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: 933150" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>crowbar;</p><p></p><p>It's not your stating "I am the union" that concerns me. Rather, the arrogance is in declaring "You are the union", when the "you" may not want to have anything to do with "the union". Your idea of "union" is one of FORCING those other individuals in the workplace to go along with what YOU declare to be the way to go. And that, my friend, is the height of arrogance.....especially since you're demanding that they PAY you as well!</p><p></p><p>And, of course, there's your other expression of arrogance, to wit...</p><p></p><p>"show me one example of a non-Union company coming anywhere near what the Teamsters have negotiated for us at UPS."</p><p></p><p>Fact is, there are employees at all sorts of non-union companies that do quite as well as the Teamster employees at UPS. Think ALL those McMansions you see in the suburbs belong to UNION members, do you? Do you think that there really aren't people out there qualified to get more ON THEIR OWN than they could achieve via Teamster "representation"? Well, how do you explain many of the employees of Eli Lilly (since this is a Hoosier State discussion). Or MicroSoft? Or Dow Chemical? The list could go on and on. Meanwhile, the list ALSO could go on and on of the companies the Teamsters have "negotiated" out of business. Again, how many union LTL companies are there left today? What's the number of Teamsters employed in the core transportation industry today compared to 35 or forty years ago? A million or so LESS? Is THAT the type of "negotiating" advantage the Teamsters offer? The absolute loss of ALL wages? ZERO compensation? Good one!</p><p></p><p>Fact is, the primary characteristic of being a Teamster over the last four decades has been job loss; if you were a Teamster, you were actually more likely than not to lose your job. Oh, some of those jobs have been replaced; there are new hotel maids and bedpan changing jobs and such that have been "organized" over the last forty years ago....but not nearly enough to replace, even in raw numbers, the jobs lost, nor do they offer the same level of compensation, But back to speaking of the bulk of the core Teamster transportation industry jobs? The majority of them are GONE. Take away UPS (and "no", I'm NOT ready to concede that the Teamsters were a POSITIVE factor in the growth of UPS; as I see it, the company grew in spite of the union, and the Teamsters were just carried along for the ride) , and they're pretty much ALL gone. Of course, many of the potential UPS jobs are gone as well; FedEx is covering that area (again, great representation in terms of the P/ters, 'eh?)</p><p></p><p>Then, speaking of "idealistic fantasy", let's bring your Hostess comments into play, re:....</p><p></p><p>"Ultimately, something is negotiated that they bring to their members who vote on it up or down. Now if the members, that are the Union, One and the Same decide they don't want to accept this then they don't have to. It's not the Union screwing them and putting them on the street. The members screw themselves because they don't accept reality."</p><p></p><p>You do see the problem there, don't you? I.e. - the MEMBERS who vote on it, up or down. The NON-members don't even get a vote! They have to watch while arrogant S.O.B.'s like you determine THEIR future! Under exclusive representation status granted to the union, they have to stand by and take it up the rear end while guys like you screw -'em over...AND PAY FOR THE PROCESS!!! Sounds "fair" to me [not!]</p><p></p><p>You say you "deal in the real world". OK, here's the "real world" for you. Despite all your claims as to what good the union does, etc., the bottom line is that you feel compelled TO FORCE WORKERS TO BELONG TO YOUR ORGANIZATION!!! Why can't you allow the good you claim the union does SPEAK FOR ITSELF and let the viability of the union STAND ON ITS OWN? Why don't you think you could show potential members something that would make them WANT to join voluntarily? Why do you feel the need to COERCE individuals into "joining" an organization you mockingly call a "union"? Sounds to me like you, YOURSELF, aren't entirely convinced by the alleged benefits of union membership. Why is that? </p><p></p><p>In the end, contrary to what you say, I don't believe individual workers should have to "accept what happens" if "what happens" is brought about by forced adherence to a plan imposed on them by people such as yourself. Nor do I think you and those like you should have the right to expropriate money from them on the basis of what YOU - not they! - want.