We Have a Robber Baron on the Board!

The BBQ Pit
61

One of the largest unions that has different contracts with different employers. my ex-BIL is a Teamster. He drives for a large baked goods company. He is paid a base rate plus a percentage of the sales on his route. When he joined, he was given the lousiest route on the board, which he still has, because it turns out it just wasn’t being worked properly. The only time he sticks it to his boss is during the quarterly dispute over the length of his hair. The system isn’t perfect, but it beats the hell out of the shape-up.

If you’d like to know about Teamsters, you should speak with, you know, a Teamster.

62

Oh, man. Every single time.

As for the OP, I haven’t had a chance to use this yet, so: :wally

63

Does anyone else here find it amusing that Shag has detailed out his FIL’s plans to commit a federal crime on an open message board, and then bragged about the uniquness of this business giving details that make it easy to identify so that some civil minded citizen can report this information to the appropriate unions and authorities? A buddy of mine got his posts on another board dragged into court once and that was just for a custody hearing.

64

There was never any threat federal crime anywhere. Business owners have other options too rather than let a union take control and run the business into bankruptcy. When you are at the stage of life my FIL is, you can always just decide that it isn’t worth it and shut the whole place down. That means that everyone loses their jobs but they would have anyway. That isn’t plan #1 but it would become plan #1 quickly if the numbers justified it. What would you do if a business you built your whole life was under economic attack and you knew it wouldn’t survive the threat?

65

If I built a business by taking advantage of my workers so much that paying them a living wage would bankrupt me I would be ashamed. His business isn’t under economic attack. His unfair labor practices are, otherwise he wouldnt be afraid of a union.

That said, you detailed how he was going to fire everyone under trumped up reasons to avoid the union. THat is a violation of federal law.
For the record. I am not in a union, I am a small business owner. I have worked in union shops (but I wasnt in a union position, IT people werent unionized there). I recognize that my employees are what makes or breaks me. People who are afraid of unions are people who don’t remember what its like to work hard for nothing…and who treat their employees acordingly. If I ever get your mind set I hope someone puts me out of business. I would deserve it.

66

Where are you reading all of this? Warehouse workers make between $13 and $20 and hour in his company while truck drivers make between $50,000 - $70,000 a year although that job requires some difficult schedules. All employees also get the best medical insurance plan available in the area.

I don’t know about this living wage thing. Is every job supposed to be a able to support a family of 4 with only one unskilled or semi-skilled worker providing money? Young, single men who recently immigrated from Latin America (legally) seem to be pretty thrilled with such an opportunity. I don’t understand the logic that a job is supposed to support a person’s life strategy and choices rather than the worker adjusting their employment to supply them with what they need. College graduates usually have to go through a period when they decide what type of career is best for their goals and needs. I see no reason why more uneducated workers don’t need to take a look at the economic winds once in a while too.

I don’t know what you are referring to about trumped up charges. Many of their unskilled workers steal. For some, it was only a few hundred dollars in product. In two other cases, it was a fully developed racket that diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of product to be payed straight to the employees. The surveillance and computer systems are top notch and can be analyzed by experts at any time. Innocent and hardworking employees have never had anything to worry about no matter what their political beliefs. It just so happens that the ones most prone to alternate workplace views were the ones that were involved in the greatest amount of criminal activity. Most of these cases they chose to prosecute resulted in criminal conviction through our standard processes.

67

Right, because we all know the ultimate measure of whether things are fair or not is if the union decides that it is.

68

Getting out of the profession isn’t such a bad idea, actually. And you’re right that there are too damned many of us adjuncts. I just think it’s unfortunate that so many skilled p/t faculty get burned out and leave after struggling for years as freeway fliers and trying to get full time jobs. But…if the majority of us left, how would the students ever get through the program? Who would teach all those core classes? Not enough Fts to go around, since the districts would prefer to hire enormous, expendable, revolving-door pools of part time employees. And then we’re back where we started: too damned many adjunct faculty.

69

OK. So embezzlers have been dealt with. So what will be the cause used for the others? Apparently, you don’t even know, but intend to find a reason nevertheless :

You freely admit it’s not about workers being particularily dishonest or uncompetent, but rather that :

Basically, you’re going to search for some flimpsy pretense (and you know that if you dig hard enough, you can always find a pretext for firing someone) with the awowed goal of crushing the union.

So, please stop backpedaling by now replacing “everyone does something wrong and I intend to dig it up and fire their sorry uneducated, half-skilled, unionized ass” by “they’re all thieves anyway and deserve it”.
I’m surprised that with the sound business practices in your company it never occured to you or your in-laws to fire thieves before.

70

By your own philosophy, the workers have not only a right, but a duty to steal, especially if they can destroy the company in the process. After all, if they don’t “crush” their opponents, their just “wimps”, right ?

71

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Is every blue-collar worker to be scrutinized, or just will it be the thieves, or are they all thieves?

You’re father-in-law is a cocksucking scumbag, if your portrayal of him is accurate.

72

If thats the case, how will a union put him out of business? Thats about all a union is going to ask for anyway.

