Freedom wins...big government loses...Boeing Bill passes

[Ernie S.]

exactly true.

We have conducted industry studies....

Our clients that have union shops have an attendance rate that is just above the least acceptable...that is an overall atrtendance rate....the use of sick days is nearly max......4.9 out of 5 days.

ALL floating holidays used by every union employee.

Our non union clients have an attendance rate that is well above the least acceptable....as a matter of fact, the use of sick days per employee is less than 3 (2.8)


Our union shops have an average of over 1.5 "bereavement" days a year taken per employee.

Our non union shops have less than .25 per employee per annum

If one wants to allow their work ethic and dedication to dictate their success...it can NOT be in a union shop.

Sadly...an employer can not give a better raise to an equal employee no matter how much better a worker that employee is....per union contract.

So who does a union reward? The ones that get a raise even if not warranted,

And who does a union punish? The ones that get the same raise as everyone else, even if they deserve more.

So what do we have here....

Protection for the least at the cost of the best.

Sound familiar?

Years back I worked as a machinist in a union shop. I was running huge machines and parts were changed with 25 ton cranes.
I'm working 2nd shift and moving at my usual pace. (near flat out) I kept getting "looks" from the guys who had been there for years. I figured that as the new guy, I was being shunned and I'd eventually make some friends.
This particular night, the foreman comes to my machine and tells me that there had been complaints about my work. I told him that I was doing the best I could. "Exactly" he said. "Slow down. You're busting the time standard on every job."
I told him that he should clear the place out and hire some people that actually wanted to work.
He told me that I had better slow down or he would have to let me go.
I made it easy for him.
A few years later, I left another job because the union was holding me back. 6 months later they called and asked me to come work for 6 weeks on a special project. They said they knew of no one else that had the skills and patience to make the parts The job was extremely high precision (+/- .0002" on parts that you could loose under a fingernail.
As I had a job and was doing well, I wasn't real interested, but figured if the money was right, I could do it.
They offered me the top of toolmaker "A" pay grade which was 20% more than I had made when I left, but about what I was making on my current job. I told them I would need twice that to consider working for them again.
A couple days later they called back and we arranged for them to pay me twice, once at work and a duplicate check mailed to my home.
Had the other toolmakers known that, there would have been hell to pay, but without the union, they would have all had the ability to negotiate their own wage as I had done.

yours is not a unique story. I see similar things daily in my industry.
I have one client...a machine shop...who is was FORCED by the union to close up and relocate.
Yes, you heard me correctly...the union forced them to move.
They are a manual shop. The ownership does not believe in CNC...he believes manually turned products are the best...and his bottom line proves it.
However, they have a turnover coming up.....several set up men are retiring within a few onth period...a credit to the employer as he has very low turnover in his shop.
So he needs replacement set up men. Most now have CNC and do not have manual experience...so they are hard to find and the few we found were above what the union will allow them to pay.
So they had a choice....close up or move to a location where the set up men are more plentiful....Detroit.
They presented the situation to the union and the union said "then close up shop" calling their bluff.
Detroit has sweetheart deals for shops...so many machine shops went under...that it made sense.
And the union employees?
All lost their jobs.

Serves them right! I love stories like that almost as much as stories about people using firearms to take out criminals.

 

[Intense]

DontBeStupid, don't be stupid. No new punishments are needed. No punishments were taken away. What broken law are you talking about? The only action taken was to explicitly forbid the NLRB from having the (new and made up as they go along) authority to shut down a business or require it to relocate.

Do you remember recently that the Supreme Court had to instruct the NLRB that it could not require church schools to allow unions in to regulate their employees. The NLRB is stretching the boundries of their authority whenever they get the chance.

yes people like to do this..Its not a union only problem...

It's a control problem.

 

[Avatar4321]

HOORAY--then this should also free up other corporations--that are under the same kind of ridiculous UNION mandates-- to move around the United States to create real private sector JOBS.--and help to become competitive in the global markets.

Yes it should. Problem: It wont pass the senate or get signed into law

If i knew this thread existed I wouldnt have started the other one.

 

[Polk]

Workers can decide for themselves in any other state. The difference is that "right-to-work" laws say if you join a union, non-union workers in your shop get to take money out of your pocket. Why would anyone agree to that?

No, it doesn't say that. It only says the union thugs cannot stop you from working for any employer.

Yes, it says exactly that. Read the damn laws. "Right-to-work" laws aren't necessary say "the union thugs cannot stop you from working", but assuming you mean outlawing the closed shop, there was already a law on the books that did exactly that.

 

[Polk]

Karl Marx's economic theories were discredited long ago, but it appears they are alive and well in the labor movement

You guys seem to have this odd belief that businesses are charities.

No, I don't. They aren't union property either. They are also not welfare agencies.

businesses are private property, and property owners also have rights, not just union thugs.

You're right. Business are private entities with rights. What you fail to realize is that workers also have rights. They're not just chattel to be thrown around at the employer's whim.

