Skip to comments.
WASH: Taft-Hartley Act. (ORDERED)
TBO ^
| 10/8/02
Posted on 10/08/2002 10:26:17 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161 next last
To: Paulus Invictus
Union policies and high wages and bennies have also worked to drive US companies abroad, not just government policies.Your antiquated and erroneous assumption that the domestic manufacturing organized labor force is at fault is factually refuted in reply #70.
To: Billy_bob_bob
So the union should do what, in your opinion? The union should compete in the free market like everyone else. If someone else is willing to sell their labor for less than the union demands, they should be able to work for the company (sell their labor). WITHOUT GETTING A BALLBAT UPSIDE THE HEAD.
Flipside, if someone doesn't want to work for the going market value for the labor they're providing, they're free to find another line of work.
Obviously, I have no respect for unions in their present form. They use thug tactics to enforce their monopoly on the labor pool, and fight any efficiencies inherent in the free market.
82
posted on
10/08/2002 11:25:40 AM PDT
by
MrB
To: Green
Good point - but watch them try to complain anyway later when this fails to make the unions happy.
To: steveegg
See #77. Short answer, NO. They should not have done that. They should have simply struck, IMHO.
To: Billy_bob_bob
Thank you for answering the question.
85
posted on
10/08/2002 11:27:00 AM PDT
by
steveegg
To: Green
Is the cost of living 3 times as much in California as it is in Texas? I live here and would DIE to make that much money!!! As to comparing it to Texas, I don't know. But honestly, there's probably more folks living here who make far less than that!
To: bert
Remove the monopoly then as it should be. However neither the power to form the monopoly and to break it up are covered
To: bert
Remove the monopoly then as it should be. However neither the power to form the monopoly and to break it up are covered
To: imperator007
Then how do you export goods (like ag products)?
To: rockinonritalin
...Are the clipboard holders afraid that their jobs as they currently know them will become redundant and they will have to take a riskier job on the dock?....
NO! The union workers are lazy. They don't want to expend the mental effort required to learn how to do the new job.
That is to say, the union workers are lazy.
That is to say, the union workers are lazy.
That is to say, the union workers are lazy.
That is to say, the union workers are lazy.
That is to say, the union workers are lazy.
The American workin' man has been replaced by the American Thinkin' man and some can't accept the change.
90
posted on
10/08/2002 11:29:32 AM PDT
by
bert
To: Billy_bob_bob
So the union should do what, in your opinion So, there should not be one local that is represented for all the west coast ports. Imagine if GM, Ford, Chrysler, and all the smaller auto makers, it's parts suppliers and others were represented by one local? Imagine if all steel companies were represented by one local??
Same goes to the management side. No one employer should represent all the interests of all west coast ports of entry.
If the union and management of a facility are at odds, then there should be a competitive alternative for both sides. If there's a strike/lockout in Oakland, shippers should have an alternative, just like a worker should have the alternative to work elsewhere if he doesn't like it, and just as management knows that it must negotiate for its own port to remain competitive with the shipper's alternatives.
Whether labor knows it or not, they're in big long term trouble, because past negotiations have been so onesided against management's competitiveness, that they're forcing bankruptcy, and huge unfunded pension liabilities, that defunct companies cannnot and will never pay.
So now government steps in, and forms a bailout of the unfunded pensions, and you know who now foots that bill------You Do!
91
posted on
10/08/2002 11:30:25 AM PDT
by
aShepard
To: hchutch
...his action will make sure that children get their Christmas presents. That's good!
To: Billy_bob_bob
Now that that's settled, let's go back to the beginning of
#35 (with the offensive part edited out):
The key difference is that companies can struggle on with a new CEO when the old one decides he wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay. With the power of the union to prevent any replacement of them outside of an actual strike (and no permanent replacements in the event of a strike),..., most companies can't long survive when their union decides it wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay.
93
posted on
10/08/2002 11:31:15 AM PDT
by
steveegg
To: MrB
I used to have a lot more respect for the whole "free-market" thing, and in an ideal world we could have a totally free market. However, I've seen too many dirty tricks played at the top levels of our society. I've seen too many betrayals, too many dirty deals and too many victims of these actions. I've seen jobs shipped overseas while the corporate-owned media trumpeted the exciting new world of "high-tech", and then flooded that market with H1-b employees to the point where companies have no interest in hiring native Americans anymore. Why is that a good thing?
A couple of years ago I was about as anti-union as anyone. Now I'm not so sure. If it takes unions to push back against the utter rapacity of the power elite in this country, then maybe unions aren't such a bad thing.
If I believed in our legal system, and I believed that conflicts of interest and betrayals of good faith and violations of contract would be dealt with in an evenhanded, fair and timely manner, then I would believe that there is no need for unions.
However, given the current status of our legal system, I do not believe that lies and betrayals and breaches of contract will be dealt with in any way other than to the advantage of those who have to most money to spend. Given that realty, I begin to understand the necessity of unions.
To: billbears
Is not the congress granted to regulate the commerce between the States?
95
posted on
10/08/2002 11:33:21 AM PDT
by
bert
To: Green
Surprisingly enough...Feinstein supports this and has publicly said so. The state budget is -27 billion heading to -60 billion. Only the defense areas of the economy are now heading up. Unemployment is increasing. Gray Davis' positives are about 40%. And this strike is making it worse!
96
posted on
10/08/2002 11:33:35 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: billbears
I don't know is this makes a difference, but it is my understanding that this is the first time that Taft-Hartley has been invoked during a lockout.
To: aShepard
The trouble here regarding the union end is not the local; it's the union which is acting outside of the locals. That is "necessitated" by the fact that the entire West Coast docking facilities are managed by an association that has been given blanket negotiating rights.
You're right; it's time to break it all up.
98
posted on
10/08/2002 11:34:41 AM PDT
by
steveegg
To: Alberta's Child
The last I heard, there is a port down on the west coast of Mexico that has been going like gangbusters since the lockout began.Ensenada. Operated by the Chinese, natch...
To: snopercod
The last I heard, there is a port down on the west coast of Mexico that has been going like gangbusters since the lockout began.
Ensenada. Operated by the Chinese, natch... Do I need to put on my tinfoil hat before replying to this? <VBG>
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson