Toledo Talk

Hostess Strike - Deadline.

http://www.kwch.com/business/kwch-hostess-ceo-gives-striking-workers-thursday-deadline-20121114,0,2860295.story

created by Molsonator on Nov 15, 2012 at 11:18:34 am     Politics     Comments: 243

source      versions


Comments ... #

** Displaying only the last 100 comments. To read all 243 comments, Click Here. **

Sohio, you obviously have no idea what natural rights are. They coincide with Natural law. Meaning these are rights that are rights that exist without the invention of man. Meaning: Nature bestowed these rights upon man.

Such as, I have the natural right to life. Nature bestowed me life so I thus have a right to it. Now what GZ is arguing is that everyone has a right to labor and by thus have a right to sell their labor. What they do not have is a right to a job. Not only are the unions arguing that their members have a right to a job they also are arguing they have a right to a certain wage. In this case it is unsustainable so no "right" exists.

posted by MikeyA on Dec 13, 2012 at 03:14:37 pm     #  

MikeyA,

1. Rights are social constructs, established and protected by mankind. Your rights do not come from nature. Nature enforces its laws absolutely, and nature has no laws concerning your "right to life." The lives of human beings are cut short every day by causes too numerous to mention. If nature granted you a "right to life," nobody would be able to take your life away, because you cannot defy the laws of nature. By your logic, I should not be able to eat meat or cut down trees, since nature bestowed life upon animals and plants as well.

2. Unions are not arguing you have a RIGHT to a job. They argue you have a right to certain conditions and wages ON the job. Some of which is true under the law, with or without a union.

3. You may be correct that it was unsustainable. But the right to collective bargaining DID exist; though the right to a JOB perhaps did not.

4. GZ is arguing with himself. See Sensor's post.

posted by Sohio on Dec 13, 2012 at 04:52:39 pm     #  

SensorG said: "So what if your prospective employer is telling you that you need to join the union they have a labor agreement as a mandate for working there?"

Sens, there are really two rules for discussing things on a public forums: Civility and rationality. I admit I'm a bit thin on the former, perhaps the understatement of 2012, but I'm rock solid on the latter. I'm struggling to understand why you don't understand the primary conclusion that employers are FORCED by law to allow a union to take control of the workforce. Employers don't have a choice. They must by law tell you to join the union when you apply to work there.

Hence the entire idea of Right To Work. That's why we bother to use rationality on forums. To successfully convey ideas.

If you feel the need to speak on this topic again, bother to be rational, or I will smack you around a second time. Also, just in case you didn't know: There isn't a Santa Claus. Not even in Columbus or Washington DC, looking to shower gifts over you for being a good union boy this year.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 14, 2012 at 12:54:53 pm     #  

Sohio, the concept of natural rights goes back to John Locke, at least. Remember the Enlightenment? The advance of Western Civilization, driven by philosophies honoring the individual? Did you think that Mikey and I just made all that up for you, centuries after the fact?

You union guys will pull any wacky trick out of your hats to keep your gravy train rolling. That's all you're doing here.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 14, 2012 at 12:59:31 pm     #  

RTW is about removing self-responsibility and accountability. It's the Republican MO.

posted by researcher on Dec 14, 2012 at 01:27:18 pm     #  

Wow, just wow.

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 14, 2012 at 02:20:31 pm     #  

If we don't have the right to choose whether or not we want to accept a job without government intervention (RTW), we may as well start the work camps. The next step in the Republican agenda.

posted by researcher on Dec 14, 2012 at 02:40:09 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 11:59:31 AM on Dec 14, 2012:

Sohio, the concept of natural rights goes back to John Locke, at least. Remember the Enlightenment? The advance of Western Civilization, driven by philosophies honoring the individual? Did you think that Mikey and I just made all that up for you, centuries after the fact?

You union guys will pull any wacky trick out of your hats to keep your gravy train rolling. That's all you're doing here.

I didn't say you made it up. I am familiar with Locke and I realize that philosophy has been around for a long time. That is all beside the point.

I'll say it one more time: The laws of nature are physical, cannot be circumvented, and nature does not revoke its own laws. If it were a law of nature that you have a right to life, you would never die. If nature respected your right to freedom, there would be no slaves. You would be no more able to defy these laws than you would be able to defy the law of gravity.

If you want to avoid the unpleasantness of debate over rights by rhetorically crediting them to some infallible unseen source such as nature, God, or self-evidence, have it your way. Luckily, there are plenty of other humans around you without their heads in the clouds, who are willing to be the boots on the ground doing the dirty work while you talk of fairy tales.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with unions, by the way.

posted by Sohio on Dec 14, 2012 at 04:02:20 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 11:54:53 AM on Dec 14, 2012:

SensorG said: "So what if your prospective employer is telling you that you need to join the union they have a labor agreement as a mandate for working there?"

Sens, there are really two rules for discussing things on a public forums: Civility and rationality. I admit I'm a bit thin on the former, perhaps the understatement of 2012, but I'm rock solid on the latter. I'm struggling to understand why you don't understand the primary conclusion that employers are FORCED by law to allow a union to take control of the workforce. Employers don't have a choice. They must by law tell you to join the union when you apply to work there.

Hence the entire idea of Right To Work. That's why we bother to use rationality on forums. To successfully convey ideas.

If you feel the need to speak on this topic again, bother to be rational, or I will smack you around a second time. Also, just in case you didn't know: There isn't a Santa Claus. Not even in Columbus or Washington DC, looking to shower gifts over you for being a good union boy this year.

GZ,

You have some nerve, admonishing others to be rational. When presented with a refutation of one of your wacky talking points, you just move along and come up with something even wackier. As far as I can tell, you are mistaking being slapped around for slapping others around.

If a union is voted in to a workplace, it is true that employers are forced by law to allow it to happen. However, this is once again a moot point on your part. In the past (up to present), there have been many legal requirements placed on businesses, some regarding unions, some as a result of unions, and some having nothing to do with unions (the laws that required slave owners to free the slaves, and the laws prohibiting the manufacture or sale of alcohol, had nothing to do with unions). You are bound to obey the laws of this land as a condition of living and doing business in this land. The right to form a union is protected by law, laws that were created in part because employers were not doing right by their employees back in the day.

It is also true that, in a non-RTW state, they force you to pay union dues; although I'LL SAY IT AGAIN: THEY CANNOT FORCE YOU TO BE A MEMBER. You are forced to pay the dues because the union, once formed, is forced to represent you in perpetuity or until disbanded.

It is NOT true that the union controls the work force. Management controls the work force, and this is usually explicitly stated in the contract. The union negotiates the terms of employment, in good faith, with the employer. They do not control the company nor the workforce.

You seem like a smart guy. So, maybe you can explain to me how a right-to-work law protects your right to work? Seems to me, if your union is weakened and thus disbands, you become an at-will employee...meaning they can fire you any time they please with no due process. So...what happened to your right-to-work?

You like words, don't you? I can tell. You are a man of words. You care not so much for complexities behind words...but the words themselves, you like. You have words for good things and words for bad things...and the sound of those words, when used generally as labels for things and with little or no nuance or context, makes you feel gooooood.

I get it. I know how that goes. I feel the same way about a good Tom Collins.

posted by Sohio on Dec 14, 2012 at 04:33:47 pm     #  

So, maybe you can explain to me how a right-to-work law protects your right to work?

Consider a union shop. We'll call it the Big Sweat Shop (BSS for short). The contract negotiations begin and as usual neither side can arrive at a mutually disagreeable contract. So the labor union declares a strike in order to force management to agree to their demands.

Consider the unemployed, non-union worker - we'll call him John Poorboy. John can't find a job. He's looked, he's applied, but he's still unemployed. John would like one of those jobs that the union members used to have before they all went on strike. In point of fact, John would be very happy to accept a little less by way of wages and benefits that the union workers used to get - before they went on strike.

But!

Because this isn't a right to work State, John isn't allowed to go to work for BSS without joining the union, and the union is on strike.

Then a right to work law is enacted.

Now John will be employed, and even if John is only a mediocre worker doing an average job, John is now able to support himself, his wife and kids, and start up a retirement fund.

In 1971 I was John, watching the union workers picket for higher wages. I needed one of those jobs that they didn't want, but because of State law I couldn't have one. I even talked to the general manager about it - I caught him on his way to lunch. I think he was a bit surprised at my attitude.

When working conditions or wages get bad enough, a labor union will form. Virtually all employees will join the union. Officers will be elected from the workers at that particular business; not from some outside source. Negotiation will take place and eventually everything will even out, and this will happen in spite of right to work laws. Meantime, those who want a job will be able to have one.

posted by madjack on Dec 18, 2012 at 07:22:41 pm     #  

Madjack,

This has not been true in all places at all points in the past, BUT...

What you are describing is a closed shop. That is, being forced to join a union--whether they are on strike at the time or not--as a pre-condition of employment. This was outlawed by the Taft-Hartley act of 1947. With the passing of that law, as I have stated several times on this thread, the closest thing to a closed shop you'll find now is a "union shop," meaning you can be forced to pay dues to the union that is forced to represent you...but you cannot be forced to be a member at any point.

When a union goes on strike, (or when they are locked out by their employer, as was the case at the Blade a few years ago,) you have the freedom to cross the picket lines and work for that employer, should they decide to seek replacement workers. There are some laws concerning the re-instatement of striking workers, variable by circumstance. So, whether your job would be permanent or temporary would depend on a lot of factors. But workers crossing the picket lines to work the jobs of striking employees is a common practice.

Also, I take exception to your wording that the strikers "do not want" their jobs. In most cases, I would say a more accurate statement would be that they do not want to work under the conditions the company is offering. A lot of union work is dangerous (such as an oil refinery, think of the recent strike at Lima Husky); and often, strikes take place over safety conditions. So, you might want to think twice about crossing picket lines to work. Think about it: those guys on strike are not getting paid. If the problems are bad enough that those guys are willing to go without pay and risk their jobs to protest them, do you really want to go in there and work that job for even less money, and trust that the company will do right by you?

Right-to-work laws do not speak to the crossing of picket lines whatsoever. In fact, they weaken unions, making it less likely there will be any strikes, therefore if you are a person counting on crossing picket lines to find work, then you are yet another person for whom RTW laws are not actually protecting any right-to-work.

posted by Sohio on Dec 21, 2012 at 02:15:37 am     #  

Wonder if all those Hostess employees have gotten jobs yet.

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 21, 2012 at 03:44:09 am     #  

The two guys I know personally from there have found new jobs, but they both told me they know a lot of guys who have not, and that several of the guys have found work in other states or in other parts of Ohio and decided to leave...

posted by Sohio on Dec 21, 2012 at 06:34:16 am     #  

Don't let the facts Sohio posted get in the way of a good anti-union rant, maddie.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 21, 2012 at 04:43:18 pm     #  

Next time you talk to them ask them if knowing the end result if they would have taken more cuts or changed some of the contracting items like separate trucks for snacks and breads.

