Enjoying the holiday? Thank a Union member!

[Tom Schindler]

It happens all the time. You yourself have said that it is the "threat" of possible strike by the unions that "compels" companies to do the "right thing". You have even said that most companies if given a choice would NOT do the right thing if it were not for the existence of unions.

Most contracts have a "no strike" policy in them. In other words, no wildcat strikes at the drop of the hat. I do not recall saying the threat of a strike will compell the company to do the right thing. The chance of a union coming in will help a company make the right choices. Organized companies chose to have the workforce union. If you treat your employees right, give them fair wages and benefits, you will not have to worry about your employees getting representation.



Any company that has a lick of sense will have strike insurance so if there is a strike, they will be compensated for the income losses due to the strike.



As a foreman in a union shop, I see the supervisors that have issues with their employees. Guess what, I don't have issues. I treat my guys with dignity and respect. They are all grown men and if treated so, will act like grown men. Treat them like children, and they wil act like children.

Therefore it is clear that in the general case unionized companies are "compelled" to sign union contracts due to the "threats" that union members can carry out if they do not sign. The common threats are strikes, work stoppages/slow downs, sanctions, and fines.

Welcome to life. We don't speed, not only because of safety reasons, but the threat of a speeding ticket. We don't shoplift, not only because it is wrong, but also becuase we could get arrested and get sent to jail.



I guess your definition of duress and mine are different. I see that as a "You must sign this or we are going to beat you up", and yours is "If I don't sign it, maybe they may threaten to beat me up and I am scared so I will do something detrimental to my company and hope for the best".



I don't buy that. 99.9%of workers out there ask for a fair wage with fair benefits. As the saying goes, pay me now, or pay me later. I can make $10.00/hr pay with another $10.00/hr put away for my retirement, or you could just pay me $20.00/hr to work for you. The difference is that by paying me 10 now and 10 later makes the books look better. If you are lucky, you can squander that money saved for retirement for your employees and have the blind sheeple say, "Those greedy union guys, they didn't care for the company".





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

I guess your definition of duress and mine are different. I see that as a "You must sign this or we are going to beat you up", and yours is "If I don't sign it, maybe they may threaten to beat me up and I am scared so I will do something detrimental to my company and hope for the best".

Sure, Caymen, if you restate things in specific and absurd terms it is easier to make your point.



The the key words that define duress and indicate when it exists are "compelled", and "by threat".



You were the ones that say that if it weren't for unions many companies would walk all over workers. That means that unions are compelling those companies to do the right thing. That is by your own assertion.



That only leaves "how" unions are compelling companies to meet their demands. There are really only two general ways to compel anyone to do anything: "stick" or "carrot".



I submit that unions compel through the use of the "stick". Sanctions, fines, work slowdowns, and strikes are their sticks. The mere existence of the union, and their arsenal of sticks is a constant threat...more often than not passive, but sometimes active.



So, your examples, though they seemingly make your point, aren't true to what I was saying, and I suspect you know that.



If you disagree that union members ability to strike, to sanction, to fine, and to otherwise stop work and jobs are not "sticks" that by their existence is a passive threat, then I'm not going to change your mind. But, I submit, if you really don't think these things have any teeth, then I wonder why (many) unions still cling to them?



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Couldn't one say that an employer, with the power to lay anyone off at any time without any recourse is the opposite of what you are saying?



Should this be a one way street, or should a group of individuals be able to stand together and say we think this is the right thing to do?



Unions are not evil.



Why is it that most "civil" countries, i.e. Germany, Japan, Canada, France, etc., allow union workforce, while the "un-civil", i.e. China, Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea etc., make them illegal.



I guess what it boils down to is that what you consider duress, is not what I consider duress. I guess when a security guard is standing watch, I am under duress. I honestly do not know of anyone that would not take something that is free for the taking.



Contract negotiations are a give and take process. I give up a weeks vacation, in return you give me a week of sick pay that must have a doctor's slip submitted to make my claim. I refuse to give up a week vacation because you need a new Lexus.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

Contracts signed under "duress" are invalid, from what I remember from Business class.



I work with several St. Louis area construction unions and their training programs. Their training programs are first-class. Public schools could probably learn a few things from the strict and efficient training the unions and the apprenticeship programs do.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

Couldn't one say that an employer, with the power to lay anyone off at any time without any recourse is the opposite of what you are saying?

Yeah, sure. If I work for a non-unionized employer and I am asked to do something I don't like then I might often do that under "duress" (using my definition) with the threat being that if I don't do it I might get fired.



Caymen then asked:[/quote]Should this be a one way street, or should a group of individuals be able to stand together and say we think this is the right thing to do?[/quote]



I do NOT think it should be a one-way street. However, I think that some unions, and some situations have tipped the scales too heavily in their favor, and the strength of the "threats" lies mostly with them and their members.



I think a much better approach to the whole matter is "employment at will", with the ability for employers to file "wrongful termination" lawsuits for the agregious cases. That approach provides (IMHO) the most level playing field.



Also, Caymen stated:

I guess what it boils down to is that what you consider duress, is not what I consider duress. I guess when a security guard is standing watch, I am under duress. I honestly do not know of anyone that would not take something that is free for the taking.

Are you saying that you shoplift whenever you don't see a security guard standing around? The definition, not my definition, but the definition (at least one definition anyway) of duress, as I have said, is to be: "compelled by threat".



If you honestly are stating that you, or many, are compelled to NOT steal stuff only because of the threat that a security guard poses, then yes, by THE definition of duress, you are NOT STEALING under duress.



Lastly, Caymen said:

Unions are not evil.

I never said, nor even implied that they are.



Also, Gavin said:

Contracts signed under "duress" are invalid, from what I remember from Business class.

That is true, but then, in such a case, the duress would have to fall under the legal definition thereof, and no doubt be recognized by a judge and/or jury as duress. There have been many lawsuits claiming contracts invalid due to being signed under duress that boiled down to proving or disproving duress.



The lawful definition of duress is different than the definition I gave, which is why I clearly clarified my definition, which is the common, lay definition.



TJR

 

[Randy Hinebaugh]

The chance of a union coming in will help a company make the right choices. Organized companies chose to have the workforce union. If you treat your employees right, give them fair wages and benefits, you will not have to worry about your employees getting representation.

I disagree with that. I work for one of the largest construction companies in the state and as a merit shop, we are constantly coming under attack from unions that have targeted us because of our 'unfair' business practices. We've been the cover story on at least one labor groups newsletter, as they are looking for any slipup whatsoever. I've had union organizers walk onto my closed jobsites, talking to my guys about signing cards. We've had hot dog stands set up outside jobsites - sign a card, get a free hot dog. Some people will sign anything without looking for it to get something free, and they know it. And that's where Card Check and the elimination of the secret ballot come into play. These are the kinds of underhanded practices that give unions a bad name. We have managed to resist the changeover to unionization, as we feel it is better for us and the employee to rewarded them for what they know and how hard they work, not for how long they've been there.



And I do agree that it's the unions that did in the auto industry. They got greedy. Any industry that has union labor potentially able to retire at 49 with full benefits has taken advantage of the system.

 

[Les]

I would just like to know what union Frank is a member of...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Randy H,



Thanks for chiming in. So you have seen predatory, strong-arm, scrupulous tactics used by local unions to lure in members.



I also agree with your comment about young guys retiring with full benes being something that I am sure helped to do-in Detroit, and was no doubt something that the corps got forced into providing.



TJR

 

[Randy Hinebaugh]

I have nothing against the hard working men and women that make up the unions, they have great training programs, they just have leadership that uses bad tactics to get people on their side. I'm not allowed to hang a non-business oriented calendar in my office because if I do, it will be showing that an emplyee can hang something personal up, and if we are being salted (meaning union members secretly hiring onto our company) by the unions, one of them can hang a union poster up.

 

[Brandon Hovater]

I am a 3ed generation Boilermaker. My Grandfather was a Blacksmith. I am a proud union member of Local 455! My God bless us all!! (All being everyone not just unions)

 

[JerryW Gilliland]

I guess I've missed out on the good, the bad and the ugly.



I've never had a 401-K.

I've never been in a union.

And I've never seen Frank.



:lol:

 

[Richard L]

I retired from the US Army with full benefits at the ripe old age of 37 without any help from any union. There was a time when the Teamsters were trying to start a union for enlisted service members....What a joke. Because of our enlistment oaths, the unions did not have the power to do anything. We could not strike, picket or protest under the uniformed code of military justice.



Can you imagine a soldier going on strike in a combat zone??:wacko:



...Rich

 

[Bud Williams]

Les,

Fraternal Order of Sh*t Stirrers...:lol:



Don't be around during initiations:lol:

 

[Tom Schindler]

I disagree with that. I work for one of the largest construction companies in the state and as a merit shop, we are constantly coming under attack from unions that have targeted us because of our 'unfair' business practices. We've been the cover story on at least one labor groups newsletter, as they are looking for any slipup whatsoever. I've had union organizers walk onto my closed jobsites, talking to my guys about signing cards.