</p><p></p><p>I have absolutely no problem with an organization that actually *IS* a union; that is, a collective of like-minded individuals VOLUNTARILY gathered together for purposes of collective bargaining and looking out for their common goals. But when guys like you insist that their fellow workers be FORCED to go your route, and then demand that they PAY for the "privilege" on top of it, I see a problem. Tyranny like that is just WRONG! This world has enough parasites and tin-pan dictators running around already. We don't need to encourage more of them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 933150, member: 16651"] crowbar; It's not your stating "I am the union" that concerns me. Rather, the arrogance is in declaring "You are the union", when the "you" may not want to have anything to do with "the union". Your idea of "union" is one of FORCING those other individuals in the workplace to go along with what YOU declare to be the way to go. And that, my friend, is the height of arrogance.....especially since you're demanding that they PAY you as well! And, of course, there's your other expression of arrogance, to wit... "show me one example of a non-Union company coming anywhere near what the Teamsters have negotiated for us at UPS." Fact is, there are employees at all sorts of non-union companies that do quite as well as the Teamster employees at UPS. Think ALL those McMansions you see in the suburbs belong to UNION members, do you? Do you think that there really aren't people out there qualified to get more ON THEIR OWN than they could achieve via Teamster "representation"? Well, how do you explain many of the employees of Eli Lilly (since this is a Hoosier State discussion). Or MicroSoft? Or Dow Chemical? The list could go on and on. Meanwhile, the list ALSO could go on and on of the companies the Teamsters have "negotiated" out of business. Again, how many union LTL companies are there left today? What's the number of Teamsters employed in the core transportation industry today compared to 35 or forty years ago? A million or so LESS? Is THAT the type of "negotiating" advantage the Teamsters offer? The absolute loss of ALL wages? ZERO compensation? Good one! Fact is, the primary characteristic of being a Teamster over the last four decades has been job loss; if you were a Teamster, you were actually more likely than not to lose your job. Oh, some of those jobs have been replaced; there are new hotel maids and bedpan changing jobs and such that have been "organized" over the last forty years ago....but not nearly enough to replace, even in raw numbers, the jobs lost, nor do they offer the same level of compensation, But back to speaking of the bulk of the core Teamster transportation industry jobs? The majority of them are GONE. Take away UPS (and "no", I'm NOT ready to concede that the Teamsters were a POSITIVE factor in the growth of UPS; as I see it, the company grew in spite of the union, and the Teamsters were just carried along for the ride) , and they're pretty much ALL gone. Of course, many of the potential UPS jobs are gone as well; FedEx is covering that area (again, great representation in terms of the P/ters, 'eh?) Then, speaking of "idealistic fantasy", let's bring your Hostess comments into play, re:.... "Ultimately, something is negotiated that they bring to their members who vote on it up or down. Now if the members, that are the Union, One and the Same decide they don't want to accept this then they don't have to. It's not the Union screwing them and putting them on the street. The members screw themselves because they don't accept reality." You do see the problem there, don't you? I.e. - the MEMBERS who vote on it, up or down. The NON-members don't even get a vote! They have to watch while arrogant S.O.B.'s like you determine THEIR future! Under exclusive representation status granted to the union, they have to stand by and take it up the rear end while guys like you screw -'em over...AND PAY FOR THE PROCESS!!! Sounds "fair" to me [not!] You say you "deal in the real world". OK, here's the "real world" for you. Despite all your claims as to what good the union does, etc., the bottom line is that you feel compelled TO FORCE WORKERS TO BELONG TO YOUR ORGANIZATION!!! Why can't you allow the good you claim the union does SPEAK FOR ITSELF and let the viability of the union STAND ON ITS OWN? Why don't you think you could show potential members something that would make them WANT to join voluntarily? Why do you feel the need to COERCE individuals into "joining" an organization you mockingly call a "union"? Sounds to me like you, YOURSELF, aren't entirely convinced by the alleged benefits of union membership. Why is that? In the end, contrary to what you say, I don't believe individual workers should have to "accept what happens" if "what happens" is brought about by forced adherence to a plan imposed on them by people such as yourself. Nor do I think you and those like you should have the right to expropriate money from them on the basis of what YOU - not they! - want. I have absolutely no problem with an organization that actually *IS* a union; that is, a collective of like-minded individuals VOLUNTARILY gathered together for purposes of collective bargaining and looking out for their common goals. But when guys like you insist that their fellow workers be FORCED to go your route, and then demand that they PAY for the "privilege" on top of it, I see a problem. Tyranny like that is just WRONG! This world has enough parasites and tin-pan dictators running around already. We don't need to encourage more of them. [/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