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 21, 2012 at 09:29:16 pm     #  

I did ask them that. The two people I know personally, and one other person my dad is friends with who worked there, have all said the same thing: they felt like they had taken their lumps long enough, working there was really starting to suck, they had already made concessions in the recent past, and the consensus was that no matter what happened there was a good chance Hostess was doomed and it was worth the risk to strike. Of course, that is just the opinion of three people I happen to know (two, actually, plus one indirectly), however, since that seems to be what the members of that union voted to do, I guess it is a credible assessment.

I am not intimately familiar with how their negotiations went. It is possible that they DID offer to eliminate some of those work rules in exchange for keeping other things. That is kind of what negotiations are...each side puts forth what they are willing and unwilling to accept. Pure speculation on my part here, but...I have a hard time believing that, had Hostess offered an acceptable pay and benefit package, the workers would have shut the place down and gone jobless right before Christmas just to keep a silly old work rule regarding separate trucks.

And before GZ screams about how unions intentionally do things like that just to be little bitches, let me point out that it does not benefit the union to have dues-paying members turned into jobless, non-dues-paying former-members.

posted by Sohio on Dec 22, 2012 at 02:33:19 am     #   2 people liked this

It does seem counterproductive to get your members fired and lose them as members. I think the management was so far gone from what the original and subsequent management was prior to the last set they lost contact of what the company meant or their identity as a company. Bottom line investors only care about the return not necessarily about the livelihood of employees or the heritage of a company or its history. Look at all the malls in Toledo they got sold off to distant investment groups and fell into shitty conditions. You cant draw people to a crappy mall and thus begin their death spirals. Treating your employees crappy over time and any incentive to give any effort goes away and a good job turns into a hated chore. Well I wish them luck and hope they find something they can live with.

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 22, 2012 at 04:41:21 am     #  

http://youtu.be/EJ-z2QyZjh8

Not to dredge up an old topic...but in this thread, I had quoted second-hand some people I know who worked for Hostess, on their perspective on what went down. Here's a video that gives some employee views first-hand (albeit not local employees, I don't think). Agree or disagree, hearing it straight from the source is always better than second-hand.

posted by Sohio on Mar 02, 2013 at 12:11:09 pm     #   1 person liked this

Twinkies due on shelves by summer as $410 million bid OK'd
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/companies/twinkies-buyer/

Various quotes:

''
Twinkies and other Hostess snacks could be back on shelves by this summer after a successful $410 million bid for the business.

The winning bid is a joint venture by private equity firms Apollo Global Management (APO) and Metropoulos & Co. A statement from Dean Metropoulos, founder of one of the firms, confirmed they are the winning bidder.

The bankruptcy court had been set to have an auction among qualified bidders on Thursday, but Hostess notified the court late Monday that no other qualified bids had been submitted. That means the $410 million bid wins by default with no further approval of the court being required.

Anthony Michael Sabino, a business school professor at St. John's University, said the lack of other bidders is no surprise, given the $410 million bid that needed to be topped.

"While the Bankruptcy Code seeks competitive bidding to increase recoveries to creditors, the law can't invent bidders," he said. "The good news is a significant amount of money to pay Hostess' creditors. The great news, Twinkies have been saved!"

Flowers Foods (FLO) won most of Hostess' bread business on Feb. 28 with a $360 million bid that included the Wonder, Nature's Pride, Merita, Home Pride and Butternut bread brands, as well as 20 bakeries.

Privately held McKee Foods Corp. was tapped as the leading bidder with its $27.5 million offer for Hostess' Drake's brand and some of its equipment. Drake's products include Ring Dings, Yodels, Devil Dogs and Yankee Doodles, as well as its coffee cake. That bid is still pending.
''

By my count, that's about $800 million in liquidation for the union-slain Hostess Brands company. There's over $2 billion that needs to be scraped out of Hostess Brands to sufficiently pay back creditors... but since at least half of that is union pensions, I'm not crying about it. I'd love to see the now unemployed union fools stare at a 20-cents-on-the-dollar offer for their ridiculous, business-killing pensions. You earned it, fellas! LOL!

posted by GuestZero on Mar 12, 2013 at 09:41:51 pm     #  

Pensions are a factor in the Detroit city bankruptcy as well. This is kind of a sad deal in some respects, as the people in the trenches simply accepted the pension as one of those things you can really count on in life. But now it's gone the way of the passenger pigeon and the dodo bird.

Thanks for posting the story, by the way. I hadn't seen it, and I'm glad I know about it now. Maybe they'll get Twinkies on the shelves by July 4th.

posted by madjack on Mar 13, 2013 at 11:08:20 am     #  

GuestZeroIQ,

If you'd watch the video I posted, you'd see that the employee pensions at Hostess were drawn directly out of their wages, to be sent to the union, who administered the pension fund (it equaled about $4.25 per hour, some of which went to a union death benefit). For the last few years of the company's existence, they took that money and simply KEPT IT. Then a bankruptcy judge ruled that Hostess didn't have to pay that money back...since they were bankrupt, after all...so they basically just got to run away it.

That said, I would love to hear your babbling explanation of how it was union pensions that felled Hostess; when the company actually STOLE the money they were supposed to send to the pension fund? I mean..since they were not actually dispatching the funds, it wasn't really costing them anything.

I know you don't have the patience to actually do any research of your own. Just like you do not have the courage to address any of the numerous challenges that I and others have leveled at your nonsense on other threads, and you likely will not address this one. But I thought I would throw that out there.

I patiently await your eternal absence of response...

posted by Sohio on Mar 13, 2013 at 05:47:32 pm     #   2 people liked this

"Then a bankruptcy judge ruled that Hostess didn't have to pay that money back...since they were bankrupt, after all...so they basically just got to run away it."

The key to your post.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 13, 2013 at 07:24:35 pm     #  

MikeyA posted at 07:24:35 PM on Mar 13, 2013:

"Then a bankruptcy judge ruled that Hostess didn't have to pay that money back...since they were bankrupt, after all...so they basically just got to run away it."

The key to your post.

Not really.

The key was that it was wrong for them to abscond with those funds in the first place; and that with the sale of these brand names, the workers who had that money stolen from them will not be among the 'creditors' who are paid back.

That, and you can't really blame debts for their downfall that they were not bothering to pay anyway...

posted by Sohio on Mar 13, 2013 at 08:42:17 pm     #  

Not to mention [referencing the video again] these union workers agreed to give $10 per week per employee back to the company to re-invest in the business.

Greedy bastards.

posted by Sohio on Mar 13, 2013 at 09:15:12 pm     #  

Look I'm not union slappy by any stretch of the imagination but if these people have a signed legal documents detailing the money they earned by said contract, then not only should they be compensated the executives who made the decision to steal their money should be doing a perp walk.

I've seen "Progressives" (which is still a make believe word for a make believe movement) up in arms about this and screaming "contact laws!!!" & "promises of future compensation!!!!", funny that "Progressives" didn't have a problem when the government allowed Chrysler and GM to walk away from secured credit and left people who invested their future and suppliers to take it in the pants so the UAW can keep afloat. Lots of retires pension funds and 401k's hit the tank because of this and no faux outrage from the John Stewart crowd.

If Hostesses never wanted to be a union shop they should have closed their doors and moved to a place that better suited their business needs when union petitions started circulating and not stole from their workers. Democrat or Republican we shouldn't be wiping our asses with contract law no matter what side of the isle it benefits.

posted by dbw8906 on Mar 14, 2013 at 06:16:38 am     #  

Despite all your talk a disinterested third party said they had no money and were unable to pay into it.

You can talk all you want but that is still the key. A disinterested legal representative ruled on the matter.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 14, 2013 at 07:30:39 pm     #  

Missed the point again, Mikey. They HAD the money...they took it from the workers.

They didn't take it in the form of a pay cut. They continued to pay the agreed-upon wages, they continued to seize the agreed-upon deductions...but instead of sending the proper amount of funds where they were supposed to go, they just KEPT IT. And you are correct in stating that what they did was perfectly legal [unfortunately]. Whether or not it was moral is another matter. Whether or not it allows Hostess to continue to credibly play the victim is yet another.

posted by Sohio on Mar 14, 2013 at 11:07:22 pm     #  

MikeyA CEO's/Business leaders are paid to make large, strategic moves. I feel no pity for corporations who fail because of poor choices.

As a small business owner for a couple of years, I made a few poor capital investments that forced me to liquidate and go back to being someone's work bitch again. All my choices where my fault, I didn't ask for anyone's pity or a bailout. I made poor choices, my bad and I had to keep moving. So did Hostess, lets stop going to bat for the CEO's because they are White, rich, and drive nice cars. They fucked up, end of story.

Lets stop this culture of foot washing business, the market doesn't send condolence cards. There are no such thing as "job creators" and companies don't "build communities". They are organizations comprised to make a profit, that's it.

posted by dbw8906 on Mar 15, 2013 at 07:39:08 am     #  

All my choices where my fault, I didn't ask for anyone's pity or a bailout. I made poor choices, my bad and I had to keep moving.

Taking personal responsibility labels you as - someone I'd go to work for in a minute.

You make a good point about Hostess and CEOs. The company didn't end up in bankruptcy in just one quarter or even one year. The management saw it coming and couldn't find a way to change the direction the company was headed in. We never hear much about a CEO that corrects a company's direction and steers it back into the black, particularly with mid-size companies.

posted by madjack on Mar 15, 2013 at 10:23:02 am     #  

We never hear much about a CEO that corrects a company's direction and steers it back into the black, particularly with mid-size companies.

Because those companies sell out to venture capitalist/corporations and are often times stripped for salvage or defended to reduce competition. Mid-Cap companies have the field leveled against them these days, once they start to fail the acid test lenders will not give them funds to correct it. They would rather see them go to the scrapheap as cheap parts.

The deck is stacked against you if you can't afford lobbyist for a bailout.

posted by dbw8906 on Mar 15, 2013 at 01:53:05 pm     #  

"They HAD the money...they took it from the workers." Sorry Sohio, Judge disagreed. FACT.

"So did Hostess, lets stop going to bat for the CEO's because they are White, rich, and drive nice cars." dwb you have a clear misunderstanding of my motives. I am an anti-unionist. I come from a union family. I watched a family member almost lose their home because of union negligence.

"All my choices where my fault, I didn't ask for anyone's pity or a bailout. I made poor choices, my bad and I had to keep moving." Unions refuse to do this. How many cities are failing because of pensions contracts written poorly. Now when the city must go bankrupt or renegiotiate the contract what do they do? Take responsibility or threaten more? Unions do not survive without threats.

