This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Alfonzo
You know there will be some who say "See look he's carring a weapon. That's what all those Republicans always do."
I wonder if anyone will actually listen to your points.
May I borrow your bat, Zo? From my management perspective, retail unions are horrendous. Those stores I managed which were unionized required more people to produce poorer results. Those which were not unionized, required fewer people to produce better results. In the union stores, employees were all paid the same, regardless of performance. So we got poor results from good people and worse results from the bad ones. Highly inefficient because it rewarded mediocrity with job security.
In the non-union stores, extra effort and better performance were rewarded. Better productivity, fewer employees required to produce the result, higher individual wages. I didn't have to keep unions out of the non-union stores. The secret ballot always resulted in a rejection of the union, when some employees even considered unionizing in the first place. Card check (aka union goon intimidation) nullifies the ability of employees to make a genuine choice.
The worst part for the union stores I managed is that while the employees' real dollar incomes decreased over the years, the union dues increased almost as fast as the salaries and benefits of the union bosses and enforcers. I have personally watched union demands produce bankrupt businesses because the union wouldn't agree to reductions or modifications in pay during past economic hard times. So instead of a few pay-rate freezes or reductions, the result was that all the employees ended up with no pay and no jobs. Card check in these really hard economic times will produce a landslide of collapsed businesses which are only marginally profitable now without the unions.
[...] [There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.] [...]
ChrisQ - March 28th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Another fun and spot on post. Sad but true stories of how far unions have been corrupted: A Union Plumber with a broken radio will walk 500 yards to the other end of the job site and back to collect a Union Laborer to dig 3 scoops with a shovel, (20 minutes walking x 2 men vs. 1 minute shoveling x 1 man) and a computer programmer, who re-positioned his computer, was made to put his computer back into the original spot so a Union Custodian could come by later to move the appliance into the new spot.
Unions used to be needed, now not so much.
Folks, the union 'resurgence' is phony and artificial. Leftist strong-arm politics vs. the on-going natural decline of the union. Card Check is but another chunk of slag-heap coal tossed into the agitation sack. When that sack bursts from its foul contents, it will be unpleasant for both sides. Thanks for the great illustration, Zo!
It isn't always that the union folks want to do that, but that the rules dictate that they have to. My husband is a company employee in a business that uses labor union for its grunt work. The rules are stifling. He can't help any union employee out with their job because a grievance could get filed against him for "trying to take away union work." If a union employee does a job once, then it is forever after a union job and no company employee can ever do it again. You can imagine how inefficient this can make things.
I've been of the opinion that unions did have their place in the 19th and early 20th centuries, like Zo said no one wants to see people worked to death or discomfort in a sweat shop and unions made for better conditions by far at those times. But in the intervening decades Federal labor law has taken on so many aspects of the actual real "protections" in the workplace that the government has, in effect, become the "union" for everyone that works in the country, again at least so far as the actual protection of rights of workers is concerned.
Unions originally were needed just to get those basic protections, but now in my opinion they're not only redundant in most cases, but actually harmful both to the people they're supposed to be representing, and through their campaign contributions, to free elections as well.
One time a few years back I ran into one of my friends on his way to a job he'd gotten since we'd last seen one another, when I asked him how he liked his job, he said the job itself was fine since he got paid big money but he hated to be told to do as little as possible, or to have to pass off to another union guy a problem he himself could have fixed on the spot but which the other guy was designated to do. He thought it was the most inefficient way to work he'd ever seen. He didn't have much choice though, what he does is an across the board union only job in those parts, and his outrage (he was really fired up about the subject) shows that not everyone who is in a union is behind them all the way.
NeoConJedi - March 28th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Awesome, Zo!!!
I was having the SAME conversation at work last night. It seems some collectivists are thinking of organizing. I said pretty much everything Zo said, but these idiots just don't get it.
I told them that I will politely decline, but if you push it, I WILL push back — hard!
Card check or not — a union comes to me and they can shove it up their can.
I'd probably go a little farther and say that 19th and 20th century unions were a vital necessity. They were largely industrial unions, and not only protected their members from horrific labor conditions, but caused a groundswell of labor laws to reduce or eliminate child labor and back-breaking, family-devastating work hours.
Today's industrial unions are just poor imitations of their predecessors. With laws prohibiting wage slavery and dangerous working conditions, their sole purpose is to enrich the leadership and obtain business-crippling wages and benefits (see: the automobile industry) for the workers. The remainder are largely public service and public employee unions. The former are just stalking-horses for the illegal immigration crowd. The latter are an expensive redundancy, given the rules of civil service.
I singled out the retail arena because that's where my experience lies, both before I entered law school and after I closed my practice. The old Retail Clerks Union did a yeoman's task in getting decent wages, working conditions and working hours for people laboring behind sales counters. That was a long time ago. Today the successor unions, when concerned with the individual employee at all, spend most of their time saving the jobs of employees who were fired after being caught drunk on duty while stealing from the cash register.
love me a bat carrying member of the conservative party (and i'm so juvenile that i laughed my behind off when you said the liberals are do-doing all over, well whatever they are do-doing on. you had me at do-do)
Zo your old format, I hope all is well with your new gig. Card Check is a job killer plain and simple. You push to hard on small business and the rest of industry will move out of the country. Unions and government are shake down, artist and their betting that the productive will remain productive no matter what they shove down our throats, don’t be to certain all you liberal Zealots. Great show Zo!
"I'd probably go a little farther and say that 19th and 20th century unions were a vital necessity."
I'd have to agree with you on that point too, that was what I was thinking but my verbiage was off in my initial reply, I blame still being in full snark mode. And I agree with all your other points in this one as well. I guess I'm going from snarky to very agreeable, I'm not sure which is worse…
Agreement is fine, but I'm a big fan of snark. I agree with your agreement to agree. In fact, I think we agreed right from the beginning, but what the heck. I have to carry a bib with me whenever I have to deal with the SEIU or the UFCW. It keeps the froth from my mouth off my shirts, ties and jackets.
". . . small business and the rest of industry will move out of the country"
Small business and industry 'wish'. Toxic Tim Geithner and his'0'verlord want global oversight on capitalist pig dog activity. There will be nowhere to run. It will not work (in the long run), but our 'friends' in Washington would much like to see it, nonetheless.
Dodging the baseball bat is a highly valued skill.
EdGi - March 28th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Stan, they are not aiming for small business/production industries, and are actually more than willing to sacrifice same. The intimidation target is retail, health care, non-guv public services and services which will produce mandatory dues income and control for the party. Unions today are European traditional, where the members support the cause, not the old unions where the union supports the members good. Todays unions are largely massa for the socialist plantation slaves and they have no more concept of representing the member than massa had of working for the slaves wellbeing. To today's union, the whip, bat and card check make perfect sense to control uppity property. Small/production industries compete with the socialist plantation and the unions are more than happy to sacrifice them.
Jen - March 28th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I felt as though I needed to reply also, because, I agree with you due to experience. I was formally employed by a major grocery retailer (quit in '05 to pursue my second job, and other ventures as well–which I am continually doing now), represented by the UFCW. My ex, and another friend work for a company that was recently unionized, even though they successfully fought against it years ago and won. It was sold a number of years ago, and was bought by a unionized company (trucking industry). I can still recall the stories they told about how the Teamsters followed the drivers around trying to intimidate them, and their customers. These drivers fought back–LOL!!! The Teamsters eventually gave up, only to come back almost ten years later.
I got so sick of the UFCW with their political propaganda during each presidential election TELLING us who to vote for–a no brainer, always the Democrat candidates, and the literature was on the break room tables. Even the union newsletters pushed for the election of the Democrats. The covers always showed photos of people shouting.
I worked in a department with a separate contract from the rest of the store (meat). If a customer needed assistance in another department, we were supposed to help them–customer service was company policy. Too many times, the guys in my department would say, "You need to stay here, and let grocery handle that. That crosses the contract". Yet, these same guys voted Republican, but had the union mentality.
I once filed a grievance due to a "merit" raise for another employee. Such a thing wasn't supposed to exist, yet for some reason, he got it anyway. I was the one with on the job experience (he had eight months on the job. I had 1-1/2 years before I got that increase). I was also initially denied this rate (which puts one in another pay scale) some six months after reaching top pay in my category, even though I demonstrated the desire, and ability to advance my skills. All I got for my trouble was $500–BEFORE taxes. To show what I nice guy (ha, ha) I am, I even went to bat for this same employee when he was falsely accused of stealing. Management couldn't even read their own register tapes, and misinterpreted items that were put under a 'generic' label, which in this case, the items were a reduced price because of the sell-by date.
I have been approached by friends in management (more than once), asking if I would consider coming back part-time. I told them I couldn't due to my current work situation (I've posted on BH a half dozen or so times, but haven't revealed what I do. Okay, I'm a dairy farmer–my own herd, but help on another farm as well, and yes I am female–I do this with the help of me, myself, and I). I also told one of them that I didn't like the idea of having to rejoin the union because, I believe it promotes laziness, and he said "You know, you're right".
I’ve been in business for almost 30yrs. I’ve seen entire industries rolled up and moved over seas because of, unions, taxes, regulations, etc. As far as retail or the service industry, Wal-Mart is their prime target 1.3million employees, a unions wet dream. You heard what Fred Smith (CEO FedX) said, he’d cancel an order for 30 jets from Boeing, if the teamsters go after FedX with, Card Check and he’ll make further moves to protect his company. McDonalds, Burger King, a damn Whopper will be $8.00. You can be certain that creep John Sweeney and the AFL-CIO and all it’s tentacles want anything that makes government larger, lots of new union members. The point is that the cost of everything will go up, we’re playing with fire with Card Check it’s dumb.
syvyn11 - March 28th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
The worst job I had was working third shift at a UFCW shop as a stocker. When I hurt my back and couldn't work, the store was busy to make sure that they were covered. Here I was making $4.25 a hour (this was 1993), and I call my union shop. The first question that they asked me was "why didn't you pay your union dues since you've been out?" That ended that. My uncle (a life long rail road worker) had his RWU local ban that grocery shop for two months in support.