 

[Polk]

Also, for those claiming Boeing didn't break the law, that argument would be a lot easier to make if their CEO hadn't admitted it publicly.

He said Boeing didn't pick South Carolina for expansion last year because of Washington's tax rates or regulatory system. Nor was it a question of chasing low wages.

"The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today," Albaugh said. "It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years. And we can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages."

Business & Technology | Albaugh: Boeing's 'first preference' is to build planes in Puget Sound region | Seattle Times Newspaper

So I can either listen to you guys and believe it wasn't retaliation, or listen to Boeing's CEO went he said it was.

Nope, I don't see any admission the move was based on retaliation. However, it was based on the knowledge that union thugs would make it difficult for Boeing to make a profit.

That being said, the law is an outrage. Why should any business be forced to deal with any union it doesn't want to deal with?

He clearly states it's retaliation for strikes.

 

[Polk]

Damned straight he does! And it's in his employer's best interest to reward excellent employees. It's damned tough to hold onto your best talent when a union forces you to pay the least talented the same wage.
With a union, skill has less to do with your paycheck that the length of time you've managed to avoid getting fired.
For the most part, I've avoided union shops like the plague. I have a work ethic that makes me want to give my best on the job. I resent the shit out of people who have beer on the job twice as long and do half the work.
A union wage fairly compensates the average worker. It overpays the underachievers and cheats excellence.

He doesn't. And his employer's best interest is to pay him the lowest possible wage.

Granted an employer pays a typical worker the least he can. Do you pay an extra grand for a car out of the goodness of your heart?
Corporations are not in business to pay salaries. They exist to turn profit.
An excellent employee is a valuable asset, but could be a huge liability if he went to work for your competition. It makes sense to keep him happy, just as it does to pay a low wage to poor employees. If they leave and find work with the competition, you are free of the liability and the competition is less efficient in the bargain.

I agree with every bit of that. The problem is you don't realize it's a two-sided issue. Workers are looking to maximize their salaries because it serves their best interests.

 

[Avatar4321]

DontBeStupid, don't be stupid. No new punishments are needed. No punishments were taken away. What broken law are you talking about? The only action taken was to explicitly forbid the NLRB from having the (new and made up as they go along) authority to shut down a business or require it to relocate.

Do you remember recently that the Supreme Court had to instruct the NLRB that it could not require church schools to allow unions in to regulate their employees. The NLRB is stretching the boundries of their authority whenever they get the chance.

yes people like to do this..Its not a union only problem...

Sadly, that is. It is the nature and disposition of almost all men that when they think they have alittle power they begin to exercise it unrighteously.

 

[Polk]

Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.

effectively - Definition of effectively at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define effectively)
EFFECTIVELY: in actuality or reality or fact

Ban | Define Ban at Dictionary.com
BAN: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

'effectively ban' - to ban in actuality or reality or fact

No, they don't effectively ban unions. They give workers the choice to join or not to join. I thought libs were pro choice. What's up with that?

Workers have that choice even in the absence of "right-to-work" laws. What "right-to-work" laws do is give non-union employers the power to freeload off of the bargaining efforts of the unionized employees.

 

[Avatar4321]

I agree with every bit of that. The problem is you don't realize it's a two-sided issue. Workers are looking to maximize their salaries because it serves their best interests.

How does it serve their best interests if the business goes out because of their greed any more than it would serve their best interests if the business went under because of the greed of their managers?

 

[Polk]

Also, for those claiming Boeing didn't break the law, that argument would be a lot easier to make if their CEO hadn't admitted it publicly.

He said Boeing didn't pick South Carolina for expansion last year because of Washington's tax rates or regulatory system. Nor was it a question of chasing low wages.

"The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today," Albaugh said. "It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years. And we can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages."

Business & Technology | Albaugh: Boeing's 'first preference' is to build planes in Puget Sound region | Seattle Times Newspaper

So I can either listen to you guys and believe it wasn't retaliation, or listen to Boeing's CEO went he said it was.

Exactly how is that breaking the law. The truth is, the unions used their advantage of numbers and ability to negatively affect the success of the company to get what they want. Not necessarily what they deserve mind you....but to get what they want. That was the unions choice and now the union hurt its members.

It breaks the law because the National Labor Relations Act bans retaliation or threats of retaliation for striking. You're right that works use their numbers to negotiate for higher wages and better benefits. That's the entire point of the union. To represent the interest of the worker. They don't get everything they want, but they do get more than the employer would give them in the absence of the union.

And an FYI...and this is fact...

Unions of today have had a negative affect on employee performance. Here is why...

Joe and Jim start the same day as machinists. They have a great union package...2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 2 floating holidays, 2 personal days, and, of course, the 8 national holidays.

In december, Joe appraoches Jim and says "I have not used any of my sick days yet so since I will lose them at the end of the year, I amn going to take them next week." Joe, on the other hand feels that sick days are not vacation days and since he is not sick, he will not use them...and yes, lose them at the end of the year.