"Because those companies sell out to venture capitalist/corporations and are often times stripped for salvage or defended to reduce competition." Not necessarily. Many times those companies do not make products cheaper and the consumer, even the "anti-corporation" ones, hence do not buy their product(s).

Don't believe me. Start your next post with the type of brand of hardware you are using to post your post.

I'll start: Dell

posted by MikeyA on Mar 15, 2013 at 06:21:18 pm     #  

MikeyA posted at 06:21:18 PM on Mar 15, 2013:

"They HAD the money...they took it from the workers." Sorry Sohio, Judge disagreed. FACT.

"So did Hostess, lets stop going to bat for the CEO's because they are White, rich, and drive nice cars." dwb you have a clear misunderstanding of my motives. I am an anti-unionist. I come from a union family. I watched a family member almost lose their home because of union negligence.

"All my choices where my fault, I didn't ask for anyone's pity or a bailout. I made poor choices, my bad and I had to keep moving." Unions refuse to do this. How many cities are failing because of pensions contracts written poorly. Now when the city must go bankrupt or renegiotiate the contract what do they do? Take responsibility or threaten more? Unions do not survive without threats.

"Because those companies sell out to venture capitalist/corporations and are often times stripped for salvage or defended to reduce competition." Not necessarily. Many times those companies do not make products cheaper and the consumer, even the "anti-corporation" ones, hence do not buy their product(s).

Don't believe me. Start your next post with the type of brand of hardware you are using to post your post.

I'll start: Dell

Dell, eh?

Dell is nothing more than a trademarked name put on things that are actually made by Foxconn or LiteOn or some other Silicon Back-Alley Chinese manufacturer with anti-suicide nets and razor wire surrounding the sweatshop, I mean "factory".

The only differences between Dell and Apple are the design/sex appeal/quality of their products, and how much pressure each company is getting over the working conditions at the Chinese sweatshops that make their products.

posted by anonymouscoward on Mar 15, 2013 at 07:57:33 pm     #  

In a Pew Global Attitudes survey conducted in March and April of this year, 70% of Chinese said they were better off financially than five years ago. And 92% said they enjoy a higher standard of living than their parents did at a similar age.

I'm happy for our Asian brethren.

posted by Danneskjold on Mar 15, 2013 at 09:39:51 pm     #  

What did you post from AC and Dan?

BTW, I never said I bought a Dell, I merely stated it was the brand of machine I posted from.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 19, 2013 at 04:06:28 pm     #  

Apparently the Hostess bakeries up in Canada still make Twinkies and were unaffected by the trouble here in the US market. Well at least according to one Facebook poster who said they bought some on a recent trip to Canada.

posted by Linecrosser on Mar 20, 2013 at 01:25:56 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 07:39:08 AM on Mar 15, 2013:

MikeyA CEO's/Business leaders are paid to make large, strategic moves. I feel no pity for corporations who fail because of poor choices.

As a small business owner for a couple of years, I made a few poor capital investments that forced me to liquidate and go back to being someone's work bitch again. All my choices where my fault, I didn't ask for anyone's pity or a bailout. I made poor choices, my bad and I had to keep moving. So did Hostess, lets stop going to bat for the CEO's because they are White, rich, and drive nice cars. They fucked up, end of story.

Lets stop this culture of foot washing business, the market doesn't send condolence cards. There are no such thing as "job creators" and companies don't "build communities". They are organizations comprised to make a profit, that's it.

I share the lack of pity for corporations who fail because of poor choices. As a person with the word "chief" in my role, I spend much of my time in a continual SWOT analysis.

I too was a small business owner. Well, until somebody decided to build a ballpark on top of me. Still, luck of the draw... I had to keep moving too. So you pull up the U-Haul and you do the Grapes of Wrath out to the suburbs. Ran the business in a wind-down mode for a year while I hit the streets with the shoe leather.

I was white, and wanted to be rich and drive nice cars, so naturally, I gravitated toward being a CEO. But you'll never guess what I found out. White men are passe. I missed the dam "white man" bubble. So, I can get a decent job and drive okay cars, but I am not rich. And frankly, there are only a few really high level gigs in this town. A couple of universities and a couple of health care system. And they want to illustrate their diversity in their hires. They don't want Toledoans. They want national level candidates, and even the recruiter is based in Chicago. Allan Brass has become Andrea Price.

I look forward to the stereotypes and reverse discrimination becoming as passe as white men. Until then, I'll keep reading what crooks "we" all are, and how none of us has any vision, we just want money at the expense of everyone who we employ. The oft-used imagery of the 19th century robber baron is not factual, although it does allow for easier de-humanization of "Evil CEOs" when we are looking for scapegoats for much larger, more complex issues.
Foot washing? I think that's next Thursday.

posted by justread on Mar 20, 2013 at 07:04:26 am     #  

JR not in anyway demonizing anyone who makes more money than me or is successful in anyway. I made the poor choice to invest in being the most high tech/new fangled service supplier in an industry that was purely basement level margin driven. I could not get a selling point to support my cost of goods sold, my bad.

Making a profit isn't evil, it's what business was created to do. But we shouldn't be lifting these people up as some sort of "hero", it's no the Republican version of being a "star fucker". It's no better than kissing the big fat ass of Kim Kardashian. Do you pat you neighbor on the back and thank him for going to work everyday, do you call your bother/brother in law and tell him good job for being a dad today... NO! Because that is what they should be doing!

The Republican star worship of CEO's is nothing but prepping the mindset that bailouts are "ok", because "you know without Mega Corp X where would your life be!". I don't know what the fuck I would do if I couldn't order a 100 dollar pair of sneakers on my phone while gulping down a gallon of free trade coffee.

Business should rise and fall on their own accord, stop signing the blues and telling my you need my money to "save jobs". BULLSHIT!

posted by dbw8906 on Mar 20, 2013 at 10:19:05 am     #  

Business should rise and fall on their own accord

I agree.

posted by justread on Mar 20, 2013 at 11:23:06 am     #  

Yeah, it's impossible to find a white male CEO these days.

posted by researcher on Mar 20, 2013 at 02:16:49 pm     #  

"The Republican star worship of CEO's is nothing but prepping the mindset that bailouts are "ok", because "you know without Mega Corp X where would your life be!". I don't know what the fuck I would do if I couldn't order a 100 dollar pair of sneakers on my phone while gulping down a gallon of free trade coffee."

Actually I'm not a CEO worshipper. What I request is that consumers use their power. As I demonstrated with posting the name of the device we post from onto here. Libs talk the talk but do not walk the walk. What are you posting from dwb? If it's a device made from a large corporation then you are the one worshipping at the alter of corporations because your money is what they value the most and you lay your sacrifice up for the offering.

"Business should rise and fall on their own accord, stop signing the blues and telling my you need my money to "save jobs". BULLSHIT!" I am against all bailouts be it bank or auto. Businesses will not rise and fall if we delegate our authority as consumers to government to pick who succeeds and fails.

The same is true of unions. I am glad Hostess failed because they allowed themselves to unionize, a horrible business decision. Yet we allow government in 26 states to tell those who don't want to associate with the union that they must still pay a union. Likewise, the collective bargaining arrangement that the unions negiotiated with Hostess were beyond dumb and caused HUGE labor costs to the point of doubling up on jobs that one person could do efficiently. Again not good business which is why it's no surprise they were going bankrupt but to deny the union had no part in that is just dumb. The union prevented cost saving measures in the interest of "saving jobs" yet in the end, everyone lost their job. They have a hand in the failure and to blame just CEO's is dishonest and wrong.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 20, 2013 at 07:43:51 pm     #  

researcher posted at 02:16:49 PM on Mar 20, 2013:

Yeah, it's impossible to find a white male CEO these days.

Yep. Quota's been met. Velvet rope got moved.
There was a memo.

posted by justread on Mar 20, 2013 at 09:22:59 pm     #  

Sorry Sohio, Judge disagreed. FACT.

Nope. Not a fact. The judge ruled that they did not have to pay that money back. He did not agree or disagree that they unfairly ripped it off.

What is an actual FACT is that they did, indeed, TAKE THAT MONEY OUT OF PEOPLES' PAYCHECKS. They did not even deny doing it. The fact that a judge ruled they could keep that money really is beside the point I was making.

posted by Sohio on Mar 22, 2013 at 11:30:48 pm     #  

Yet we allow government in 26 states to tell those who don't want to associate with the union that they must still pay a union.

Mikey, you show me any law that says you MUST pay a union, and I will LITERALLY kiss your butt. THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. I repeat: THERE IS NO LAW STATING YOU MUST PAY, BE A MEMBER OF, OR ASSOCIATE WITH A LABOR UNION; ON A FEDERAL LEVEL OR IN ANY STATE IN THE U.S.

The union prevented cost saving measures in the interest of "saving jobs" yet in the end, everyone lost their job.

If you would avail yourself of the resources I provided here, you'd know that what you are saying here is not entirely true. But, I am sure you won't bother to do that...because I can tell you are a person who is very content with your own ignorance.

posted by Sohio on Mar 22, 2013 at 11:39:13 pm     #  

Sohio, would you explain the rule of not allowing bread and pastries on the same truck? Wouldn't it make sense to send everything out on one truck to save on fuel and labor cost? I understand the reason the union wanted it that way but from the company's standpoint it makes more sense to deliver both at the same time with one driver instead of two. I don't think you could get rid of half the labor doing that though because the extra time and volume on the truck you would still need more than just the bread or pastry truck and drivers alone to deliver it all. I do think it would be something the union would fight tooth and nail over however.
I don't personally think those bigwigs in the company should of been paying themselves lucrative bonuses when they neither funded those pensions nor kept the company afloat. Doing a bad job as a employee or an employer should have some repercusions.

posted by Linecrosser on Mar 23, 2013 at 12:36:27 am     #  

What's to explain? I am not a former Hostess employee, corporate rep, or union rep. I can't speak for them. I'll give you my take on it, though.

My assumption is those rules are holdovers from better years. Whether or not those rules were born of legitimate labor or safety concerns years ago is hard to say, now. Sometimes, obsolete rules such as that one--that seem so crazy to us now--were inspired by actual realistic concerns from decades ago. Other times, they were a carrot thrown to the union by the company in exchange for giving up something else. Also, years ago, it was common for companies to grant sweetheart deals like that to the union during good times, in order to promote goodwill while funds were plentiful...but over the years most of those rocking-chair deals have been given up as unions have weakened.