That said, UFCW is one of the worst unions because it wants to unionize Wal-Mart and nothing else. Unless you're a meat cutter, you are no use to them.
Card Check makes their goals easier.
syvyn11 - March 28th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Call me stupid, but…. If card check gets passed into law, since it violates the very fabric of our system of government, wouldn't it be struck down?
I mean, if it's okay for a non-private ballot in union elections, why not a non-private ballot in presidental elections? I'm sure Obama won't mind.
Unions are restricted by law in the use of union dues to support political candidates or causes without the permission of the workers. The NLRB is the enforcement agency, and its controlling law is "Beck v. Communications Workers." In California, a worker in a union shop cannot be forced out for refusing to join the union. But to keep it a union shop, the employee must file a "Beck statement" demanding a reduction in dues for all non-allowed union activities. "Allowed" union activities are basically administration, highly restricted recruitment activities, salaries, and employee related arbitration and litigation. Whatever percentage of dues are not "allowed" is the percentage of dues the "Beck employee" will be required to pay.
"Allowed activities" specifically do not include political activities, donations to political causes, or rallies in support of either, although it is an "allowed" expense for the union to use dues money for advocacy of labor-related legislation (but not for the candidates or elected officials themselves).
The National Right to Work Foundation has won case after case proving that in each individual case, the non-allowed activities of the union ranged from 66% to 94%. Unions have had to pay millions of dollars in fines for mis-use of dues for non-allowed purposes. The unions then pass that cost on to the employees in the form of increased dues. How's that for "Catch 22?" The UFCW routinely claims that only about 5% of their dues collections are used for non-allowable activities, so a Beck employee ends up paying 95% of the basic dues unless he or she hires a lawyer and goes to the NLRB.
Upwards of 95% of non-allowed union political money goes to Democrats, liberals, liberal causes, and liberal advocacy (including, guess what, card check and abortion). Even in San Francisco, most employees don't want their union dues used for liberal politics and political candidates. Jefferson said "to take a man's money to support a cause to which he is opposed is the essence of tyranny." Jefferson never met a modern union. The rule of law means nothing to them.
CORRECTION: In the post immediately above, I should have written "whatever percentage of dues are not 'allowed' is the percentage by which the Beck employee's dues must be reduced."
I have a lot more to say about this than will fit in this space since it has affected my family and got us connected to the Right to Work legal organization (and included a very rewarding trip to the actual Reagan Ranch if I may brag) but I felt the most telling hypocrisy of the democrats is their support of card check while at the same time they held a secret ballot to decide if Joe Lieberman deserved punishment from their caucus due to his support of McCain. They know the implications of non-secret elections and protect themselves from them, yet think so little of the American worker so as to remove this right and legalize intimidation techniques from the unions.
Rob - March 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Ready, kids? It's called the Employee FREE CHOICE Act meaning that potential members have a CHOICE as to which method would be used to CHOOSE to unionize or not. This is PROPAGANDA, and not particularly effective propaganda at that. Denying the actual facts of the legislation to suit your argument is not simply small-minded, it's pathetic. You are either willfully ignorant or have chosen not to mention that there is an actual choice out of a cowardly attempt to scare people from supporting it.
Your notion that Walmart increases traffic to other businesses is a ridiculous falsehood. There are dozens of studies regarding that very claim ALL of which show that Walmart stores are generally not built in the same "downtown" areas where other stores would benefit. In fact, they do the opposite, they DIVERT traffic AWAY from Main Street, you IGNORANT FOOL. And EVERY study shows that. Let me repeat that, EVERY LAST ONE.
Oh, and not only that, they also hired illegal immigrants en masse, a very Anti-Conservative policy if there ever was one. And were caught locking overnight employee's in the store (yet another violation of dozens of laws).
Look to the model used in Congress, a simple voice vote for many things with roll call upon request. And many states use caucusing for candidate selections, which is standing around while neighbors inform/debate/harangue each other into a consensus. Card check as a democratic system is valid, the question is whether the potential for abuse and retaliation is so great a required private vote is necessary.
My father worked in a union shop, still voted Republican. He was good, even stood in as foreman, but never took the job as he'd have to leave the union. Good call, plant changed owners after he retired, non-union people lost seniority and time towards their pensions. This was before the ERISA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_... ) changes in 2007, BTW, so unions have nothing to do there. Although there was noted gloating at the time.
His union was OCAW (Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers), merged with AFL-CIO, which merged with USW (United Steel Workers). The monthly USW newsletter still comes in the mail. The drooling for Obama was beyond obvious, the demanding to vote Democratic beyond exhorting heading to subliminal; while reporting on union organizing efforts in other countries, they mentioned a Democratic election (capital D).
Before the election, to reassure union members, they had a one-page insert to (another) propaganda story, about how much Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, pointing out it's really McCain who's had issues with the NRA and shouldn't be trusted.
My opinion on that union: Kill it with fire.
I cannot write another word and still contain the rage.
My father worked in a union shop, still voted Republican. He was good, even stood in as foreman, but never took the job as he'd have to leave the union. Good call, plant changed owners after he retired, non-union people lost seniority and time towards their pensions. This was before the ERISA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_... ) changes in 2007, BTW, so unions have nothing to do there. Although there was noted gloating at the time.
His union was OCAW (Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers), merged with AFL-CIO, which merged with USW (United Steel Workers). The monthly USW newsletter still comes in the mail. The drooling for Obama was beyond obvious, the demanding to vote Democratic beyond exhorting heading to subliminal; while reporting on union organizing efforts in other countries, they mentioned a Democratic election (capital D).
Before the election, to reassure union members, they had a one-page insert to (another) propaganda story, about how much Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, pointing out it's really McCain who's had issues with the NRA and shouldn't be trusted.
My opinion on that union: Kill it with fire.
I cannot write another word and still contain the rage.
You honestly believe the name that some union shill stamped it with actually means that the name of the bill really bears any relationship with what it says or does? Did you just arrive on this planet last week? How is that Stimulus Package working out for you? Do you also believe that you really must call in the next 15 minutes or the offer will go away forever? Really, I want to know.
Zo never said that Wal Mart built right in downtown so your argument there is specious. In the town where I grew up they sure didn't build downtown, there was an empty field that 5 years before had been a swamp that was drained to make room for a new high school, until the town realised that the high school they had was only 10 years old and would be a ridiculous waste of money being pushed by the school board. Needless to say that nugget of wisdom about it being a massive waste of money, and thus not worth doing only happened after the school board flipped from being mostly retired teachers (all union) to mostly parents (mostly Republicans) but I digress; what happened was that this empty chunk of land was bought by Wal Mart. They built their store and sold their wares, as they tend to do, It was the only thing out there for about a year, then someone decided that hey, there were a lot of people going to Wal Mart, so maybe he should move his Radio Shack from downtown to a building by Wal Mart, his business thrived, in the intervening 20 years or so there are whole cluters of stores and restaurants out there. Jobs were created, the people cheered from the rooftops and Zo is completely vindicated when he says that Wal Marts do increase traffic to other businesses, because other businesses set up shop near Wal Marts.
But wait, I know what you'll say, since all the stores moved out there, downtown must have died! Not so much, since the town as a whole was making more money from all the commerce out at Wal Mart's plaza, they had money to put into a downtown restoration project. So instead of rows of boarded up storefronts (which happened after the mines were shut down) in downtown interspersed with seedy bars, tattoo parlors and pawn shops, now there are nice upscale restaurants, a Victorian candy shop, some really cool pubs, a museum and a community theater in what used to be a run down church of all things, the architecture and acoustics are amazing by the way. We even got the drive-in back and let me tell you, you ain't really seen "Ironman" until you've seen it on a screen bigger than a house.
All thanks in large part to the upswing in the economy that was brought about by what people on the left consider an unholy trinity: Wal Mart, a school board -not- dominated by retired union teachers, and a Republican dominated city government. Main street became a thriving place, just with different, and by an overwhelming consensus (since liberals love that word) -better- businesses. it's called capitalism and it worked. But in their knee-jerk disdain for Wal Mart liberals often forget that Main Street is an actual place, not some metaphorical magic land invented to bash Wall Street with. It's really right out there, a block away I can see the classy Victorian streetlamps the city could afford to put in as a result of all that "greed" as I'm typing this.
You honestly believe the name that some union shill stamped it with actually means that the name of the bill really bears any relationship with what it says or does? Did you just arrive on this planet last week? How is that Stimulus Package working out for you? Do you also believe that you really must call in the next 15 minutes or the offer will go away forever? Really, I want to know.
