[postaldave]

i agree, as a union member myself i understand the balance needed in the workforce. people should realize that a union CAN NOT exist without abuse of management. i did however live in a town were the union ran a company out with their abuse.

people, it's called BALANCE and most the people here are to stupid to understand that simple idea. one of the biggest hurdles left for republicans is to ease up on their hateful attitudes towards unions. many in our base are not wealthy business people, we just can't vote democrat since they have lost their souls.




"Teamster here. You sound a lot like someone who inherited a whole lot of stocks and bonds from mommy and daddy and still live at home. Some of us out here work for a living. Some of us even make a living wage because we are Union. You may kiss my union a--."

[Clemenza]

Anyone opposed to merit pay cannot be considered a conservative. Its one thing for independent collective bargaining for working conditions, quite another when you view any attempt at introducing merit pay as "favoratism."

[jettester]

Baloney! All it takes for a union to get in is for the workforce to believe they will be better off under the union's bargaining power than their own. Name one abuse that isn't already covered under U.S. national labor rules that "management" commits? From my experience with three companies that became unionized, it all came down to "greed" on the worker's part (the unions promised them more). If someplace is so bad to work for ("management abuse" again) in the first place, why work there at all?

[OldSmaj]

...most the people here are to stupid to understand

Yep, us poor old dumb asses that have been around here long enough to see the democrats go down in flames are just too stupid to understand much of anything.

Best you take your business to another web site, where they're all smart.

Try the DU funnies or maybe even that paragon of slick Dimowitcrap, Barbell, er, uh, Barslop, no, uh, Biffbop, yeah, or is it Batcrap? Bartcop! Yeah, that's it.

Whatever.

In any event, you appear to be in the wrong place.

[discostu]

I understand balance. I also understand that many organization, including but by no means limited to unions, feel a need to self perpetuate even after the goals have been achieved. That's one of the primary problems with unions, even after balance has been achieved they frequently keep pushing, they find new battle grounds to fight over and use extortionistic practices to win these battles for no good reason. Just look at the recent labor troubles in MLB, one of the points of contention was advertising budget, since when is the ammount of money a company spends on advertising any of the union's business?!

And as for abuse by management sorry I'm not buying it. For a union to be created they need to sell the employees an idea of abuse by management, but that doesn't mean such abuse actually needs to exist. I'm watching it right now where my wife works, the union is slowly infiltrating that place and there's nothing wrong with it. Policy there treats employees like gold, they have one of the best benefits packages in the city, excellent re-train and swap position programs, and once you pass the probation period it's nearly impossible to get fired without doing something that'll land you in jail first. And yet the union is getting it's claws into the place, and doing all the terrible things pointless unions do like getting rid of merrit based raises and putting in a lame step and ladder system that's going to force employees to seek tons of additional training for the sole purpose of not falling off the right side of the grid and losing their job.

70 years ago unions were a good idea, these days most of them stink and are actually bad for employees and employers.

[polymuser]

"people should realize that a union CAN NOT exist without abuse of management."

Well, yeah, that's truly why they exist. Couldn't have said it better myself. People should also realize the result of unionized teachers.