I have heard a lot about that 'separate trucks' rule. Does it sound silly to me? Yes. Do I think it is something the unions would have been correct to at least consider amending or abolishing? Yes. What I have never heard, in every mention in the media of this silly rule, is any indication of whether or not Hostess ASKED the union to amend these rules; and what the union response in that case [if it did happen] was. Because they WERE asked to give concessions in pay and benefits, which, in many cases, THEY DID; including a 27% pay cut over five years and a $10-per-week give-back to the company for re-investment. If using multiple trucks was a hardship for the company, my question would be: did the company attempt to negotiate to get rid of this cumbersome rule? If the answer is yes, my next question would be: did the union stonewall them on that? If the answer to that is yes, I would agree that it was probably unreasonable of the union (unless they know something I don't, which is a possibility in any situation in life). If all of these conditions were met, I would concede the union was unreasonable on that clause. That's one. Would that be enough to bring down a company? Or can you name me several more...? Because I can name several instances where the union was quite reasonable and willing to give things up in order to help the company.

I do think it would be something the union would fight tooth and nail over however.

Pure speculation on your part. What do you base this assumption on? The union made plenty of concessions in the past...why would you automatically assume they would not concede this too, in order to save jobs? You said yourself: even by streamlining the truck traffic, the same amount of labor would be required. Who would do that work, the same guy? Those guys drive big trucks on the same streets the rest of us drive on. Is there any safety concern in doubling a man's workload? Would he get the same pay? Would he have extra time to make extra deliveries, and if not, might he be in more of a hurry and driving distracted? Is there any way streamlining it might actually result in more trucks on our roads? I don't know the answers, but in a case like that, these are questions that need to be asked by SOMEONE. Without all the facts, I hesitate to assume that what seems like a silly work-rule to me wasn't created in response to questions like these.

posted by Sohio on Mar 23, 2013 at 03:08:45 am     #   1 person liked this

LC,

I was thinking about it more. If I understand things correctly, the truck drivers were represented by the Teamsters, as opposed to the baker's union. As I recall, it was the baker's union that was protesting and striking, not the Teamsters. So, I am not sure this multiple-trucks-rule even entered into the main controversy; as far as the union aspect is concerned.

To elaborate on a point I made: without knowing for sure, we can't assume that this rule was not the end-result of a cost saving bargain for the company. While on the surface it may seem like an unreasonable expenditure for the company (and may well have been, I don't know) there is also the strong possibility that the Teamsters gave up certain other pay and benefits in return, creating a net savings for Hostess. Even if this was the case, of course, it would appear that it was not enough of a savings for Hostess to stay afloat.

I'll admit that I don't know the while story here; I am just going on what I know about how collective bargaining works. My point is simply that it is best not to jump to conclusions unless you have all the facts.

posted by Sohio on Mar 23, 2013 at 08:12:45 pm     #  

"THERE IS NO LAW STATING YOU MUST PAY, BE A MEMBER OF, OR ASSOCIATE WITH A LABOR UNION; ON A FEDERAL LEVEL OR IN ANY STATE IN THE U.S." It's called "fair share fee" and oh lookie here. Here's an article about them when SB5 was an issue. http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1069107145/Union-leaders-say-fair-share-fees-may-be-SB5-victim So spare me your lies.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 25, 2013 at 07:22:59 pm     #  

Mikey, READ YOUR OWN LINK:

"Currently, these fees are not a requirement, but unions can persuade employers to include them in labor contracts."

It is true that in a non-RTW state (such as Ohio), unions can (and usually do) negotiate security clauses. There is no law requiring them to do so.

There is, as I stated, no law of any type in any location in this nation that forces you to join or pay dues to a union. If you do not wish to pay dues to a union, you are free to:

1. Seek employment at a non-union shop;
2. Make efforts to disband the union in your workplace;
3. Seek a non-union position in the same company;
or,
4. Move to a RTW state, where you will be free to enjoy union benefits without paying for them.

So, again, I repeat: "THERE IS NO LAW STATING YOU MUST PAY, BE A MEMBER OF, OR ASSOCIATE WITH A LABOR UNION; ON A FEDERAL LEVEL OR IN ANY STATE IN THE U.S."

Looks like I won't be having to literally kiss your butt. Whew.

posted by Sohio on Mar 25, 2013 at 08:54:21 pm     #  

Do all conservatives want a nanny state with no personal accountability? If you don't like the terms of your employment, don't take the job.

posted by researcher on Mar 25, 2013 at 08:59:01 pm     #   2 people liked this

researcher posted at 08:59:01 PM on Mar 25, 2013:

Do all conservatives want a nanny state with no personal accountability? If you don't like the terms of your employment, don't take the job.

Bingo.

I hard worked to learn a portable skill set for that reason, I'm nobody bitch and I won't work someplace where I feel I'm being treated like one. My happiness isn't worth a paycheck.

If you don't support unions then don't by union made goods, plain and simple. Speak with the only thing business listens too, your wallet. Well that is unless an unscrupulous politician decides it's in his best voting interest to give a private company tons of your money to stay afloat...

posted by dbw8906 on Mar 26, 2013 at 07:26:48 am     #  

researcher posted at 08:59:01 PM on Mar 25, 2013:

Do all conservatives want a nanny state with no personal accountability? If you don't like the terms of your employment, don't take the job.

So you're perfectly ok with Walmart not unionizing?

posted by MikeyA on Mar 27, 2013 at 02:34:21 am     #  

""Currently, these fees are not a requirement, but unions can persuade employers to include them in labor contracts." So by legal contract between the employer and the union the employee does not have a say. RTW gives the employee a choice.

BTW a labor contract is a legally binding document. So again, please quit acting as if I work in a union shop and want no representation from a union that I'm still not required to pay union fees.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 27, 2013 at 02:38:25 am     #  

MikeyA posted at 02:34:21 AM on Mar 27, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:59:01 PM on Mar 25, 2013:

Do all conservatives want a nanny state with no personal accountability? If you don't like the terms of your employment, don't take the job.

So you're perfectly ok with Walmart not unionizing?

Yes, 100%. What would give you the impression otherwise? How strange.

posted by researcher on Mar 27, 2013 at 08:04:33 am     #  

MIkey, why do you always move the goal posts when you've been proven wrong?

So by legal contract between the employer and the union the employee does not have a say.

The employee DOES have a say: they are a voting member of the union. In addition to the other options I already named which give them control over their own lives.

RTW gives the employee a choice.

What it gives them is the option to receive representation for free. If the majority wants a union, a union will still be there. So, RTW gives you nothing you do not already have. What RTW is, in reality, is yet another BIG GOVERNMENT REGULATION, which I thought conservatives are supposed to be against...?

BTW a labor contract is a legally binding document.

But it is NOT A LAW. Do you know the difference?

So again, please quit acting as if I work in a union shop and want no representation from a union that I'm still not required to pay union fees.

I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. If you work in a union shop in Ohio, you WILL have to pay union dues. Unless you take action as I described before.

Mikey, you said "Yet we allow government in 26 states to tell those who don't want to associate with the union that they must still pay a union."

I repeat: THERE IS NO LAW STATING YOU MUST PAY, BE A MEMBER OF, OR ASSOCIATE WITH A LABOR UNION; ON A FEDERAL LEVEL OR IN ANY STATE IN THE U.S.

Can you prove me wrong, or not?

posted by Sohio on Mar 27, 2013 at 08:07:52 am     #  

So hip I never mentioned a law. You did. I stated 26 states allow for Fair share fees. That is correct. No goalposts were moved.

If the worker does not even want the representation they still must pay for it based upon a legal contract they do not support and did not have a negotiator at the table that that employee approves of.

The fact is fair share fees DO happen against the will of some workers. You attempted to act as if they do not by saying there is no law. The fact that there is no law is irrelevant if they are legal and binding.

If anyone is moving goalposts it is you. Earlier you stated that no one can FORCE you to join a union yet then you say the worker obtains free representation. If the I as a worker do not want to join or associate with a union why should they retain the right to represent me against my wishes AND THEN force me to pay them for that representation?

posted by MikeyA on Mar 27, 2013 at 09:32:54 am     #  

researcher posted at 08:04:33 AM on Mar 27, 2013:
MikeyA posted at 02:34:21 AM on Mar 27, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:59:01 PM on Mar 25, 2013:

Do all conservatives want a nanny state with no personal accountability? If you don't like the terms of your employment, don't take the job.

So you're perfectly ok with Walmart not unionizing?

Yes, 100%. What would give you the impression otherwise? How strange.

I never said you were for or against it which is why I asked a question.

I am glad you support that freedom.

Then I am curious how you feel RTW is a "nanny state" when under it the worker has more options for the money they have earned? If anything it's anti-nanny state.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 27, 2013 at 09:36:51 am     #  

Sohio I had typed your name previously as soho but autocorrect switched it to so hip. Please don't think I was trying to insult you in any way.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 27, 2013 at 09:38:44 am     #  

MikeyA posted at 09:38:44 AM on Mar 27, 2013:

Sohio I had typed your name previously as soho but autocorrect switched it to so hip. Please don't think I was trying to insult you in any way.

That has happened before on this board. No offense taken...I kind of like it!

posted by Sohio on Mar 27, 2013 at 10:16:46 am     #  

Also...'Sohio' is not really my name, so even if you were mangling my screen name to insult me, it's not like it would have been such a horrible social infraction. I think the occasional toying with a person's screen name in order to poke at them is a fairly regular occurrence on boards such as these.

posted by Sohio on Mar 27, 2013 at 10:19:00 am     #  

I stated 26 states allow for Fair share fees.

Here is what you stated:

"Yet we allow government in 26 states to tell those who don't want to associate with the union that they must still pay a union."

The government says no such thing. What the government does in those 26 states is STAY OUT OF THE WAY and let two organizations negotiate as they see fit. I prefer small government, so I prefer it the way it is in those 26 states. I feel like myself and my co-workers can decide if we want a union without the interference of government. And if we don't want to pay fair-share fees, I feel like we can build a majority of that opinion and direct our union to strike our security clause without the interference of government. If you like big government to poke their nose into your employment situation, I guess that is your prerogative. I can do without it.

Earlier you stated that no one can FORCE you to join a union yet then you say the worker obtains free representation.

You do. Even if you are in a RTW state, and decline to pay union dues or accept a representative in disciplinary cases, you still work under the contract that is negotiated, and you get those benefits for free. But you were not FORCED to join the union in any case.

The fact is fair share fees DO happen against the will of some workers. You attempted to act as if they do not

Have you ever read any of my posts on this board? I have never denied the existence of fair-share laws.

by saying there is no law.

There isn't.

The fact that there is no law is irrelevant if they are legal and binding.

A contract between two parties is not the same as a law, Mikey. You are free to abstain from entering into a contract...you are NOT free to disobey a law.

If the I as a worker do not want to join or associate with a union why should they retain the right to represent me against my wishes AND THEN force me to pay them for that representation?

Because you knowingly took a job at a shop where a majority of employees have legally elected to unionize. You keep using the word 'force.' NOBODY IS FORCING YOU. Mikey, there are PLENTY of non-union jobs around here; GO GET ONE! If you hate unions, FINE...don't take a union job. If a certain job is SO GOOD that you cannot resist taking it even though it's a union job, then I guess that means you found a pretty good job, SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

You mentioned Walmart...why not go work there if you don't want to be in a union? You seem to be all for Walmart and Walmart employees electing not to unionize...why are so disdainful of the freedoms other people have to collectively organize? Surely you don't wish for Americans to have FEWER rights...?

Then I am curious how you feel RTW is a "nanny state" when under it the worker has more options for the money they have earned?

It is 'nanny state' because instead of leaving it up to corporations and labor organizations to decide which terms they wish to agree to, it dictates to them.

More than being 'nanny state,' though, what it really is is a weasel word. It does not protect any 'right to work.' Nobody is impeding your 'right to work.' What it does is make it possible for you to work in a union shop without paying dues. That is all it does. Without RTW, you may have to work in a union shop and pay dues; but nobody is stopping you from working. In fact, RTW laws do nothing to curb the concept of 'at-will' employment, which actually CAN infringe on your right to work, since you can be fired for no reason at all...why don't the RTW people care about THAT? They have to give it a name like that, though, so that it sounds like a really great idea.

posted by Sohio on Mar 27, 2013 at 11:05:07 am     #  

"The government says no such thing. What the government does in those 26 states is STAY OUT OF THE WAY and let two organizations negotiate as they see fit." No, the gov't can hold me financially responsible for a arbitration that I do not condone. That is EXACTLY what I claimed. No goalposts moved no claims of a "law"

"Even if you are in a RTW state, and decline to pay union dues or accept a representative in disciplinary cases, you still work under the contract that is negotiated," Yes but in a RTW I don't have to pay for it. It's one thing for me to plug my nose and take it, it's another thing to require me to pay for representation I don't want.

"You seem to be all for Walmart and Walmart employees electing not to unionize...why are so disdainful of the freedoms other people have to collectively organize?" I never said I was against them collectively organizing. Yet, additionally I believe Walmart has the right to not accept that organization. So..... Surely you don't wish for Americans to have FEWER rights...?

"It is 'nanny state' because instead of leaving it up to corporations and labor organizations to decide which terms they wish to agree to, it dictates to them." RTW dictates nothing. NOTHING. It says if I don't want to pay for representation I don't want I don't HAVE to.

Now I will agree the term RTW itself is a misnomer but it's like that with many other issues as well.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 27, 2013 at 12:17:29 pm     #  

MikeyA posted at 09:36:51 AM on Mar 27, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:04:33 AM on Mar 27, 2013:
MikeyA posted at 02:34:21 AM on Mar 27, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:59:01 PM on Mar 25, 2013:

Do all conservatives want a nanny state with no personal accountability? If you don't like the terms of your employment, don't take the job.

So you're perfectly ok with Walmart not unionizing?

Yes, 100%. What would give you the impression otherwise? How strange.

I never said you were for or against it which is why I asked a question.

I am glad you support that freedom.

Then I am curious how you feel RTW is a "nanny state" when under it the worker has more options for the money they have earned? If anything it's anti-nanny state.

I don't support the government taking away the right of workers to unionize and agree to contracts as they see fit. Workers always had options. RTW is strictly a political move, not a practical one.

posted by researcher on Mar 27, 2013 at 12:29:01 pm     #  

No, the gov't can hold me financially responsible for a arbitration that I do not condone.

Yes they can, if you accept membership in a collective which condones such arbitration. You accept this membership when you freely choose to take a union job.

That is EXACTLY what I claimed.

What you claimed was: "Yet we allow government in 26 states to tell those who don't want to associate with the union that they must still pay a union."

Despite the fact that there IS NO SUCH STATUTE. The government in those cases is not 'telling' you anything. A union and company can agree to an 'open shop' if they choose to, and the government would have no say whatsoever. I am not going to debate you on that any further, Mikey. You know what you said. It's right there in black and white. And it's patently false.

Yet, additionally I believe Walmart has the right to not accept that organization.

They don't have that right. To do so would be an unfair labor practice. So no, I do not wish for Americans to have FEWER rights, including the Walton family; since it would be impossible to advocate for them to forfeit a right they do not have in the first place.

RTW dictates nothing. NOTHING.

It DOES dictate. It specifically names a clause to which the two parties may not legally agree.

It says if I don't want to pay for representation I don't want I don't HAVE to.

A right which you already have, without RTW. If you don't want a union job, don't take a union job. Or, avail yourself of the many other options to avoid being in the union I listed previously.

posted by Sohio on Mar 27, 2013 at 12:44:44 pm     #  

"Despite the fact that there IS NO SUCH STATUTE. The government in those cases is not 'telling' you anything. A union and company can agree to an 'open shop' if they choose to, and the government would have no say whatsoever. I am not going to debate you on that any further, Mikey. You know what you said. It's right there in black and white. And it's patently false." Again I never stated there was a statute. If it wasn't true there would be no such thing as RTW laws.

"So no, I do not wish for Americans to have FEWER rights, including the Walton family; since it would be impossible to advocate for them to forfeit a right they do not have in the first place." Ah but they do. There are numbers of owners who have relocated and or closed when faced with such a scenario. It's another version of what Hostess did, it's what's happening with several government's who've now realized the collective bargaining agreements they signed are fiscally untenable. As GZ has told you countless times in this thread, you cannot beat simple economics.

"You accept this membership when you freely choose to take a union job." Negative, that individual refuses union membership in that scenario... unless are you arguing forced membership?

posted by MikeyA on Mar 27, 2013 at 03:35:53 pm     #  

We're talking in circles here, Mikey. You aren't presenting any new arguments, just the same old refuted ones over and over. I notice you like to do this, much like you did on the global warming thread. Is that how you troll? I must admit I fall for that tactic rather easily, owing to my low tolerance for nonsense. Nicely played.

I have proven your assertions wrong several times over. So, for an answer to your latest post, see the several previous posts.

Unless you can demonstrate a situation in which the government can unilaterally force union membership upon you, as you initially suggested, I decline to discuss this with you any further.

posted by Sohio on Mar 27, 2013 at 05:16:52 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 12:11:09 PM on Mar 02, 2013:

http://youtu.be/EJ-z2QyZjh8

Not to dredge up an old topic...but in this thread, I had quoted second-hand some people I know who worked for Hostess, on their perspective on what went down. Here's a video that gives some employee views first-hand (albeit not local employees, I don't think). Agree or disagree, hearing it straight from the source is always better than second-hand.

Just moving this link up, it kind of got buried. For anyone who wants to her the other side of this mess...

posted by Sohio on Mar 27, 2013 at 05:18:38 pm     #  

It's a strange position for a conservative to take: supporting government intervention in your employment options.

I can't understand the mindset that would prefer the government to make such decisions over a collective of active employees. I can understand it from an illogical political game, but certainly not from practicality.

Are you a business owner where this actually affects you? How does it affect you, exactly?

posted by researcher on Mar 27, 2013 at 07:51:22 pm     #  

researcher posted at 07:51:22 PM on Mar 27, 2013:

It's a strange position for a conservative to take: supporting government intervention in your employment options.

I can't understand the mindset that would prefer the government to make such decisions over a collective of active employees. I can understand it from an illogical political game, but certainly not from practicality.

Are you a business owner where this actually affects you? How does it affect you, exactly?

researcher, how is it government intervention? All that is said by a RTW law is if I don't agree/support the union I won't have to pay them. Where is the government intervention?

No I am not a business owner. At one point I was a union member, I got screwed by them and didn't want their representation by them but I would have still had to pay them for "services" I didn't want/need/use.

Later my father had an issue. The union made sure to get their money and my parents almost lost their house. My father was a union employee for 35+ years and in his words "I would have been better off smoking dope, they would have sent me home for a year with full pay and right before they and the company agreed I should have been fired I could have dropped my retirement paperwork and not lost a cent."

Needless to say because of my Dad's incident the rest of my family went from being pro-union to anti-union and pro-RTW.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 29, 2013 at 09:34:26 am     #  

Mikey,

It is government intervention because it creates a needless regulation where there was not one before.

I say 'needless' because it is just that: needless. Everything RTW claims to do, can already be done by the parties affected (ie unions, union members, and employers). Without RTW, the process is admittedly horribly inefficient, as it is with any form of democratic process, and it also means that I don't always get my way. But I'll take that option over being dictated to any day. Union members vote on the terms of their contract; if a majority does not wish to be compelled to pay dues, they can vote likewise. If a company does not like the idea of compulsory dues, they can sanction the union to get rid of it...and the union can agree, give something else up instead, or go on strike. And in case you think RTW is your ticket away from union servitude, think again: Nevada is a RTW state with a unionization rate higher than the national average.

I'm sorry your dad had a bad experience with his union. I hate to say it, but I've had a few bad experiences myself. Unions are imperfect things run by imperfect humans; and over the years their imperfections seem to have increased a little bit. From experience, I would say that if your dad could not see the benefits he received over a 35+ career from being a union employee, my guess is that he was not very strong for the union in the first place. That is a prejudice that sets in early in some folks, and stays there no matter what happens. Just a guess. In any event, it cannot have been that bad, considering he stayed for 35+ years? I am also curious how the union was responsible for your dad almost losing his house, but I do not suppose that is any of my business.

I also find it interesting that you allow your personal bad experience to make up your mind as to whether or not organized labor is a good thing or bad thing OVERALL. That's really a dangerous slope to be on. I have an idea what your disposition on gun control is, from other threads on this board. If you want to rely on personal experiences as the sole factor in deciding something's worth, I can think of a lot of people who have had hardships in life because of a person with a gun. So can we assume that all people who have lost a loved one to a bullet and are consequently in favor of draconian gun control have an iron-clad argument?

posted by Sohio on Mar 29, 2013 at 01:34:47 pm     #  

Did I just get asked how a politically-led and motivated law is an intervention by the government?

Look, if you don't want to work with food, don't take a job in a restaurant. If you don't want to sit down all day, don't take an office job. If you don't want to be in a union, don't take a union job. Why do you need the government for that?

posted by researcher on Mar 29, 2013 at 02:57:50 pm     #  

The only people "screwed" by the unions were bad employees who deserved it. Very revealing, MikeyA.

posted by researcher on Mar 29, 2013 at 02:59:00 pm     #  

researcher posted at 02:59:00 PM on Mar 29, 2013:

The only people "screwed" by the unions were bad employees who deserved it. Very revealing, MikeyA.

I can't agree with you there, researcher. Unions are not pure as the driven snow. Despite my frequent defense of them, I'm unwilling to agree to such a broad generalization...

posted by Sohio on Mar 29, 2013 at 05:28:00 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 05:28:00 PM on Mar 29, 2013:
researcher posted at 02:59:00 PM on Mar 29, 2013:

The only people "screwed" by the unions were bad employees who deserved it. Very revealing, MikeyA.

I can't agree with you there, researcher. Unions are not pure as the driven snow. Despite my frequent defense of them, I'm unwilling to agree to such a broad generalization...

It was nothing more than a little dig. Don't take it seriously.

My only personal experience with unions is membership in faculty unions. They resemble none of the characterizations provided by the anti-union crowd here.

posted by researcher on Mar 29, 2013 at 09:23:52 pm     #  

It was nothing more than a little dig. Don't take it seriously.

Duly noted.

posted by Sohio on Mar 29, 2013 at 10:12:11 pm     #  

All of you are over complicating this issue. If a shop can turn a profit while being a "union made" then that's awesome. People are continuing to get paid and the local economy will chug on. Nobody said you had to work there. If the people who work their are happy with the working conditions and pay scale then who is government to say it a union is right or wrong. Fake Conservatives need to stop using government to get their way or too stick it to the Democrats. Your no better than they are when it comes to government regulation, your a bullshitter.

The issue I have is when some politician from a union town needs to stick his hand in my pocket and take money to support a business that aligns with his voting block to keep a bloated, cost heavy operation afloat. If the "union way" is so damn great then you shouldn't need any of my sweat equity to keep it going. When we bailout this inefficient operation do the CEO's ever take a haircut... NOPE! "Progessives" love to scream about handout to the rich man all the while bailouts do nothing to force reduction of corporate waste. Last I checked the UAW Golf Course is still pristine and the cost of the private jet to fly Sergio Marchionne back and forth to Europe is baked into every Chrysler. The 1% made out much better than the UAW worker in the bailout, your a fool to believe otherwise.

Rise and fall with your own dollars and do whatever you want to do.

posted by dbw8906 on Mar 30, 2013 at 08:56:47 am     #  

researcher posted at 02:59:00 PM on Mar 29, 2013:

The only people "screwed" by the unions were bad employees who deserved it. Very revealing, MikeyA.

Really? So a union employee who has paid 35+ years of dues deserves to almost lose his house because he "deserved it".

And this is the problem of pay to play politics which is exactly what the unions are an extension of.

posted by MikeyA on Mar 31, 2013 at 11:27:45 am     #  

MikeyA posted at 11:27:45 AM on Mar 31, 2013:
researcher posted at 02:59:00 PM on Mar 29, 2013:

The only people "screwed" by the unions were bad employees who deserved it. Very revealing, MikeyA.

Really? So a union employee who has paid 35+ years of dues deserves to almost lose his house because he "deserved it".

And this is the problem of pay to play politics which is exactly what the unions are an extension of.

Maybe. Paying dues for 35+ years doesn't eliminate the possibility of the person being a poor employee or making bad decisions. You post convenient little biased snippets of a story and think you're making a point.

posted by researcher on Apr 01, 2013 at 08:06:41 am     #  

First, it's not the job of the union to decide who is a poor employee and who makes bad decisions. That's the problem of unions. It's the supervisor's job to make those type of determinations. If what you say is true then there is no need for unions.

The union's job is to be an advocate for employees. Yet they most times end up being an advocate for political parties and employees. That is why they have outlived their usefullness.

posted by MikeyA on Apr 01, 2013 at 11:33:50 am     #  

MikeyA posted at 11:33:50 AM on Apr 01, 2013:

First, it's not the job of the union to decide who is a poor employee and who makes bad decisions. That's the problem of unions. It's the supervisor's job to make those type of determinations. If what you say is true then there is no need for unions.

The union's job is to be an advocate for employees. Yet they most times end up being an advocate for political parties and employees. That is why they have outlived their usefullness.

I never claimed that the union should make those decisions. The more you rant without providing details, the more obvious that you and your father were a problem. The unions can advocate all they want, but that doesn't mean they'll get their way. If you were a poor employee or made bad decisions, the union can advocate and you can still lose your job (and home).

Can you expand on your absurd statement that "most times end up being an advocate for political parties and employees"? Most times? Really?

If they've outlived their usefulness, why are so many union members passionate about protecting them?

You've let emotion win over logic.

posted by researcher on Apr 01, 2013 at 12:27:43 pm     #  

"I never claimed that the union should make those decisions." Yes you did. That's EXACTLY what you did.

" If you were a poor employee or made bad decisions, the union can advocate and you can still lose your job (and home)." My father's issue was a medical one. It had nothing to do with decisions. It had to do with him having a dangerous job and his heart condition, while being monitored by a doctor, did not allow him to do that job, he could have done others but the contract required he only work his job and since he couldn't the contract required that the company pay him a stipend and not allow him to work another job. On the flip side, had he shown poor judgement by say bringing marijuana into work, he would have sat at home per the contract, still collected full pay while his case was adjudicated through the contractual process (about a year in most cases) AND if that had been his situation, he could have still retired just prior to the case being fully adjudicated and he'd receive no reprecussions.

"If they've outlived their usefulness, why are so many union members passionate about protecting them?

You've let emotion win over logic." Passion is an emotion, and hence, not logical. You're countering your own argument.

"Can you expand on your absurd statement that "most times end up being an advocate for political parties and employees"? Most times? Really?" Yes, my father's union was/is highly involved in the Toledo Democrat Party. My brother's union (another union) told him "he would" vote for John Kerry, when he told them his vote was his own business they suggested he would lose work. Needless to say neither are involved with either union anymore. The two unions I belonged two in my life, the UFCW and Teamsters, neither directly benefitted me directly in fact both were very useless.

I give these examples because we were a union family. That is no longer. My family is now donating and volunteering to collect signatures to put RTW on the ballot.

posted by MikeyA on Apr 01, 2013 at 01:46:23 pm     #  

MikeyA posted at 01:46:23 PM on Apr 01, 2013:

"I never claimed that the union should make those decisions." Yes you did. That's EXACTLY what you did.

" If you were a poor employee or made bad decisions, the union can advocate and you can still lose your job (and home)." My father's issue was a medical one. It had nothing to do with decisions. It had to do with him having a dangerous job and his heart condition, while being monitored by a doctor, did not allow him to do that job, he could have done others but the contract required he only work his job and since he couldn't the contract required that the company pay him a stipend and not allow him to work another job. On the flip side, had he shown poor judgement by say bringing marijuana into work, he would have sat at home per the contract, still collected full pay while his case was adjudicated through the contractual process (about a year in most cases) AND if that had been his situation, he could have still retired just prior to the case being fully adjudicated and he'd receive no reprecussions.

"If they've outlived their usefulness, why are so many union members passionate about protecting them?

You've let emotion win over logic." Passion is an emotion, and hence, not logical. You're countering your own argument.

"Can you expand on your absurd statement that "most times end up being an advocate for political parties and employees"? Most times? Really?" Yes, my father's union was/is highly involved in the Toledo Democrat Party. My brother's union (another union) told him "he would" vote for John Kerry, when he told them his vote was his own business they suggested he would lose work. Needless to say neither are involved with either union anymore. The two unions I belonged two in my life, the UFCW and Teamsters, neither directly benefitted me directly in fact both were very useless.

I give these examples because we were a union family. That is no longer. My family is now donating and volunteering to collect signatures to put RTW on the ballot.

No, I didn't. You misunderstood and continue to misunderstand.

So how was your father "screwed" by the union, again?

I'm not countering my own argument at all. Those are two separate arguments with separate implications and different points. You misunderstood, yet again.

So, in other words, you have anecdotal complaints about a union due a falsely perceived "screwing". Limited to a tiny percentage of people and unions.

Good thing you're admitting to allowing yourself to being nothing more than a political pawn in silly cause. You want government intervention because you're not mature enough to make decisions for yourself.

posted by researcher on Apr 01, 2013 at 02:40:14 pm     #  

It had to do with him having a dangerous job and his heart condition, while being monitored by a doctor, did not allow him to do that job, he could have done others but the contract required he only work his job and since he couldn't the contract required that the company pay him a stipend

You are not making sense. What you've said here is that the contract stipulated that he be taken off of his job for a medical condition and that the company continue to pay him? So, because your dad had a contract, he was able to take LTD and still be paid. What's the problem? Did the union stand idly by while the company violated the contract...?

and not allow him to work another job.

This is standard, by the way. Did it ever occur to you that if they took your dad off of his job due to his heart condition, and placed him on another job, the person working that other job is now displaced? How is that fair? That's not just the union perspective, either. Suppose your dad wanted to move onto a job that displaced a person who had worked it for 15 years and knew it like the back of his hand...does that sound like a good deal for the company? Do you think that any company would agree to let a union create that clause when they could just rely on LTD instead?

he could have still retired just prior to the case being fully adjudicated and he'd receive no reprecussions.

Why didn't he just retire then? If he knew his heart condition was going to put him on LTD?

Sounds to me like you might want to THANK his union. My grandfather was a pre-union coal miner in southern Ohio. He lost an eye on the job, and they required him to continue to work his job, eyepatch or no, and if his lack of depth perception caused an accident...oh well. It was that or quit. Or be fired. We can go back to those days if you'd like...in fact, we already are.

when he told them his vote was his own business they suggested he would lose work.

This sounds embellished to me...but if it is true, it's illegal. It's called electioneering. Why didn't your brother report the union to the Board of Elections? Was it an actual direct threat, or just election rhetoric? There is a difference you know; and if your brother cannot withstand election-year rhetoric, I would say he is even more thin-skinned than you are...

My family is now donating and volunteering to collect signatures to put RTW on the ballot.

Good. That should be some good exercise for you, anyway. I wonder if you or your family ever were so proactive in the workings of your union?

Really? So a union employee who has paid 35+ years of dues deserves to almost lose his house because he "deserved it".

Even after you've given more details, I am still confused as to what you expected the union to do about your dad losing his house. The union is there to enforce the contract...nothing more. Did the union fail to do that? It sounds to me like maybe you or your dad expected things from the union that the union was never designed to provide...

posted by Sohio on Apr 01, 2013 at 04:39:57 pm     #  

"No, I didn't. You misunderstood and continue to misunderstand." So then elaborate on what you mean. Don't just say "you don't understand" and leave it be. Explain what I'm getting wrong in your opinion.

What's the problem? Did the union stand idly by while the company violated the contract...? The problem is he recieved 1/7th of his pay, of which the union took full dues. Whereas under the other scenario he would have received full pay.

"Why didn't he just retire then? If he knew his heart condition was going to put him on LTD?" He couldn't receive a full pension because of his age. As soon as he rated his full pension he took it a year later.