Zo never said that Wal Mart built right in downtown so your argument there is specious. In the town where I grew up they sure didn't build downtown, there was an empty field that 5 years before had been a swamp that was drained to make room for a new high school, until the town realised that the high school they had was only 10 years old and would be a ridiculous waste of money being pushed by the school board. Needless to say that nugget of wisdom about it being a massive waste of money, and thus not worth doing only happened after the school board flipped from being mostly retired teachers (all union) to mostly parents (mostly Republicans) but I digress; what happened was that this empty chunk of land was bought by Wal Mart. They built their store and sold their wares, as they tend to do, It was the only thing out there for about a year, then someone decided that hey, there were a lot of people going to Wal Mart, so maybe he should move his Radio Shack from downtown to a building by Wal Mart, his business thrived, in the intervening 20 years or so there are whole cluters of stores and restaurants out there. Jobs were created, the people cheered from the rooftops and Zo is completely vindicated when he says that Wal Marts do increase traffic to other businesses, because other businesses set up shop near Wal Marts.
But wait, I know what you'll say, since all the stores moved out there, downtown must have died! Not so much, since the town as a whole was making more money from all the commerce out at Wal Mart's plaza, they had money to put into a downtown restoration project. So instead of rows of boarded up storefronts (which happened after the mines were shut down) in downtown interspersed with seedy bars, tattoo parlors and pawn shops, now there are nice upscale restaurants, a Victorian candy shop, some really cool pubs, a museum and a community theater in what used to be a run down church of all things, the architecture and acoustics are amazing by the way. We even got the drive-in back and let me tell you, you ain't really seen "Ironman" until you've seen it on a screen bigger than a house.
All thanks in large part to the upswing in the economy that was brought about by what people on the left consider an unholy trinity: Wal Mart, a school board -not- dominated by retired union teachers, and a Republican dominated city government. Main street became a thriving place, just with different, and by an overwhelming consensus (since liberals love that word) -better- businesses. it's called capitalism and it worked. But in their knee-jerk disdain for Wal Mart liberals often forget that Main Street is an actual place, not some metaphorical magic land invented to bash Wall Street with. It's really right out there, a block away I can see the classy Victorian streetlamps the city could afford to put in as a result of all that "greed" as I'm typing this.
Steve M. - March 29th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Golani, from what I've read, you should be running your town wherever it is.
Great comments!
Steve M. - March 29th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Golani, from what I've read, you should be running your town wherever it is.
Great comments!
Steve M. - March 29th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Wait until you or a family member has been run over by a union and then let us know your opinion. The right to unionize is sacred in my opinion but to unionize by intimidation is antithetical to freedom.
Rob - March 29th, 2009 at 5:17 am
Run over by an entire Union? Wow. Yes, I agree, Steve, The right to unionize is sacred, but unionization via intimidation is NEVER acceptable and most certainly antithetical to freedom. But this bill put this decision in the hands of the worker to actually choose the method by which one choses to unionize, thereby allowing for less intimidation given that this has not been a choice in the past.
I am not an apologist for all forms of Unionism. There are some really great Unions that have done a lot of good on behalf of workers without causing to detriment to a corporations excessive profits. But the reverse is also true, many unions have crippled the industries they sought to bolster, so I understand both sides of the argument. However, I believe that the right to unionize is indeed a right and that is why I support the bill.
Any or all intimidation tactics utilized by Unions and/or their employers should be met with a swift but firm hand of justice.
Today, my son-in-law works in the automotive industry and travels around to virtually all of the major engine plants in the U.S.. He says that the main difference he sees between the union shops (Ford) and the non-union shops (Nissan) is productivity. He's seen the Ford line shut down for two hours while all the employees sit around drinking coffee, waiting for a union electrician to come out and flip a reset switch.
Now, first of all, anyone on the line could flip that switch. But, granted that there may be some legitimate safety concern about doing it (which would be the official union position), the two-hour wait for a five second task is just a mind game that the union enjoys playing with management to show them who's in charge.
The bottom line is this: you can pay your employees 78 bucks an hour if they're cranking out product, but for that kind of money they need to be working and not playing slap and tickle.
Today, my son-in-law works in the automotive industry and travels around to virtually all of the major engine plants in the U.S.. He says that the main difference he sees between the union shops (Ford) and the non-union shops (Nissan) is productivity. He's seen the Ford line shut down for two hours while all the employees sit around drinking coffee, waiting for a union electrician to come out and flip a reset switch.
Now, first of all, anyone on the line could flip that switch. But, granted that there may be some legitimate safety concern about doing it (which would be the official union position), the two-hour wait for a five second task is just a mind game that the union enjoys playing with management to show them who's in charge.
The bottom line is this: you can pay your employees 78 bucks an hour if they're cranking out product, but for that kind of money they need to be working and not playing slap and tickle.
Hey…can anyone explain to me why my original post was rejected as being "too long", whereas Golani has a post up which is twice as long as mine was to begin with?
This is like reading the true story of what happened in my hometown in Alabama. Right down to the restoration of downtown, and the cute restaurants, galleries, boutiques, we even got an art and children's museum, for goodness' sakes, in the boonies! Ours had been going downhill since the early 80's when we got a mall. It still had traffic, but as more things grew around the mall, and no moey was pumped into it, it became slightly seedy, and somewhat dangerous at night. It is gorgeous now! And super busy, as are BOTH the Walmarts, that anchor it, on opposite sides of town. I live in GA now, and we have the biggest mall in the south 15 min from my house, and two Walmarts, and a Sam's club are within 5 miles of it, and they all stay crowded.
Yeah, unions are great. My friend's husband is in the union and works at Goodyear Tire, and spends most of the time watching tv on his phone, or porn, and there are guys and gals there who slip off for a bit, if you know what I mean, and half of them drink and pass around pain pills. Her husband is a pig, he has missed so much work it isn't funny, yet they never fire him. Or anyone else. It has been that way there, as far back as I can remember. They have a problem, it's off to the union house they go. 20 yrs, he and most of his co-workers have been doing this, not to mention those in the workbank who sleep all day. Yeah, it's great.
I think that moderation is arbitrary? I can’t figure it out either it makes no sense.
Jose - March 29th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Great video, but let's cut through the fluff and call a spade a spade… Card check is a means by which union organizers can intimidate individuals into joining a union they might otherwise not join, were they able to vote in private. The secret ballot is a fundamental right of all Americans and an indispensable tool necessary to keep America free. Taking away the secret ballot would set the ugliest of precedents and must be opposed!
Jose - March 29th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Rob, you say the "right to unionize is sacred," but how about the right "not" to unionize? Is that not also sacred? Would you feel equally comfortable if a majority of non-union employees were able to confront those who wanted a union and force them to make the choice of voting now or "later…if you feel you need a little more privacy?" Anytime someone else participates in a person's private decision, it is no longer private…and the opportunity to intimidate certainly exists. Why not be honest and acknowledge the "possibility" of intimidation…and err on the side of safety?
Steve M. - March 29th, 2009 at 8:41 am
"I believe that the right to unionize is indeed a right and that is why I support the bill. "
The right to unionize is not threatened without this bill. Only the right to vote without union intimidation is threatened with the defeat of this bill.
Steve M. - March 29th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Aside from my earlier comments I think Alfonso made a great video… although I want to know what he planned to do with the baseball bat.
It's just one of those things that happens when we're born, some men are gifted with money, some are gifted by uncommon wisdom, others amazing artistic talents; as for me, I was gifted with great length I guess.
Yeah that was a terrible joke, but it was too easy an opening to resist.
Honestly Tom I have no clue why the system lets some of us babble on forever and other people have to chop posts up. It seems fairly random at best. So this is one case where I think I can safely say we need to blame the system.
"The bottom line is this: you can pay your employees 78 bucks an hour if they're cranking out product, but for that kind of money they need to be working and not playing slap and tickle."
That's so true, if the main impact a union has on a company is to encourage laziness and reduce productivity because of an archaic rules structure, then that is in no one's best interest in the long haul. My one friend is a union electrician, he says his job is basically to be like the guy that flips switches in your story, he comes from a blue collar background and while he loves the pay, he hates the fact he's basically told to do as little as possible, never look for something to improve, and wait for a call to flip some switches because it goes against his natural work ethic.
This is what I'e seen too. The "stock" businesses thrive around the Wal-Mart and the general prosperity level of the whole town increases, and then, the really neat specialty shops can open up and have a chance to do business. In my hometown, we got a really neat little deli with some killer raspberry mustard and a custard pie recipe to die for.
Thanks Steve, it's just what happened, and the town newspaper wasn't afraid to even run stories about how Wal Mart was changing the town, in fact 2 other towns in the county got Wal Marts more recently and you can actually see it happening in them as well. For rural areas Wal Mart is a boon to the entirety of the local economy in most cases, the trick for preexisting local businesses is not to whine and complain about one coming in, but to think of ways to adapt their business model to the changing economy.
As for running the town, nah, I'd be no good at being a politician myself, too much sitting around talking to people who just like to argue for argument's sake. Plus I'd have to give up my day job, which I love since I'm one of the lucky few that actually wound up being as an adult what they always wanted to be as a kid. That doesn't mean I don't speak my mind to politicians when I think they're messing things up, or give them a pat on the back when they're doing right either though, because I surely do that.
My best friend is from a small town in Alabama, I love that state. Beautiful scenery, great people, and you can always find a Wal Mart when you need one.
Sorry, but for that instance I have to give them the benefit of doubt. That reset switch is a safety device, Flip it back on without knowing for certain what tripped it, someone gets hurt or killed, OSHA owns your hide and likely someone's going out the door. If it goes off three times a day for the same reason, that's one thing, you can flip it for now but you better fix the underlying problem soon, and there better be a quick check list of "make sure it isn't this" done first.
But for a random-seeming tripping, two hours to study schematics, check any remote monitoring readings, and check equipment and wiring, is not unreasonable.
However, in the shops I've worked at, people would be pushing brooms and otherwise cleaning the work area while waiting.
I think it's semi-intelligent and learns about registered users. You trip moderation on something, if the comment clears then it'll allow you some more leeway. Likewise it gets used to people going on long, if they don't trip moderation. Keeps the long-winded venom-spewers throttled.
That is why I admire Fred Smith so much. By damn, he started FedEx with 2 people and his own money. Let HIM run HIS company as he sees fit. I have tons of friends that work there, and their non-union benefits run circles around 95% of other employers in town. Fred's move was very astute, indeed.
And Zo, this was one of your best ever!
You had best be certain that Fred Smith is no one to toy with. He’ll do what he has to do to save that remarkable co, and subsequently ten’s of thousands of jobs.
Jeff - March 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Where my wife works uses union workers in certain areas. She's in charge of putting out a weekly newsletter, and one week included some photos of a site event that had taken place on the weekend. She had either taken some of those pictures herself or had used pictures other co-workers had sent in.
When that newsletter came out, she got a call from the company's union photographer at the corporate level (almost three hours away) explaining that she shouldn't have used those photos, and the next time she wants to, she needs to use pictures taken by a union photographer. This was shortly after she'd taken the job, so he was nice about it. But basically for a weekend event, she needed to notify someone at corporate to send a photographer six hours round trip to take a few hundred pictures (when she used a dozen at most), when someone that was already there could have done the work.
Talk about height of inefficiency. But using the photos she did was seen as taking work away from the union.
Jen - March 29th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I wished I would have known of this before, because none of it was ever mentioned to me. Can you give of details for the state of Indiana (if there is a difference with California)? I still have friends that work there, so I can ask them of whatever has gone on since I left. My one management friend had told me that there are no longer two separate contracts–meat and grocery are now combined. I think he also told me that there is something else about joining the union (or rejoining), but I can't remember what it is called. It might have something to do with reduced dues, but I can find out. Such a thing didn't exist while I worked there, and I had almost 9 years.
The reason you never heard of it is that the unions make damned sure you don't. If enough union workers knew about "Beck," the unions would go broke. I don't have a handy list, and I never practiced in Indiana (Michigan was the closest state to Indiana that I ever appeared in), but the National Right to Work Foundation has a website and a host of lawyers and advisers who could provide you with that information very quickly. The easiest thing to do is to Google it.
Jen - March 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Hey thanks for the info! I would just like to keep all of this handy in case I ever had to quit what I am doing (and it's really tough right now), and needed a job. At least I have the security knowing I have a place to go–I didn't burn any bridges, so, I still have some pull with the company. I dread the thought if I were that desperate.
Jen - March 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I checked out the National Right to Work Foundation, and bookmarked the page–just in case. At least now, I have a reference for those who still have to be represented by a union at their place of employment.
Thank you for the nice comment about Bama. It is a beautiful state, I am trying my best to sell my stupid McMansion and move back over there for a much simpler life. And the people do tend to be very nice. My family has a good bit of acreage on the Coosa River, and I am going to build a nice, small house right on the river bank. Can't wait. Just got to find someone who can get credit for a big house right now, and I am outta ATL.
I don't know what Zo was planning on doing with his baseball bat, however, I have found if you tap it, oh so gently, on a really stupid person's head, you can cure them. Gently can be subjective. Use your own best discretion.
Why is it people who believe that corporations, who must adhere to the consumer and the market, are always corruptible, yet the government and unions, with the total lack of checks and balances, increased politicalization, are immune? Why are union bosses so apt to fight for workers rights, but more than happy to donate hard-earned dollars to non-labor causes that many workers don't support?
Bureaucratic levels are the biggest problem in major companies and government. Unions add one extra level of incompetence. Seventy-years ago, they were emphatically important, today they represent most of the problems they were created to prevent. Now they are a gun to the head of workers to keep their job. Ban them.
My first time watching your videos and have now spent most of my evening watching them and checking out your site. I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in and putting it out there for others to learn from! I hope to see more videos and commentary from you! I also hope that you can reach many people and help them see the light!
I used to work for FedEx. Fred took care of his people. The pay was reasonable for the job, but the benefits were excellent. Health insurance with a really low deductible that actually covered trips to the doctor, a vested 401(k) from day 1, tuition reimbursement for college classes, the list goes on. The only problem was middle management. FedEx Office tends to get some deadbeat managers who hate to fire people, so you get a lot of deadwood employees. Luckily, they quit showing up, eventually.
Part of the problem as I see it is the collectivization of all labor in an industry against all management. If the unions would restrict themselves to only those employed by the company theyt worked for then the incentive for the organization to out perform other unions would at least be there.
If you file a Beck statement, who has the right to know about it. You'd have to prove harassment which might be difficult if those that out number you are the Union thugs.
"No, your honor he is just very clumsy."
Very good assessment. That's why they'll never do it. Despite the fact that competition and performance are anathema to unions, there is also the "strength in numbers" phony argument. And though it's unfashionable to say it these days, there is still a strong element of Marxism and one-worldism in all unionism, evident even today in the "International" part of the name of most of the unions. The pecking order is the local, the national, and the international. Examples: International Longshore Workers Union. Service Employees International Union.
The liberal's argument was that there was no "study" to show that Walmart brought in any other business. What does it matter if Walmart aided the economy of your town. Obviously no liberal at a University has ever "studied" it have they. And if they have the mathematics used would prove there was no benefit. You see Golani it is all about what "Studies" say.
Your blatant disregard and acceptance of the wisdom of "undefined" studies is very disconcerting. Golani if liberal number whatever and four tells you that all "studies" prove Walmart is bad then Walmart is bad. After all liberals never lie about studies and studies are always politacally correct. ALWAYS!
If you are having problems with this concept then hit yourself in the head with a meat tenderizer every 72 seconds. You won't gain any particular insight but will tire of trying to understand.
A Beck statement is very much a public record. There is no requirement to prove anything other than your declaration that you don't want to be a union member and a demand that your dues to the union be reduced to the amount provided by law. But you are so right, and the step is not to be taken lightly. There is likely to be harassment of the Beck filer in most cases, and that can run from mild chiding and shunning to outright violence. In San Francisco, for instance, the UFCW has fat, lazy and very unimpressive union reps, mostly talk, little action. On the other hand, taking on the Teamsters goons would require someone braver than I.
Indeed, which is the problem with liberals in general, they spend so much time on studies, figures, consultations, polling, focus groups and the like that they don't actually see what's going on around them.
Liberals study "issues", conservatives act on them…and then get told that the numbers didn't match up in the way the liberals predicted they would; so obviously everyone is delusional when they point out that reality doesn't match what the study says. So they'll take some more money, to do another study, to try to prove you're wrong again.
Jen - March 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I wasn't sure if I should try to reply to this post or not. I figured I'd be off subject if I didn't. Anyway, I tried calling my manager friend yesterday, and he didn't answer his cell. He called me this morning. I asked him if he knew about the Beck statement, and he said he didn't know what it was. When I explained it, he said that an employee could join with reduced dues, but it was only about a dollar less, so most people don't bother.
I also mentioned to him about the discussion I had with you about the UFCW placing political literature on the break room tables. He said that they did again in '08, and as usual, only supporting Democratic candidates. You will NEVER see a Republican mentioned, no matter how liberal or moderate they may be (Richard Lugar comes to mind).
I also thought it was worth mentioning that the union newsletter was written in English, AND Spanish.
Jen - March 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I wasn't sure if I should try to reply to this post or not. I figured I'd be off subject if I didn't. Anyway, I tried calling my manager friend yesterday, and he didn't answer his cell. He called me this morning. I asked him if he knew about the Beck statement, and he said he didn't know what it was. When I explained it, he said that an employee could join with reduced dues, but it was only about a dollar less, so most people don't bother.
I also mentioned to him about the discussion I had with you about the UFCW placing political literature on the break room tables. He said that they did again in '08, and as usual, only supporting Democratic candidates. You will NEVER see a Republican mentioned, no matter how liberal or moderate they may be (Richard Lugar comes to mind).
I also thought it was worth mentioning that the union newsletter was written in English, AND Spanish.
The $1.00 figure sounds like the usual response. They all do that. Once they've done it, you have to make a demand for an accounting and an inspection of the books. If they accept, you should have an accountant with you since they regularly doctor the books in a way only an accountant would catch. If they refuse, your local labor board is probably the next step. If there's an attorney available for the hearing it's a good idea to have one along. The lawyer needs some experience in labor and administrative law. Again, the NRTW Foundation can probably assist.
You can protest the cost of the political literature, but not the literature itself. First Amendment rights. But if they allow Democrat literature, they must also allow Republican literature, and at an equal level.
You have your work cut out for you.
Jen - March 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Since I no longer work there, it really shouldn't matter to me. I guess I'm for the principle of the whole matter. I would rather be informed now for future reference, just in case I ever encountered something like this later on.
Strictly bias on the political literature. I went through three presidential cycles, and never saw anything but Democrat stuff.
What did you think about a bilingual union newsletter?
I think they're a curse today, unlike the past where bilingualism wasn't code wording for "No English." Nothing wrong with people wanting to see literature in their prior tongue, but taxpayers and dues payers should not be required to pay for it. But it can't be banned outright, again because of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean compulsory bilingualism. That was a creation of an out-of-control Supreme Court, and should be English-only when it comes to official literature and ballots.
FeFe - April 1st, 2009 at 9:00 am
Home run!
little bit - April 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
"If you are having problems with this concept then hit yourself in the head with a meat tenderizer every 72 seconds. You won't gain any particular insight but will tire of trying to understand."
