[q_an_a]

gee do you suppose that years of rules by unions that kept minorities from getting training in construction has been the invisible hand that lead to your comments of who is getting the jobs?

I was a hod carrier and have worked loading trucks in union shops, do you think all the silly rules about who could touch what or who gets trained lead to non union companies being created and work moving form union states to non union states.

The crying of grocery workers over paying a small portion of health care is another example of how unions have screwed up their workers and the system. The headquarters makes their employees cough up the money, but go on a strike that few will recover from lost wages. When back at work they leave empty shelves and stock missing because it is too much work. The cost of their work rules makes it harder to make a profit but who care the union leaders get a strike and workers are reminded of why they pay out those dues. /sarcasm off

[superloser]

From talking to the Union folks, they are simply paying sub-minimum-wage.

I'm simply reporting my observations and results of chatting with the Union pickets. I haven't spoken to the foreman or any of the folks from the construction company yet. That is the next task. I don't know a lot about union rules; this part of my education in that.

If the union charge of paying sub-minimum-wage is *true* then the construction company is engaging in illegal activity just with that.

We may not agree with the law, but the law is the law. Until it is changed, well....we're stuck with it.

I absolutely agree with you that unions are screwing things up for their own membership. If a construction company is forced to start violating the law in order to work around such things, a deeper investigation is needed, and not just into activity by the construction company.