Were not talking about part time jobs at the video store here. Were talking about jobs that for many people are what they do to support themselves.

Because more uneducated workers are usually not in a position to to drop everything and go off to college and try to find something else to do. Its critical that they get a decent wage and they have some kind of assurance that they will be treated fairly by their employer. Our society depends on most people being able to make a living wage and have some sort of security so that people will be able to buy things and not og on welfare. Since business owners proved themselves to greedy to do that because it was the right thing to do, unions were born.

Then that should be done, regardless of the union.

nonsense.

73

Another thing. The security experts I’ve talked to (our first customer was a loss prevention expert) will tell you that most of the time if you employees are ripping you off its because of the way you treat them. Doesnt excuse it mind you, I have no tolerance for thieves, but if you are getting ripped off that much then its a good sign your workers are being treated like shit.

74

Unions are fine, so long as the negotiations between the union and the employer occur strictly within the confines of the free market. In other words, you should have the right to unionize unless your employment contract specifically forbids it. On the other hand, the employer should be able to retain the right to hire non-union employees and fire employees who strike.

This gives the union the power to strike, and the leverage they have over the employer is the cost of shutting down the business, re-hiring employees, retraining them, etc. As long as that balance exists, you have a good set of checks and balances.

But unfortunately, unions often have special privileges. ‘Closed shop’ laws prevent employers from hirng non-union employees, and right to work laws prevent employers from firing striking workers. When this happens, unions become too powerful.

In addition, when unions are allowed to deduct money from employees’ paychecks for use in political campaigns, the union gains an extra form of power, which is the power to influence elections and politicians and have laws passed that banefit them at the expense of others. Trade protectionism, internal tariffs, building codes that mandate union labor, etc.

The worst is when government agencies allow unionized labor. Because government agencies have the power of taxation to fix their fiscal problems, and are not constrained by market forces, they have little incentive to play hardball with unions. As a result, workers in public unions usually have employment deals much sweeter than anyone in the private sector could hope to have, and this comes at taxpayer expense. So you have a situation where a privately employed worker pays taxes to support someone with less skill making twice as much money. It’s simply not fair. Take the New York transit strike. The average wage of a bus driver in New York is apparently $63,000! And they can retire with full benefits at 62, and have no co-pay for any of their health or retirement plans.

My wife is a nurse in a public union. She’ll be the first to admit that they have a very sweet deal. She gets 5 weeks of vacation a year, she gets to retire with a full pension at 58, and she makes close to $80,000 a year. In addition, they get supplemntal health coverage, an insanely generous sick leave policy (including ‘mental health’ days off if they want them). It’s also next to impossible to be fired, and they have some nurses on her unit that call in sick an amazing amount of the time, with no consequences.

Increasingly, unions are not protecting the weak and poor from exploitation - they are creating a priveleged class of workers that use political power to gain benefits that the average worker can only dream of. That’s wrong, and the reason for it is that unions enjoy too much government protection.

My union reform agenda, were I elected king:

  1. Eliminate ‘right to work’ laws.
  2. Unions cannot involuntarily deduct money to pay for political contributions. Employees must individually consent.
  3. Union violence MUST be treated like any other violence. How often have you seen a TV clip where a ‘scab’ has his car pelted with rocks as he tries to drive through a picket line, while the cops stand by and do nothing. If necessary, the cops or even the Guard should be brought out if a business needs protection from the union to keep its doors open and employee access made safe.
  4. A business should have the right to declare itself ‘non-union’, and enforce that through employment contracts at hiring time. If you don’t like it, don’t go to work for that business.
75

I agree completely on 2 and 3. When there was a straike at the plant I worked at there was very few incidents…I saw one where a non-union person bumped a striker with his car and the striker hit the car with his sign. Eh…maybe they both should have been hauled off but it wasnt worth the bother.
ON the other hand, I think that a mandatory union is a good thing in most cases.

76

Bullshit. That’s akin to saying random searches of your home should be okey-dokey, if you have nothing to hide.

77

Nothing at all like that. Were not talking a privacy issue…were talking about a business contract. Both sides are going to deal with each other fairly, then there should be no problem putting it in writing and negotiating as a whole. instead of the employees having to deal from a point of weakness.

78

Except you’re allowing only one side to define the word “fair”, and unions are just as capable of being grossly unfair as any plutocrat. In this case, as in the case of random searches, you’re assuming that if someone resists being put at a disadvantage, he must be doing something wrong.

79

On what basis should they have this right? You want to remove the freedom of association? Can the contract include to provisions forbidding employees from joining a political party? A church? Can employees be forbidden to talk between themselves about the issues they face in the company, too? To strike on the same day?
I understand. Companies must be protected from the dangerous workers. If they’re left to their own devices, and are free to associate, they could…they could…make demands!!! :eek: Let’s come back to civilized times when unions were forbidden and striking or unionizing would get you fired and blackballed. That would be…err…robber barons era?

80

No, both sides get to negotiate on what is fair. Its not putting them at a disadvantage, just on a more even footing. The balance of power still goes to the employer…just not as one sided.