ROFLMAO
I was saddened to see the recent attacks on Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance. All chariites should be subject to scrutiny and public information, thus, the Freedom Alliance's recent disclosure should elicit a challenge or apology/correction. Whatever one's politics or agenda, slandering military charities is a...
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
84 Comments
Alfonzo
You know there will be some who say "See look he's carring a weapon. That's what all those Republicans always do."
I wonder if anyone will actually listen to your points.
Amen!
May I borrow your bat, Zo? From my management perspective, retail unions are horrendous. Those stores I managed which were unionized required more people to produce poorer results. Those which were not unionized, required fewer people to produce better results. In the union stores, employees were all paid the same, regardless of performance. So we got poor results from good people and worse results from the bad ones. Highly inefficient because it rewarded mediocrity with job security.
In the non-union stores, extra effort and better performance were rewarded. Better productivity, fewer employees required to produce the result, higher individual wages. I didn't have to keep unions out of the non-union stores. The secret ballot always resulted in a rejection of the union, when some employees even considered unionizing in the first place. Card check (aka union goon intimidation) nullifies the ability of employees to make a genuine choice.
The worst part for the union stores I managed is that while the employees' real dollar incomes decreased over the years, the union dues increased almost as fast as the salaries and benefits of the union bosses and enforcers. I have personally watched union demands produce bankrupt businesses because the union wouldn't agree to reductions or modifications in pay during past economic hard times. So instead of a few pay-rate freezes or reductions, the result was that all the employees ended up with no pay and no jobs. Card check in these really hard economic times will produce a landslide of collapsed businesses which are only marginally profitable now without the unions.
[...] [There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.] [...]
Another fun and spot on post. Sad but true stories of how far unions have been corrupted: A Union Plumber with a broken radio will walk 500 yards to the other end of the job site and back to collect a Union Laborer to dig 3 scoops with a shovel, (20 minutes walking x 2 men vs. 1 minute shoveling x 1 man) and a computer programmer, who re-positioned his computer, was made to put his computer back into the original spot so a Union Custodian could come by later to move the appliance into the new spot.
Unions used to be needed, now not so much.
Folks, the union 'resurgence' is phony and artificial. Leftist strong-arm politics vs. the on-going natural decline of the union. Card Check is but another chunk of slag-heap coal tossed into the agitation sack. When that sack bursts from its foul contents, it will be unpleasant for both sides. Thanks for the great illustration, Zo!
Another awesome one Zo!
It isn't always that the union folks want to do that, but that the rules dictate that they have to. My husband is a company employee in a business that uses labor union for its grunt work. The rules are stifling. He can't help any union employee out with their job because a grievance could get filed against him for "trying to take away union work." If a union employee does a job once, then it is forever after a union job and no company employee can ever do it again. You can imagine how inefficient this can make things.
I've been of the opinion that unions did have their place in the 19th and early 20th centuries, like Zo said no one wants to see people worked to death or discomfort in a sweat shop and unions made for better conditions by far at those times. But in the intervening decades Federal labor law has taken on so many aspects of the actual real "protections" in the workplace that the government has, in effect, become the "union" for everyone that works in the country, again at least so far as the actual protection of rights of workers is concerned.
Unions originally were needed just to get those basic protections, but now in my opinion they're not only redundant in most cases, but actually harmful both to the people they're supposed to be representing, and through their campaign contributions, to free elections as well.
Yeah there definitely is that.
One time a few years back I ran into one of my friends on his way to a job he'd gotten since we'd last seen one another, when I asked him how he liked his job, he said the job itself was fine since he got paid big money but he hated to be told to do as little as possible, or to have to pass off to another union guy a problem he himself could have fixed on the spot but which the other guy was designated to do. He thought it was the most inefficient way to work he'd ever seen. He didn't have much choice though, what he does is an across the board union only job in those parts, and his outrage (he was really fired up about the subject) shows that not everyone who is in a union is behind them all the way.
Awesome, Zo!!!
I was having the SAME conversation at work last night. It seems some collectivists are thinking of organizing. I said pretty much everything Zo said, but these idiots just don't get it.
I told them that I will politely decline, but if you push it, I WILL push back — hard!
Card check or not — a union comes to me and they can shove it up their can.
I'd probably go a little farther and say that 19th and 20th century unions were a vital necessity. They were largely industrial unions, and not only protected their members from horrific labor conditions, but caused a groundswell of labor laws to reduce or eliminate child labor and back-breaking, family-devastating work hours.
Today's industrial unions are just poor imitations of their predecessors. With laws prohibiting wage slavery and dangerous working conditions, their sole purpose is to enrich the leadership and obtain business-crippling wages and benefits (see: the automobile industry) for the workers. The remainder are largely public service and public employee unions. The former are just stalking-horses for the illegal immigration crowd. The latter are an expensive redundancy, given the rules of civil service.
I singled out the retail arena because that's where my experience lies, both before I entered law school and after I closed my practice. The old Retail Clerks Union did a yeoman's task in getting decent wages, working conditions and working hours for people laboring behind sales counters. That was a long time ago. Today the successor unions, when concerned with the individual employee at all, spend most of their time saving the jobs of employees who were fired after being caught drunk on duty while stealing from the cash register.
love me a bat carrying member of the conservative party (and i'm so juvenile that i laughed my behind off when you said the liberals are do-doing all over, well whatever they are do-doing on. you had me at do-do)
Zo your old format, I hope all is well with your new gig. Card Check is a job killer plain and simple. You push to hard on small business and the rest of industry will move out of the country. Unions and government are shake down, artist and their betting that the productive will remain productive no matter what they shove down our throats, don’t be to certain all you liberal Zealots. Great show Zo!
"I'd probably go a little farther and say that 19th and 20th century unions were a vital necessity."
I'd have to agree with you on that point too, that was what I was thinking but my verbiage was off in my initial reply, I blame still being in full snark mode. And I agree with all your other points in this one as well. I guess I'm going from snarky to very agreeable, I'm not sure which is worse…
Agreement is fine, but I'm a big fan of snark. I agree with your agreement to agree. In fact, I think we agreed right from the beginning, but what the heck. I have to carry a bib with me whenever I have to deal with the SEIU or the UFCW. It keeps the froth from my mouth off my shirts, ties and jackets.
Is it possible to agree while exuding snark? If it is we should do that too.
". . . small business and the rest of industry will move out of the country"
Small business and industry 'wish'. Toxic Tim Geithner and his'0'verlord want global oversight on capitalist pig dog activity. There will be nowhere to run. It will not work (in the long run), but our 'friends' in Washington would much like to see it, nonetheless.
Dodging the baseball bat is a highly valued skill.
Stan, they are not aiming for small business/production industries, and are actually more than willing to sacrifice same. The intimidation target is retail, health care, non-guv public services and services which will produce mandatory dues income and control for the party. Unions today are European traditional, where the members support the cause, not the old unions where the union supports the members good. Todays unions are largely massa for the socialist plantation slaves and they have no more concept of representing the member than massa had of working for the slaves wellbeing. To today's union, the whip, bat and card check make perfect sense to control uppity property. Small/production industries compete with the socialist plantation and the unions are more than happy to sacrifice them.
I felt as though I needed to reply also, because, I agree with you due to experience. I was formally employed by a major grocery retailer (quit in '05 to pursue my second job, and other ventures as well–which I am continually doing now), represented by the UFCW. My ex, and another friend work for a company that was recently unionized, even though they successfully fought against it years ago and won. It was sold a number of years ago, and was bought by a unionized company (trucking industry). I can still recall the stories they told about how the Teamsters followed the drivers around trying to intimidate them, and their customers. These drivers fought back–LOL!!! The Teamsters eventually gave up, only to come back almost ten years later.
I got so sick of the UFCW with their political propaganda during each presidential election TELLING us who to vote for–a no brainer, always the Democrat candidates, and the literature was on the break room tables. Even the union newsletters pushed for the election of the Democrats. The covers always showed photos of people shouting.
I worked in a department with a separate contract from the rest of the store (meat). If a customer needed assistance in another department, we were supposed to help them–customer service was company policy. Too many times, the guys in my department would say, "You need to stay here, and let grocery handle that. That crosses the contract". Yet, these same guys voted Republican, but had the union mentality.
I once filed a grievance due to a "merit" raise for another employee. Such a thing wasn't supposed to exist, yet for some reason, he got it anyway. I was the one with on the job experience (he had eight months on the job. I had 1-1/2 years before I got that increase). I was also initially denied this rate (which puts one in another pay scale) some six months after reaching top pay in my category, even though I demonstrated the desire, and ability to advance my skills. All I got for my trouble was $500–BEFORE taxes. To show what I nice guy (ha, ha) I am, I even went to bat for this same employee when he was falsely accused of stealing. Management couldn't even read their own register tapes, and misinterpreted items that were put under a 'generic' label, which in this case, the items were a reduced price because of the sell-by date.
I have been approached by friends in management (more than once), asking if I would consider coming back part-time. I told them I couldn't due to my current work situation (I've posted on BH a half dozen or so times, but haven't revealed what I do. Okay, I'm a dairy farmer–my own herd, but help on another farm as well, and yes I am female–I do this with the help of me, myself, and I). I also told one of them that I didn't like the idea of having to rejoin the union because, I believe it promotes laziness, and he said "You know, you're right".