"Why didn't your brother report the union to the Board of Elections? Was it an actual direct threat, or just election rhetoric? There is a difference you know; and if your brother cannot withstand election-year rhetoric, I would say he is even more thin-skinned than you are..." He believed it was an actual threat. At the time he needed his job, since he was the only one who questioned it those involved would have known who made the complaint. The point was/is the union fostered a climate of reprisal.

"I wonder if you or your family ever were so proactive in the workings of your union? Actually it was. When I was old enough my parents allowed me to stand on a picket line with my Dad and Grandfather. AND, he never missed a union vote, want me to tell stories of us waiting to go on vacation until Dad got home from the union meeting?

"The union is there to enforce the contract...nothing more. Did the union fail to do that? It sounds to me like maybe you or your dad expected things from the union that the union was never designed to provide... The point is the union does more to protect the members who commit crimes that it does hard working members with legitimate medical concerns. My father still wanted to work, was willing to work another job for less pay in order to still work. The Company would have taken him at another job. It was the union who wouldn't allow it. They wrote a contract that they recommended their membership pass that protected criminals more than hard-working members with seniority.

posted by MikeyA on Apr 01, 2013 at 06:38:35 pm     #  

Of course we're probably arguing a dead issue.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/31/heartbeat-bill-divides-ohio-evenly.html

Since 65% in OHIO support becoming a Right to Work state via state issue then unions will most likely cease to exist as they currently do and will have to remodel themselves.

posted by MikeyA on Apr 01, 2013 at 07:58:06 pm     #  

He believed it was an actual threat. At the time he needed his job, since he was the only one who questioned it those involved would have known who made the complaint. The point was/is the union fostered a climate of reprisal.

So, was this the union saying "vote for this guy or we'll see to it that you don't get as much work," or was it "vote for this guy because the other guy will enact policies that will upset your industry"? Because I really don't see how they could make good on the former threat; since your ballot is secret. And the latter isn't really a threat, it's a political endorsement. And if anyone--the union, the company, or otherwise--came into MY workplace and told us who we HAD to vote for, 'OR ELSE,' there would be a lot more than just one person complaining...that sounds odd to me too. How was your brother the only person bothered by that? Seems fishy. In any event, if he was indeed being harassed, there is not much that can be done if he doesn't report it.

The problem is he recieved 1/7th of his pay, of which the union took full dues.

1/7th of his pay? Are you sure you're telling the whole story here? Typical LTD coverage is between around %50-%70. Even if he was on the low end of that, I couldn't see it being much lower than 40-45. 1/7 is like 14% of his pay; and even the weakest unions I know of are able to snag a far better share than that. How in the world did he wind up with such a low LTD benefit? I am not calling you a liar, Mikey, but this sounds skewed to me.

Whereas under the other scenario he would have received full pay.

I'm curious as to how your dad's union contract protected criminals. Most union contracts only cover disciplinary procedures where discipline exists. In the case of illegal drugs, any employer has the right to draw up a drug control policy, independent of the contract with the union, since they have the right to mitigate illegal activity on their property. The only angle the union would have would be if say, they busted one guy for smoking pot and gave him one day off, and busted another guy and fired him. That would be discrimination, which is illegal, and they can't break the law in the process of punishing a person for breaking the law. But apart form that, a company has the freedom to [FAIRLY] punish you for breaking the law on their time and property. I would guess whatever leeway drug users were getting was coming from the company.

want me to tell stories of us waiting to go on vacation until Dad got home from the union meeting?

Not really...it sounds like you already told me the best part of the story anyway. I will say that, for a person which such a stated history in union employment, you are displaying an ignorance of how it all works that I find suspicious, though...

My father still wanted to work, was willing to work another job for less pay in order to still work. The Company would have taken him at another job.

That would not surprise me too much. Companies love to ignore terms of the contracts they agree to. So, you are saying it would have been OK to bump another person off of his job so your dad could work for less money? Do you think the other union worker who got bumped from his job would have thought THAT was fair? Did your dad know how to do every job in the shop, or would he have had to be trained?

It was the union who wouldn't allow it.

The union cannot, in good faith, allow anything that goes against the contract.

They wrote a contract that they recommended their membership pass that protected criminals more than hard-working members with seniority.

First of all, seniority does not mean that you can bump another person off of his job any time you please or any time you have health issues. Second, it doesn't sound to me like your dad was not protected. If he'd worked non-union, like my wife does, he would have had no LTD benefit at all, and since it doesn't sound like his illness was work-related, he would not have been eligible for worker's comp. So even if all he got was 14% of his pay (which I still say does not sound quite right to me), had he not had a contract, he may have gotten nothing, which is what my wife has gotten when she's gone on LTD for her health issues (FMLA pays nothing).

As for union dues, that is precisely why our union switched to a percentage-based dues structure as opposed to flat-rate. In our case, were that to happen, our dues would drop automatically as a result of our income dropping. We were able to persuade our union to move to this system all by ourselves...didn't need any government help at all. it was like MAGIC.

Now let me say this: if his union did nothing to help him, that's shitty. And by 'union,' I mean the MEMBERS. In my union, when one guy gets sick like that, the first thing we do is vote to send him some money from the union coffers. Then, to supplement that, we take a collection from the membership, and if the person if off for something severe, we may plan a benefit dinner or something--or just take another collection (we have a large enough body that if everyone just gives a few dollars, we can send a person a few thousand bucks.) One guy went off on permanent disability as a result of becoming paralyzed and a few of our members went to his house and built him a wheelchair ramp. I will admit that not all union bodies have this sense of solidarity anymore, and that is sad.

Go ahead and champion RTW, Mikey. I might remind you that under RTW, another person in your dad's situation would have gotten the more-than-nothing benefit [whatever it happens to be] without paying for it, while everyone who gave a damn paid their fair share. And were RTW to end up starving and killing the union, that person may well have gotten nothing. Doesn't sound like a better deal to me, but it's a free country. You go ahead and collect signatures for any cause you please. If you ask me to sign, though, I'll need you to explain how right-to-work actually protects my rights to work...otherwise, I'll have to say "no." I may be alone here, but I don't like bullshit.

posted by Sohio on Apr 01, 2013 at 08:39:05 pm     #  

MikeyA posted at 07:58:06 PM on Apr 01, 2013:

Of course we're probably arguing a dead issue.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/31/heartbeat-bill-divides-ohio-evenly.html

Since 65% in OHIO support becoming a Right to Work state via state issue then unions will most likely cease to exist as they currently do and will have to remodel themselves.

Anything can happen. I wouldn't hold your breath, though. The only reason it passed in Michigan is because it was rammed through with no opportunity for a referendum.

I'm not worried too much about RTW, anyway. As I said, nevada is RTW and has more unionization than Ohio does, last time I checked. And besides, I am lucky...at my place, there are enough non-union salaried people working around us to give us a nice picture of how we would be treated if we had no union. Seeing that, I don't think my co-workers are dumb enough to let our union die. Time will tell, though.

posted by Sohio on Apr 01, 2013 at 08:52:54 pm     #  

want me to tell stories of us waiting to go on vacation until Dad got home from the union meeting?

Also...union meetings generally take place in the evenings after guys get off shift. Where did you vacation...24-hour delicatessens?

posted by Sohio on Apr 01, 2013 at 09:07:28 pm     #  

I would say we're getting way OT here...but I'm pretty sure we are the only three people still paying attention to this thread anymore, so i guess it's all good...

posted by Sohio on Apr 02, 2013 at 03:52:40 am     #  

"So, was this the union saying "vote for this guy or we'll see to it that you don't get as much work," or was it "vote for this guy because the other guy will enact policies that will upset your industry"? Because I really don't see how they could make good on the former threat; since your ballot is secret." When we discussed it I asked my brother if he misunderstood, he said "No, the guy said 'You WILL vote for him, if you don't good luck getting any work here.'" he understood it it to mean the union would not give him any work.

"But apart form that, a company has the freedom to [FAIRLY] punish you for breaking the law on their time and property. I would guess whatever leeway drug users were getting was coming from the company." Negative, the company immediately puts people on administrative leave while they and the union went through the termination process. And yes, this includes breaking the law as long as it's company security or supervisors who discover it.

"First of all, seniority does not mean that you can bump another person off of his job any time you please or any time you have health issues. Second, it doesn't sound to me like your dad was not protected. If he'd worked non-union, like my wife does, he would have had no LTD benefit at all," First of, yes my father's seniority did mean he could have bumped people, and there were jobs within his expertise that were desk jobs he could have done. The person who does that job by the nature of the work actually HAS to be qualified for the same job my dad held.

"Now let me say this: if his union did nothing to help him, that's shitty. And by 'union,' I mean the MEMBERS. In my union, when one guy gets sick like that, the first thing we do is vote to send him some money from the union coffers." They didn't. Several of the people he worked with he considered lfielong friends, not anymore.

"So even if all he got was 14% of his pay (which I still say does not sound quite right to me), had he not had a contract," What good is a contract if the individual is still willing and able to work but is told they cannot and their pay is significantly cut. What really pissed me off was that the union STILL took their full dues.

" I will say that, for a person which such a stated history in union employment, you are displaying an ignorance of how it all works that I find suspicious, though..." I have answered every question truthfully. Just because it doesn't "sound right" to you doesn't mean it's wrong. It is reality and I have stated facts. I would divulge more but since it is my father's case I will leave it up to him if he chooses to come on here and give the details of his personal experience.

I am fully willing to talk about mine with the UFCW and Teamsters, of which I found both to be useless.

As for the union meetings, they always went on Saturday mornings, ESPECIALLY if there was a vote. In fact, the only time I remember him having a weekday meeting was during a strike, they had several during the week at that time to vote on various contracts offered.

posted by MikeyA on Apr 02, 2013 at 12:03:44 pm     #  

When we discussed it I asked my brother if he misunderstood, he said "No, the guy said 'You WILL vote for him, if you don't good luck getting any work here.'" he understood it it to mean the union would not give him any work.

That really doesn't make any sense, since there is no way they would be able to tell who you voted for. It also doesn't make too much sense that a person being harassed in such a way would not report it to someone or that he was the only person offended by it. Unless he was the only one they said it to; which also doesn't really make much sense. Not to mention the company has the right to control information the union disseminates on company property (that's why you have a union hall) so I can't see why they'd allow something like that...

Negative, the company immediately puts people on administrative leave while they and the union went through the termination process.

That is standard. My point is that if you are caught breaking the law, any company can terminate you, and the union can't stop them. Local, state, and federal law supersedes any contractual clauses the union and company agree to. So if people were getting away with drug use, you might want to blame the company.