Only your employees can sign the card. You keep your employees happy, the union doesn't have a chance.



That is a fact.

I think a much better approach to the whole matter is "employment at will", with the ability for employers to file "wrongful termination" lawsuits for the agregious cases. That approach provides (IMHO) the most level playing field.

Ohio is an emplyment at will state. All employees, without a contract, can be fired for any reason. Of course, if you get too old, you can be fired as long as you can not prove it was because you got old. There is no recourse, besides unemployment compensation. That is fair...isn't it?

Are you saying that you shoplift whenever you don't see a security guard standing around? The definition, not my definition, but the definition (at least one definition anyway) of duress, as I have said, is to be: "compelled by threat".



If you honestly are stating that you, or many, are compelled to NOT steal stuff only because of the threat that a security guard poses, then yes, by THE definition of duress, you are NOT STEALING under duress.

I don't shoplift. There are people that do. Nobody knows, by looking at a person, if they do or do not shoplift. Therefore, stores hire security guards to address the problem before it happens. If the government said it was illegal to hire security personnel, then expect to see shoplifting levels rise.

I retired from the US Army with full benefits at the ripe old age of 37 without any help from any union. There was a time when the Teamsters were trying to start a union for enlisted service members....What a joke. Because of our enlistment oaths, the unions did not have the power to do anything. We could not strike, picket or protest under the uniformed code of military justice.

I was working in a military installation a while back. Guess what, they were members of a labor union. Sure, this was the National Guard, but they were union.





Tom

 

[gary s]

tom,



very true.

we had a union "attempt" 10 years ago for our drivers.

vote was 28 no/ 3 yes. it was easy to figure out the 3 yes votes. 3 employess who were disciplined for not meeting company standards. imo, their lame attempt to gather protection.

i enjoy 6 weeks vacation, a fully paid company vehicle, a nice salary and various other perks.

all from my non-union employer

 

[Tom Schindler]

i enjoy 6 weeks vacation, a fully paid company vehicle, a nice salary and various other perks.

all from my non-union employer

I get no company vehicle, I do get a nice salary, great perks, and I can only max out with 4 weeks. I am non-union.





Tom

 

[Dave S 2]

And I'll wager to bet that is not one CEO of any company that isn't "working" under a "protective" contract!



But anyway...:blink:

 

[Randy Hinebaugh]

Only your employees can sign the card. You keep your employees happy, the union doesn't have a chance.



That is a fact.

These people build up what the union will do for the employee, but don't say any of the downsides. They candy coat what they are selling just enough to get people that don't know exactly what is going on to sign these cards. Especially if they are given a free lunch. Some will sign just because their buddy said "these guys are giving us free lunch, all you have to do is sign some card". Enough people sign, and the union can force an open vote (if the secret ballot gets removed by our current administration). Some will feel coerced to vote yes because they see someone else do it, or out of fear of being followed home by an organizer (and they will do this).



There is a lot of factors involved. It's not as simple as keep your pepole happy and they wont vote yes.



And if your labor chooses to organize, the employer doesn't have a choice in the matter, at least when it comes to construction labor.

 

[Tom Schindler]

And if your labor chooses to organize, the employer doesn't have a choice in the matter, at least when it comes to construction labor.

Yea...and...



That is what voting a union in means. The employer does not have the choice to say no.



Of course, we can join those nice folks in China, Iraq, Venezuela, and N. Korea and make Unions illegal. We know they have their citizens best intrests in mind...





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

Ohio is an emplyment at will state. All employees, without a contract, can be fired for any reason. Of course, if you get too old, you can be fired as long as you can not prove it was because you got old. There is no recourse, besides unemployment compensation. That is fair...isn't it?

Yep, sounds fair to me.



As an employer I don't want contracts that say I have to keep someone employed for some certain length of time, for some certain amount of money, lest I have to pay fines, or buy-outs. I don't want these things as an employer because, frankly, times change, markets go bad, employees sometimes start out good and then turn bad, etc...



A better system is that if an employee is valuable to the organization, they get to keep their job and be paid accordingly. If an employee becomes no longer valuable to the organization (even if no fault to him), then he should be let go.



Forcing people's employment with contracts is not the answer, IMHO.



Unless of course you believe more in socialism and less in capitalism. For me, I believe in the latter. Market forces and the value an employee has within the job market defines their value and their job security in the free market. Sounds right to me. Anything else smacks of control, protectionism and socialism.



TJR