I’ve been in business for almost 30yrs. I’ve seen entire industries rolled up and moved over seas because of, unions, taxes, regulations, etc. As far as retail or the service industry, Wal-Mart is their prime target 1.3million employees, a unions wet dream. You heard what Fred Smith (CEO FedX) said, he’d cancel an order for 30 jets from Boeing, if the teamsters go after FedX with, Card Check and he’ll make further moves to protect his company. McDonalds, Burger King, a damn Whopper will be $8.00. You can be certain that creep John Sweeney and the AFL-CIO and all it’s tentacles want anything that makes government larger, lots of new union members. The point is that the cost of everything will go up, we’re playing with fire with Card Check it’s dumb.
The worst job I had was working third shift at a UFCW shop as a stocker. When I hurt my back and couldn't work, the store was busy to make sure that they were covered. Here I was making $4.25 a hour (this was 1993), and I call my union shop. The first question that they asked me was "why didn't you pay your union dues since you've been out?" That ended that. My uncle (a life long rail road worker) had his RWU local ban that grocery shop for two months in support.
That said, UFCW is one of the worst unions because it wants to unionize Wal-Mart and nothing else. Unless you're a meat cutter, you are no use to them.
Card Check makes their goals easier.
Call me stupid, but…. If card check gets passed into law, since it violates the very fabric of our system of government, wouldn't it be struck down?
I mean, if it's okay for a non-private ballot in union elections, why not a non-private ballot in presidental elections? I'm sure Obama won't mind.
But we would.
Unions are restricted by law in the use of union dues to support political candidates or causes without the permission of the workers. The NLRB is the enforcement agency, and its controlling law is "Beck v. Communications Workers." In California, a worker in a union shop cannot be forced out for refusing to join the union. But to keep it a union shop, the employee must file a "Beck statement" demanding a reduction in dues for all non-allowed union activities. "Allowed" union activities are basically administration, highly restricted recruitment activities, salaries, and employee related arbitration and litigation. Whatever percentage of dues are not "allowed" is the percentage of dues the "Beck employee" will be required to pay.
"Allowed activities" specifically do not include political activities, donations to political causes, or rallies in support of either, although it is an "allowed" expense for the union to use dues money for advocacy of labor-related legislation (but not for the candidates or elected officials themselves).
The National Right to Work Foundation has won case after case proving that in each individual case, the non-allowed activities of the union ranged from 66% to 94%. Unions have had to pay millions of dollars in fines for mis-use of dues for non-allowed purposes. The unions then pass that cost on to the employees in the form of increased dues. How's that for "Catch 22?" The UFCW routinely claims that only about 5% of their dues collections are used for non-allowable activities, so a Beck employee ends up paying 95% of the basic dues unless he or she hires a lawyer and goes to the NLRB.
Upwards of 95% of non-allowed union political money goes to Democrats, liberals, liberal causes, and liberal advocacy (including, guess what, card check and abortion). Even in San Francisco, most employees don't want their union dues used for liberal politics and political candidates. Jefferson said "to take a man's money to support a cause to which he is opposed is the essence of tyranny." Jefferson never met a modern union. The rule of law means nothing to them.
CORRECTION: In the post immediately above, I should have written "whatever percentage of dues are not 'allowed' is the percentage by which the Beck employee's dues must be reduced."
And that's why the local retail store workers refer to the UFCW as the Sausage Stuffers Union.
Yes it is possible, but it's not as much fun.
I have a lot more to say about this than will fit in this space since it has affected my family and got us connected to the Right to Work legal organization (and included a very rewarding trip to the actual Reagan Ranch if I may brag) but I felt the most telling hypocrisy of the democrats is their support of card check while at the same time they held a secret ballot to decide if Joe Lieberman deserved punishment from their caucus due to his support of McCain. They know the implications of non-secret elections and protect themselves from them, yet think so little of the American worker so as to remove this right and legalize intimidation techniques from the unions.
Ready, kids? It's called the Employee FREE CHOICE Act meaning that potential members have a CHOICE as to which method would be used to CHOOSE to unionize or not. This is PROPAGANDA, and not particularly effective propaganda at that. Denying the actual facts of the legislation to suit your argument is not simply small-minded, it's pathetic. You are either willfully ignorant or have chosen not to mention that there is an actual choice out of a cowardly attempt to scare people from supporting it.
Your notion that Walmart increases traffic to other businesses is a ridiculous falsehood. There are dozens of studies regarding that very claim ALL of which show that Walmart stores are generally not built in the same "downtown" areas where other stores would benefit. In fact, they do the opposite, they DIVERT traffic AWAY from Main Street, you IGNORANT FOOL. And EVERY study shows that. Let me repeat that, EVERY LAST ONE.
Oh, and not only that, they also hired illegal immigrants en masse, a very Anti-Conservative policy if there ever was one. And were caught locking overnight employee's in the store (yet another violation of dozens of laws).
Look to the model used in Congress, a simple voice vote for many things with roll call upon request. And many states use caucusing for candidate selections, which is standing around while neighbors inform/debate/harangue each other into a consensus. Card check as a democratic system is valid, the question is whether the potential for abuse and retaliation is so great a required private vote is necessary.
My father worked in a union shop, still voted Republican. He was good, even stood in as foreman, but never took the job as he'd have to leave the union. Good call, plant changed owners after he retired, non-union people lost seniority and time towards their pensions. This was before the ERISA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_... ) changes in 2007, BTW, so unions have nothing to do there. Although there was noted gloating at the time.
His union was OCAW (Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers), merged with AFL-CIO, which merged with USW (United Steel Workers). The monthly USW newsletter still comes in the mail. The drooling for Obama was beyond obvious, the demanding to vote Democratic beyond exhorting heading to subliminal; while reporting on union organizing efforts in other countries, they mentioned a Democratic election (capital D).
Before the election, to reassure union members, they had a one-page insert to (another) propaganda story, about how much Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, pointing out it's really McCain who's had issues with the NRA and shouldn't be trusted.
My opinion on that union: Kill it with fire.
I cannot write another word and still contain the rage.
My father worked in a union shop, still voted Republican. He was good, even stood in as foreman, but never took the job as he'd have to leave the union. Good call, plant changed owners after he retired, non-union people lost seniority and time towards their pensions. This was before the ERISA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_... ) changes in 2007, BTW, so unions have nothing to do there. Although there was noted gloating at the time.
His union was OCAW (Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers), merged with AFL-CIO, which merged with USW (United Steel Workers). The monthly USW newsletter still comes in the mail. The drooling for Obama was beyond obvious, the demanding to vote Democratic beyond exhorting heading to subliminal; while reporting on union organizing efforts in other countries, they mentioned a Democratic election (capital D).
Before the election, to reassure union members, they had a one-page insert to (another) propaganda story, about how much Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, pointing out it's really McCain who's had issues with the NRA and shouldn't be trusted.
My opinion on that union: Kill it with fire.
I cannot write another word and still contain the rage.
You honestly believe the name that some union shill stamped it with actually means that the name of the bill really bears any relationship with what it says or does? Did you just arrive on this planet last week? How is that Stimulus Package working out for you? Do you also believe that you really must call in the next 15 minutes or the offer will go away forever? Really, I want to know.
Zo never said that Wal Mart built right in downtown so your argument there is specious. In the town where I grew up they sure didn't build downtown, there was an empty field that 5 years before had been a swamp that was drained to make room for a new high school, until the town realised that the high school they had was only 10 years old and would be a ridiculous waste of money being pushed by the school board. Needless to say that nugget of wisdom about it being a massive waste of money, and thus not worth doing only happened after the school board flipped from being mostly retired teachers (all union) to mostly parents (mostly Republicans) but I digress; what happened was that this empty chunk of land was bought by Wal Mart. They built their store and sold their wares, as they tend to do, It was the only thing out there for about a year, then someone decided that hey, there were a lot of people going to Wal Mart, so maybe he should move his Radio Shack from downtown to a building by Wal Mart, his business thrived, in the intervening 20 years or so there are whole cluters of stores and restaurants out there. Jobs were created, the people cheered from the rooftops and Zo is completely vindicated when he says that Wal Marts do increase traffic to other businesses, because other businesses set up shop near Wal Marts.
But wait, I know what you'll say, since all the stores moved out there, downtown must have died! Not so much, since the town as a whole was making more money from all the commerce out at Wal Mart's plaza, they had money to put into a downtown restoration project. So instead of rows of boarded up storefronts (which happened after the mines were shut down) in downtown interspersed with seedy bars, tattoo parlors and pawn shops, now there are nice upscale restaurants, a Victorian candy shop, some really cool pubs, a museum and a community theater in what used to be a run down church of all things, the architecture and acoustics are amazing by the way. We even got the drive-in back and let me tell you, you ain't really seen "Ironman" until you've seen it on a screen bigger than a house.
All thanks in large part to the upswing in the economy that was brought about by what people on the left consider an unholy trinity: Wal Mart, a school board -not- dominated by retired union teachers, and a Republican dominated city government. Main street became a thriving place, just with different, and by an overwhelming consensus (since liberals love that word) -better- businesses. it's called capitalism and it worked. But in their knee-jerk disdain for Wal Mart liberals often forget that Main Street is an actual place, not some metaphorical magic land invented to bash Wall Street with. It's really right out there, a block away I can see the classy Victorian streetlamps the city could afford to put in as a result of all that "greed" as I'm typing this.
You honestly believe the name that some union shill stamped it with actually means that the name of the bill really bears any relationship with what it says or does? Did you just arrive on this planet last week? How is that Stimulus Package working out for you? Do you also believe that you really must call in the next 15 minutes or the offer will go away forever? Really, I want to know.