First of, yes my father's seniority did mean he could have bumped people, and there were jobs within his expertise that were desk jobs he could have done.

If this is true, the company could have allowed him to make that move, and if the union had a problem with it, they could initiate the grievance procedure. If the contract allowed for this to happen, the grievance would have gone nowhere. You do know that a union can't actually FORCE a company to do (or not do) something, right? They can only file grievances when the contract is violated, the ultimate step being a federal arbitration, which the union would lose if they were protesting something that the contract allowed. So I am just confused as to why, if the company could have been the hero and the union was the villain, the company didn't just tell them to stick it and give your dad another job. They could have also given your dad a non-union position, which the union would have had no say over.

I have answered every question truthfully. Just because it doesn't "sound right" to you doesn't mean it's wrong. It is reality and I have stated facts.

I cannot prove otherwise, mikey. It's just that you are claiming a lot of things here that do not add up. You're describing things that are simultaneously nonsensical AND illegal that nonetheless went unreported. You are describing the union exercising powers they simply do not have in any case. You are describing an LTD pay rate that is so comically low that it's barely more than a person could get on welfare. And you are touting RTW as a solution to all of this, even though it's not. I'm not calling you a liar...I'm just skeptical, that's all. I've been hearing a lot of half-truths and fabrications lately, used to support RTW, so when I hear things that don't add up, I get suspicious.

posted by Sohio on Apr 02, 2013 at 01:12:27 pm     #  

As for the union meetings, they always went on Saturday mornings, ESPECIALLY if there was a vote.

Wow. I have never met a union man willing to give up his Saturday mornings.

I can pretty safely say that there seems to be nothing about your dad's union experience that is typical...

posted by Sohio on Apr 02, 2013 at 01:14:53 pm     #  

"That really doesn't make any sense, since there is no way they would be able to tell who you voted for." First, the point is the type of climate the union was allowing. Second, what do you think would have happened if my brother put a Bush sticker on his truck?

"That is standard. My point is that if you are caught breaking the law, any company can terminate you, and the union can't stop them." The issue is the union sought more help for criminals than people with legitimate medical issues.

"If this is true, the company could have allowed him to make that move, and if the union had a problem with it, they could initiate the grievance procedure." Nope, the contract didn't allow for it because of my father's "medical condition".

"And you are touting RTW as a solution to all of this, even though it's not." I didn't say RTW was a solution to my father or brothers situation. My point is the union treated both so badly they both now are anti-union, in their cases.

posted by MikeyA on Apr 02, 2013 at 06:31:47 pm     #  

Second, what do you think would have happened if my brother put a Bush sticker on his truck?

Nothing. If your brother was working in a union shop, the shop dictates the workload in accordance with the contract. The union would have no wiggle room there to suddenly start depriving your brother of work or wages as payback for backing the wrong horse. Drive through the parking lots of any local union employer and you'll see plenty of Bush stickers on vehicles (or you would have, when Bush was still running, that is).

The issue is the union sought more help for criminals than people with legitimate medical issues.

Again, the union can only seek help for people who have been unfairly disciplined. If they were seeking help for such an individual, it would have had nothing to do with the infraction, but rather how the penalty was handed down. I'll say it again Mikey: A company has the right and obligation to control illegal activity on their property, and no union can stop them. A labor contract cannot contradict the law.

Nope, the contract didn't allow for it because of my father's "medical condition".

Now you're backpedaling. You said "First of, yes my father's seniority did mean he could have bumped people," and I said that if that were true, the company could have let him do it and, if for some reason the union didn't like it, they could grieve the issue; but the grievance would have no merit.

So which is it? Either the contract allowed that or it didn't. And I don't buy that they had a contract clause stating a person with a medical condition couldn't work. The union is not in charge of deciding if an employee is physically fit to work, that is the company's responsibility and outside of the union's jurisdiction. So to say that the union stepped in and told the company your dad can't work because of a medical condition, frankly, is horseshit, Mikey. The union does NOT HAVE THAT POWER. PERIOD. They couldn't even enter that as a unilateral contract clause, because doing so would be discrimination and would be illegal. It is not the union's right or responsibility to police the physical fitness of the employees.

Mikey, I have been active in labor unions for almost 20 years. The things you're describing sound nothing like anything I have ever heard before; and some of them, frankly, involve the union doing things it simply would not have the power to do. I'm sorry, your story sounds fishy to me. That's all I can say.

posted by Sohio on Apr 02, 2013 at 09:09:40 pm     #  

MikeyA's posts can be summed up this way:

"A black guy once looked at me cross so all black people are bad."

posted by researcher on Apr 03, 2013 at 07:59:02 am     #  

researcher posted at 07:59:02 AM on Apr 03, 2013:

MikeyA's posts can be summed up this way:

"A black guy once looked at me cross so all black people are bad."

When you can't "research" your way to a solid argument drop the race card for the win. Almost as strong as the kiddie card from the bottom of the deck.

Well played.

posted by dbw8906 on Apr 03, 2013 at 08:42:06 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 08:42:06 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
researcher posted at 07:59:02 AM on Apr 03, 2013:

MikeyA's posts can be summed up this way:

"A black guy once looked at me cross so all black people are bad."

When you can't "research" your way to a solid argument drop the race card for the win. Almost as strong as the kiddie card from the bottom of the deck.

Well played.

I research for a living. That doesn't involve "researching" an anonymous ToledoTalk poster.

I didn't drop the race card and if you were paying attention you'd know that. It was a comparison of absurdities and made no judgment about anyone's attitudes towards race.

Keep up.

posted by researcher on Apr 03, 2013 at 09:03:36 am     #  

researcher posted at 09:03:36 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
dbw8906 posted at 08:42:06 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
researcher posted at 07:59:02 AM on Apr 03, 2013:

MikeyA's posts can be summed up this way:

"A black guy once looked at me cross so all black people are bad."

When you can't "research" your way to a solid argument drop the race card for the win. Almost as strong as the kiddie card from the bottom of the deck.

Well played.

I research for a living. That doesn't involve "researching" an anonymous ToledoTalk poster.

I didn't drop the race card and if you were paying attention you'd know that. It was a comparison of absurdities and made no judgment about anyone's attitudes towards race.

Keep up.

No it was the race card, why I have no idea. Anything could have been used as an absurdity, you chose race, probably from habit.

posted by Linecrosser on Apr 03, 2013 at 09:33:46 am     #  

Sohio said: Seeing that, I don't think my co-workers are dumb enough to let our union die. Time will tell, though.

It's not up to your co-workers, or even time. It's up to economics. In globalism, there's no such thing as a labor union. Unionize, and your employer eventually can't afford to keep operating in your area under your union. And don't tell me the American auto companies aren't complying with this rule... they're on the government tit.

The choice is clear: Unionize and you're out of a job. Maybe not this week. Maybe not even next year. But soon enough, it'll happen. Unions are job killers. While globalism is in effect, that's the rule.

posted by GuestZero on Apr 03, 2013 at 09:38:40 am     #  

Linecrosser posted at 09:33:46 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:03:36 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
dbw8906 posted at 08:42:06 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
researcher posted at 07:59:02 AM on Apr 03, 2013:

MikeyA's posts can be summed up this way:

"A black guy once looked at me cross so all black people are bad."

When you can't "research" your way to a solid argument drop the race card for the win. Almost as strong as the kiddie card from the bottom of the deck.

Well played.

I research for a living. That doesn't involve "researching" an anonymous ToledoTalk poster.

I didn't drop the race card and if you were paying attention you'd know that. It was a comparison of absurdities and made no judgment about anyone's attitudes towards race.

Keep up.

No it was the race card, why I have no idea. Anything could have been used as an absurdity, you chose race, probably from habit.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think you know what the "race card" means. It would have to serve a purpose on a race issue. That's obviously not the purpose it served. As a matter of fact, I was giving everyone here enough credit that they would understand why that's absurd. It was an anti-race card.

posted by researcher on Apr 03, 2013 at 11:33:45 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 09:38:40 AM on Apr 03, 2013:

Sohio said: Seeing that, I don't think my co-workers are dumb enough to let our union die. Time will tell, though.

It's not up to your co-workers, or even time. It's up to economics. In globalism, there's no such thing as a labor union. Unionize, and your employer eventually can't afford to keep operating in your area under your union. And don't tell me the American auto companies aren't complying with this rule... they're on the government tit.

The choice is clear: Unionize and you're out of a job. Maybe not this week. Maybe not even next year. But soon enough, it'll happen. Unions are job killers. While globalism is in effect, that's the rule.

Yeah, that's working out real well in the rest of the world...like China, where the workers are [slowly] beginning to rise up and demand their rights. You can only shit upon the masses for so long, GZ, before they have nothing left to lose. It is then that they rise up against you and take what is theirs. This has happened before, here and around the world. Ironically, you seem to hold that being armed-to-the-teeth will prevent all forms of tyranny except for turning us in to wage-slaves. I wonder why that is...?

And don't tell me the American auto companies aren't complying with this rule... they're on the government tit.

But casinos aren't, they are heavily unionized AND a growing industry.

While globalism is in effect, that's the rule.

Hmmm. Well, you might want to tell that to some of the European nations with unionization rates 4 or 5 times what we have that still manage to maintain robust economies.

Maybe not this week. Maybe not even next year. But soon

And for the rest of your life. GZ, your libertarian claptrap doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

posted by Sohio on Apr 03, 2013 at 11:36:13 am     #  

researcher posted at 11:33:45 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
Linecrosser posted at 09:33:46 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:03:36 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
dbw8906 posted at 08:42:06 AM on Apr 03, 2013:
researcher posted at 07:59:02 AM on Apr 03, 2013:

MikeyA's posts can be summed up this way:

"A black guy once looked at me cross so all black people are bad."

When you can't "research" your way to a solid argument drop the race card for the win. Almost as strong as the kiddie card from the bottom of the deck.

Well played.

I research for a living. That doesn't involve "researching" an anonymous ToledoTalk poster.

I didn't drop the race card and if you were paying attention you'd know that. It was a comparison of absurdities and made no judgment about anyone's attitudes towards race.

Keep up.

No it was the race card, why I have no idea. Anything could have been used as an absurdity, you chose race, probably from habit.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think you know what the "race card" means. It would have to serve a purpose on a race issue. That's obviously not the purpose it served. As a matter of fact, I was giving everyone here enough credit that they would understand why that's absurd. It was an anti-race card.

It wasn't a race card. I think researcher was highlighting how mikey has allowed a bad experience to color [no pun intended] his overall outlook on an entire movement within society. The same way a person might judge an entire race or religion of people based on the actions or failings of one representative of that group.

posted by Sohio on Apr 03, 2013 at 11:38:36 am     #  

** Displaying only the last 100 comments. To read all 243 comments, Click Here. **