millions of American workers and their families and figuratively pissed it away. How many employer companies have the Teamsters put out of business over the last few decades, for example? And how much of THEIR money did the Teamsters put up to preserve those jobs? Say when CFWY was going under - and a few measly million dollars could have saved 16,000 Teamster members jobs? Did the union put up ITS money where ITS mouth was then? How about the union's claims at Hostess Bakeries now; i.e - where it's demanding that ALL "stakeholders" make a sacrifice. Just what sort of "sacrifice" is the union willing to make? Will there be any REAL "concession" involved? Will any funds already tendered to the Teamsters make it's way back to Hostess? Will any Teamster lose what HE or SHE has ALREADY invested, like the investors and debt holders will? Or, to get a little closer to home, just how much "blood, sweat, and tears" (and money) have the Teamsters SERIOUSLY put into organizing FedEx? They've had close to FORTY YEARS to achieve something there...and they've yet to make even an EFFORT worthy of the name! And that's in terms of a situation that literally threatens the livelihood of the unions primary remaining block of members. How do you think the current UPS p/t'ers look at? Think they don't realize that any full time future they might have had with UPS is most probably being taken away on the back of FedEx vans? And don't you think they might resent the fact that guys like you are demanding that they PAY for the way they're getting screwed-over? Sorry, but when it comes to "putting their money where their mouths are", it's been my experience that unions - and, unfortunately, guys like you - are real big on "mouth"...and real small when it comes to the "putting" up. Nor do I see any reason why you, or those like you, should be allowed to "represent" those who most assuredly don't want such "representation". And I sure as the Devil don't see any reason why those thus "represented" should be coerced into PAYING for the "privilege"! Just the way I see it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana
Top