Zo never said that Wal Mart built right in downtown so your argument there is specious. In the town where I grew up they sure didn't build downtown, there was an empty field that 5 years before had been a swamp that was drained to make room for a new high school, until the town realised that the high school they had was only 10 years old and would be a ridiculous waste of money being pushed by the school board. Needless to say that nugget of wisdom about it being a massive waste of money, and thus not worth doing only happened after the school board flipped from being mostly retired teachers (all union) to mostly parents (mostly Republicans) but I digress; what happened was that this empty chunk of land was bought by Wal Mart. They built their store and sold their wares, as they tend to do, It was the only thing out there for about a year, then someone decided that hey, there were a lot of people going to Wal Mart, so maybe he should move his Radio Shack from downtown to a building by Wal Mart, his business thrived, in the intervening 20 years or so there are whole cluters of stores and restaurants out there. Jobs were created, the people cheered from the rooftops and Zo is completely vindicated when he says that Wal Marts do increase traffic to other businesses, because other businesses set up shop near Wal Marts.
But wait, I know what you'll say, since all the stores moved out there, downtown must have died! Not so much, since the town as a whole was making more money from all the commerce out at Wal Mart's plaza, they had money to put into a downtown restoration project. So instead of rows of boarded up storefronts (which happened after the mines were shut down) in downtown interspersed with seedy bars, tattoo parlors and pawn shops, now there are nice upscale restaurants, a Victorian candy shop, some really cool pubs, a museum and a community theater in what used to be a run down church of all things, the architecture and acoustics are amazing by the way. We even got the drive-in back and let me tell you, you ain't really seen "Ironman" until you've seen it on a screen bigger than a house.
All thanks in large part to the upswing in the economy that was brought about by what people on the left consider an unholy trinity: Wal Mart, a school board -not- dominated by retired union teachers, and a Republican dominated city government. Main street became a thriving place, just with different, and by an overwhelming consensus (since liberals love that word) -better- businesses. it's called capitalism and it worked. But in their knee-jerk disdain for Wal Mart liberals often forget that Main Street is an actual place, not some metaphorical magic land invented to bash Wall Street with. It's really right out there, a block away I can see the classy Victorian streetlamps the city could afford to put in as a result of all that "greed" as I'm typing this.
Golani, from what I've read, you should be running your town wherever it is.
Great comments!
Golani, from what I've read, you should be running your town wherever it is.
Great comments!
Wait until you or a family member has been run over by a union and then let us know your opinion. The right to unionize is sacred in my opinion but to unionize by intimidation is antithetical to freedom.
Run over by an entire Union? Wow. Yes, I agree, Steve, The right to unionize is sacred, but unionization via intimidation is NEVER acceptable and most certainly antithetical to freedom. But this bill put this decision in the hands of the worker to actually choose the method by which one choses to unionize, thereby allowing for less intimidation given that this has not been a choice in the past.
I am not an apologist for all forms of Unionism. There are some really great Unions that have done a lot of good on behalf of workers without causing to detriment to a corporations excessive profits. But the reverse is also true, many unions have crippled the industries they sought to bolster, so I understand both sides of the argument. However, I believe that the right to unionize is indeed a right and that is why I support the bill.
Any or all intimidation tactics utilized by Unions and/or their employers should be met with a swift but firm hand of justice.
Today, my son-in-law works in the automotive industry and travels around to virtually all of the major engine plants in the U.S.. He says that the main difference he sees between the union shops (Ford) and the non-union shops (Nissan) is productivity. He's seen the Ford line shut down for two hours while all the employees sit around drinking coffee, waiting for a union electrician to come out and flip a reset switch.
Now, first of all, anyone on the line could flip that switch. But, granted that there may be some legitimate safety concern about doing it (which would be the official union position), the two-hour wait for a five second task is just a mind game that the union enjoys playing with management to show them who's in charge.
The bottom line is this: you can pay your employees 78 bucks an hour if they're cranking out product, but for that kind of money they need to be working and not playing slap and tickle.
Today, my son-in-law works in the automotive industry and travels around to virtually all of the major engine plants in the U.S.. He says that the main difference he sees between the union shops (Ford) and the non-union shops (Nissan) is productivity. He's seen the Ford line shut down for two hours while all the employees sit around drinking coffee, waiting for a union electrician to come out and flip a reset switch.
Now, first of all, anyone on the line could flip that switch. But, granted that there may be some legitimate safety concern about doing it (which would be the official union position), the two-hour wait for a five second task is just a mind game that the union enjoys playing with management to show them who's in charge.
The bottom line is this: you can pay your employees 78 bucks an hour if they're cranking out product, but for that kind of money they need to be working and not playing slap and tickle.
Hey…can anyone explain to me why my original post was rejected as being "too long", whereas Golani has a post up which is twice as long as mine was to begin with?
I think the mods like Golani best…
This is like reading the true story of what happened in my hometown in Alabama. Right down to the restoration of downtown, and the cute restaurants, galleries, boutiques, we even got an art and children's museum, for goodness' sakes, in the boonies! Ours had been going downhill since the early 80's when we got a mall. It still had traffic, but as more things grew around the mall, and no moey was pumped into it, it became slightly seedy, and somewhat dangerous at night. It is gorgeous now! And super busy, as are BOTH the Walmarts, that anchor it, on opposite sides of town. I live in GA now, and we have the biggest mall in the south 15 min from my house, and two Walmarts, and a Sam's club are within 5 miles of it, and they all stay crowded.
Yeah, unions are great. My friend's husband is in the union and works at Goodyear Tire, and spends most of the time watching tv on his phone, or porn, and there are guys and gals there who slip off for a bit, if you know what I mean, and half of them drink and pass around pain pills. Her husband is a pig, he has missed so much work it isn't funny, yet they never fire him. Or anyone else. It has been that way there, as far back as I can remember. They have a problem, it's off to the union house they go. 20 yrs, he and most of his co-workers have been doing this, not to mention those in the workbank who sleep all day. Yeah, it's great.
I think that moderation is arbitrary? I can’t figure it out either it makes no sense.
Great video, but let's cut through the fluff and call a spade a spade… Card check is a means by which union organizers can intimidate individuals into joining a union they might otherwise not join, were they able to vote in private. The secret ballot is a fundamental right of all Americans and an indispensable tool necessary to keep America free. Taking away the secret ballot would set the ugliest of precedents and must be opposed!
Rob, you say the "right to unionize is sacred," but how about the right "not" to unionize? Is that not also sacred? Would you feel equally comfortable if a majority of non-union employees were able to confront those who wanted a union and force them to make the choice of voting now or "later…if you feel you need a little more privacy?" Anytime someone else participates in a person's private decision, it is no longer private…and the opportunity to intimidate certainly exists. Why not be honest and acknowledge the "possibility" of intimidation…and err on the side of safety?
"I believe that the right to unionize is indeed a right and that is why I support the bill. "
The right to unionize is not threatened without this bill. Only the right to vote without union intimidation is threatened with the defeat of this bill.
Aside from my earlier comments I think Alfonso made a great video… although I want to know what he planned to do with the baseball bat.
It's just one of those things that happens when we're born, some men are gifted with money, some are gifted by uncommon wisdom, others amazing artistic talents; as for me, I was gifted with great length I guess.
Yeah that was a terrible joke, but it was too easy an opening to resist.
Honestly Tom I have no clue why the system lets some of us babble on forever and other people have to chop posts up. It seems fairly random at best. So this is one case where I think I can safely say we need to blame the system.
"The bottom line is this: you can pay your employees 78 bucks an hour if they're cranking out product, but for that kind of money they need to be working and not playing slap and tickle."
That's so true, if the main impact a union has on a company is to encourage laziness and reduce productivity because of an archaic rules structure, then that is in no one's best interest in the long haul. My one friend is a union electrician, he says his job is basically to be like the guy that flips switches in your story, he comes from a blue collar background and while he loves the pay, he hates the fact he's basically told to do as little as possible, never look for something to improve, and wait for a call to flip some switches because it goes against his natural work ethic.
That wasn't terrible…actually I thought it was pretty good
This is what I'e seen too. The "stock" businesses thrive around the Wal-Mart and the general prosperity level of the whole town increases, and then, the really neat specialty shops can open up and have a chance to do business. In my hometown, we got a really neat little deli with some killer raspberry mustard and a custard pie recipe to die for.
Thanks Steve, it's just what happened, and the town newspaper wasn't afraid to even run stories about how Wal Mart was changing the town, in fact 2 other towns in the county got Wal Marts more recently and you can actually see it happening in them as well. For rural areas Wal Mart is a boon to the entirety of the local economy in most cases, the trick for preexisting local businesses is not to whine and complain about one coming in, but to think of ways to adapt their business model to the changing economy.
As for running the town, nah, I'd be no good at being a politician myself, too much sitting around talking to people who just like to argue for argument's sake. Plus I'd have to give up my day job, which I love since I'm one of the lucky few that actually wound up being as an adult what they always wanted to be as a kid. That doesn't mean I don't speak my mind to politicians when I think they're messing things up, or give them a pat on the back when they're doing right either though, because I surely do that.
My best friend is from a small town in Alabama, I love that state. Beautiful scenery, great people, and you can always find a Wal Mart when you need one.
Sorry, but for that instance I have to give them the benefit of doubt. That reset switch is a safety device, Flip it back on without knowing for certain what tripped it, someone gets hurt or killed, OSHA owns your hide and likely someone's going out the door. If it goes off three times a day for the same reason, that's one thing, you can flip it for now but you better fix the underlying problem soon, and there better be a quick check list of "make sure it isn't this" done first.
But for a random-seeming tripping, two hours to study schematics, check any remote monitoring readings, and check equipment and wiring, is not unreasonable.
However, in the shops I've worked at, people would be pushing brooms and otherwise cleaning the work area while waiting.
I think it's semi-intelligent and learns about registered users. You trip moderation on something, if the comment clears then it'll allow you some more leeway. Likewise it gets used to people going on long, if they don't trip moderation. Keeps the long-winded venom-spewers throttled.
That is why I admire Fred Smith so much. By damn, he started FedEx with 2 people and his own money. Let HIM run HIS company as he sees fit. I have tons of friends that work there, and their non-union benefits run circles around 95% of other employers in town. Fred's move was very astute, indeed.
And Zo, this was one of your best ever!
You had best be certain that Fred Smith is no one to toy with. He’ll do what he has to do to save that remarkable co, and subsequently ten’s of thousands of jobs.
Where my wife works uses union workers in certain areas. She's in charge of putting out a weekly newsletter, and one week included some photos of a site event that had taken place on the weekend. She had either taken some of those pictures herself or had used pictures other co-workers had sent in.
When that newsletter came out, she got a call from the company's union photographer at the corporate level (almost three hours away) explaining that she shouldn't have used those photos, and the next time she wants to, she needs to use pictures taken by a union photographer. This was shortly after she'd taken the job, so he was nice about it. But basically for a weekend event, she needed to notify someone at corporate to send a photographer six hours round trip to take a few hundred pictures (when she used a dozen at most), when someone that was already there could have done the work.
Talk about height of inefficiency. But using the photos she did was seen as taking work away from the union.
I wished I would have known of this before, because none of it was ever mentioned to me. Can you give of details for the state of Indiana (if there is a difference with California)? I still have friends that work there, so I can ask them of whatever has gone on since I left. My one management friend had told me that there are no longer two separate contracts–meat and grocery are now combined. I think he also told me that there is something else about joining the union (or rejoining), but I can't remember what it is called. It might have something to do with reduced dues, but I can find out. Such a thing didn't exist while I worked there, and I had almost 9 years.
The reason you never heard of it is that the unions make damned sure you don't. If enough union workers knew about "Beck," the unions would go broke. I don't have a handy list, and I never practiced in Indiana (Michigan was the closest state to Indiana that I ever appeared in), but the National Right to Work Foundation has a website and a host of lawyers and advisers who could provide you with that information very quickly. The easiest thing to do is to Google it.
Hey thanks for the info! I would just like to keep all of this handy in case I ever had to quit what I am doing (and it's really tough right now), and needed a job. At least I have the security knowing I have a place to go–I didn't burn any bridges, so, I still have some pull with the company. I dread the thought if I were that desperate.
I checked out the National Right to Work Foundation, and bookmarked the page–just in case. At least now, I have a reference for those who still have to be represented by a union at their place of employment.
Glad I could be of some assistance. Good luck.
Thank you for the nice comment about Bama. It is a beautiful state, I am trying my best to sell my stupid McMansion and move back over there for a much simpler life. And the people do tend to be very nice. My family has a good bit of acreage on the Coosa River, and I am going to build a nice, small house right on the river bank. Can't wait. Just got to find someone who can get credit for a big house right now, and I am outta ATL.
I don't know what Zo was planning on doing with his baseball bat, however, I have found if you tap it, oh so gently, on a really stupid person's head, you can cure them. Gently can be subjective. Use your own best discretion.
Why is it people who believe that corporations, who must adhere to the consumer and the market, are always corruptible, yet the government and unions, with the total lack of checks and balances, increased politicalization, are immune? Why are union bosses so apt to fight for workers rights, but more than happy to donate hard-earned dollars to non-labor causes that many workers don't support?
Bureaucratic levels are the biggest problem in major companies and government. Unions add one extra level of incompetence. Seventy-years ago, they were emphatically important, today they represent most of the problems they were created to prevent. Now they are a gun to the head of workers to keep their job. Ban them.
My first time watching your videos and have now spent most of my evening watching them and checking out your site. I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in and putting it out there for others to learn from! I hope to see more videos and commentary from you! I also hope that you can reach many people and help them see the light!
I used to work for FedEx. Fred took care of his people. The pay was reasonable for the job, but the benefits were excellent. Health insurance with a really low deductible that actually covered trips to the doctor, a vested 401(k) from day 1, tuition reimbursement for college classes, the list goes on. The only problem was middle management. FedEx Office tends to get some deadbeat managers who hate to fire people, so you get a lot of deadwood employees. Luckily, they quit showing up, eventually.
Brilliant, 'Zo.
As usual…
Part of the problem as I see it is the collectivization of all labor in an industry against all management. If the unions would restrict themselves to only those employed by the company theyt worked for then the incentive for the organization to out perform other unions would at least be there.
LadyhawkSF,
If you file a Beck statement, who has the right to know about it. You'd have to prove harassment which might be difficult if those that out number you are the Union thugs.
"No, your honor he is just very clumsy."
Very good assessment. That's why they'll never do it. Despite the fact that competition and performance are anathema to unions, there is also the "strength in numbers" phony argument. And though it's unfashionable to say it these days, there is still a strong element of Marxism and one-worldism in all unionism, evident even today in the "International" part of the name of most of the unions. The pecking order is the local, the national, and the international. Examples: International Longshore Workers Union. Service Employees International Union.
Yes but Golani,
The liberal's argument was that there was no "study" to show that Walmart brought in any other business. What does it matter if Walmart aided the economy of your town. Obviously no liberal at a University has ever "studied" it have they. And if they have the mathematics used would prove there was no benefit. You see Golani it is all about what "Studies" say.
Your blatant disregard and acceptance of the wisdom of "undefined" studies is very disconcerting. Golani if liberal number whatever and four tells you that all "studies" prove Walmart is bad then Walmart is bad. After all liberals never lie about studies and studies are always politacally correct. ALWAYS!
If you are having problems with this concept then hit yourself in the head with a meat tenderizer every 72 seconds. You won't gain any particular insight but will tire of trying to understand.
A Beck statement is very much a public record. There is no requirement to prove anything other than your declaration that you don't want to be a union member and a demand that your dues to the union be reduced to the amount provided by law. But you are so right, and the step is not to be taken lightly. There is likely to be harassment of the Beck filer in most cases, and that can run from mild chiding and shunning to outright violence. In San Francisco, for instance, the UFCW has fat, lazy and very unimpressive union reps, mostly talk, little action. On the other hand, taking on the Teamsters goons would require someone braver than I.
Indeed, which is the problem with liberals in general, they spend so much time on studies, figures, consultations, polling, focus groups and the like that they don't actually see what's going on around them.
Liberals study "issues", conservatives act on them…and then get told that the numbers didn't match up in the way the liberals predicted they would; so obviously everyone is delusional when they point out that reality doesn't match what the study says. So they'll take some more money, to do another study, to try to prove you're wrong again.
I wasn't sure if I should try to reply to this post or not. I figured I'd be off subject if I didn't. Anyway, I tried calling my manager friend yesterday, and he didn't answer his cell. He called me this morning. I asked him if he knew about the Beck statement, and he said he didn't know what it was. When I explained it, he said that an employee could join with reduced dues, but it was only about a dollar less, so most people don't bother.
I also mentioned to him about the discussion I had with you about the UFCW placing political literature on the break room tables. He said that they did again in '08, and as usual, only supporting Democratic candidates. You will NEVER see a Republican mentioned, no matter how liberal or moderate they may be (Richard Lugar comes to mind).
I also thought it was worth mentioning that the union newsletter was written in English, AND Spanish.
I wasn't sure if I should try to reply to this post or not. I figured I'd be off subject if I didn't. Anyway, I tried calling my manager friend yesterday, and he didn't answer his cell. He called me this morning. I asked him if he knew about the Beck statement, and he said he didn't know what it was. When I explained it, he said that an employee could join with reduced dues, but it was only about a dollar less, so most people don't bother.
I also mentioned to him about the discussion I had with you about the UFCW placing political literature on the break room tables. He said that they did again in '08, and as usual, only supporting Democratic candidates. You will NEVER see a Republican mentioned, no matter how liberal or moderate they may be (Richard Lugar comes to mind).
I also thought it was worth mentioning that the union newsletter was written in English, AND Spanish.
The $1.00 figure sounds like the usual response. They all do that. Once they've done it, you have to make a demand for an accounting and an inspection of the books. If they accept, you should have an accountant with you since they regularly doctor the books in a way only an accountant would catch. If they refuse, your local labor board is probably the next step. If there's an attorney available for the hearing it's a good idea to have one along. The lawyer needs some experience in labor and administrative law. Again, the NRTW Foundation can probably assist.
You can protest the cost of the political literature, but not the literature itself. First Amendment rights. But if they allow Democrat literature, they must also allow Republican literature, and at an equal level.
You have your work cut out for you.
Since I no longer work there, it really shouldn't matter to me. I guess I'm for the principle of the whole matter. I would rather be informed now for future reference, just in case I ever encountered something like this later on.
Strictly bias on the political literature. I went through three presidential cycles, and never saw anything but Democrat stuff.
What did you think about a bilingual union newsletter?
I think they're a curse today, unlike the past where bilingualism wasn't code wording for "No English." Nothing wrong with people wanting to see literature in their prior tongue, but taxpayers and dues payers should not be required to pay for it. But it can't be banned outright, again because of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean compulsory bilingualism. That was a creation of an out-of-control Supreme Court, and should be English-only when it comes to official literature and ballots.
Home run!
"If you are having problems with this concept then hit yourself in the head with a meat tenderizer every 72 seconds. You won't gain any particular insight but will tire of trying to understand."
ROFLMAO
You must be logged in to post a comment.