January first rolls around and it is raise time for Jim and Joe. Per the union contract, they both get their 7% raise.....but the difference is, Joe got 5 more days off last year than Jim.

So tell me....now that Joe got nothing more than Jim even though Jim took off more days last year....what do you think Joe will do with his unused sick days next year?

You see...a union contract is good for the ones with the lowest acceptable work ethic...and as a result, those in a union trend to the work ethic of the least acceptable.

Furthermore...do you feel that Joe had an advantage of being a union memeber? His raise was based on him being an employee...not based on his dedication and work ethic.

Except that faking sick to stay out of work is just as much of a cause for dismissal as it would be if the union didn't exist.

 

[Polk]

That's the entire premise of "right to work" laws. Non-union members get to take money out of the pockets of union members. I wonder why people wouldn't join unions in those states...

Why do union members have a greater right to work than non-union members?

Since Polk punted on this, anyone else want to give it a shot?

I didn't punt. It's a stupid question based on a false premise.

 

[Polk]

I forgot... liberals only hate the filibuster when Republicans threaten it.

So what we're getting at here is that you're a hypocrite.

In what way? Have I expressed a personal opinion on the filibuster?

You didn't have a problem with the Republicans doing it on every single bill (even pieces that were entirely non-controversial, noting they were later passed with 90+ votes) .

 

[Polk]

effectively - Definition of effectively at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define effectively)
EFFECTIVELY: in actuality or reality or fact

Ban | Define Ban at Dictionary.com
BAN: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

'effectively ban' - to ban in actuality or reality or fact

Why did you use two different dictionaries? Wait, I already know the answer. You were looking for one that gave you the definition of effectively you wanted. If we look at what the dictionary actually says...

ef·fec·tive 
[ih-fek-tiv]
adjective
1.
adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace.

Effectively | Define Effectively at Dictionary.com

you are such a fucking cry baby... I used the wrong dictionary? Please.. go cry someplace else you little pussbot.

Go troll somewhere else. You got caught lying and now you want to throw a fit about it.

 

[Polk]

Who is taking money out of who's pockets?

That's the entire premise of "right to work" laws. Non-union members get to take money out of the pockets of union members. I wonder why people wouldn't join unions in those states...

You're whining because non-union workers are free to negotiate their own wages and benefits, while the union workers are stuck with whatever the union manages to get from the employer.

Simpleton.

Wrong. You really should learn to read. Unions negotiate for a higher wage/benefit package, then the non-union freeloader in the shop get the same package, even though they didn't pay any of the costs of negotiating it.

 

[Polk]

I agree with every bit of that. The problem is you don't realize it's a two-sided issue. Workers are looking to maximize their salaries because it serves their best interests.

How does it serve their best interests if the business goes out because of their greed any more than it would serve their best interests if the business went under because of the greed of their managers?

So you're saying we should assume the business owner is so irrational that he'll agree to a deal that puts himself out a business? That's a bizarre belief.

 

[Wicked Jester]

That's the entire premise of "right to work" laws. Non-union members get to take money out of the pockets of union members. I wonder why people wouldn't join unions in those states...

You're whining because non-union workers are free to negotiate their own wages and benefits, while the union workers are stuck with whatever the union manages to get from the employer.

Simpleton.

Wrong. You really should learn to read. Unions negotiate for a higher wage/benefit package, then the non-union freeloader in the shop get the same package, even though they didn't pay any of the costs of negotiating it.

Nice to see you admit the unions extort money from its members to negotiate.

Also nice to see you're proving the non-union worker is obviously smarter then the union workers, by not allowing him/herself to be extorted by the union.

 

[Ernie S.]

effectively - Definition of effectively at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define effectively)
EFFECTIVELY: in actuality or reality or fact

Ban | Define Ban at Dictionary.com
BAN: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

'effectively ban' - to ban in actuality or reality or fact

No, they don't effectively ban unions. They give workers the choice to join or not to join. I thought libs were pro choice. What's up with that?

Workers have that choice even in the absence of "right-to-work" laws. What "right-to-work" laws do is give non-union employers the power to freeload off of the bargaining efforts of the unionized employees.

Yeah, while still subject to the salary caps that the union agrees to.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying we should assume the business owner is so irrational that he'll agree to a deal that puts himself out a business? That's a bizarre belief.

he does when the government has a gun to his head. That's the function of the NLRB, to force businesses to agree to union extortion. If a business does not negotiate with a union "in good faith," and the NLRB determines what that is, then the government can force them to agree to whatever terms its demands.

 

[Polk]

You're whining because non-union workers are free to negotiate their own wages and benefits, while the union workers are stuck with whatever the union manages to get from the employer.

Simpleton.

Wrong. You really should learn to read. Unions negotiate for a higher wage/benefit package, then the non-union freeloader in the shop get the same package, even though they didn't pay any of the costs of negotiating it.

Nice to see you admit the unions extort money from it's members to negotiate.

Also nice to see you're proving the non-union worker is obviously smarter then the union workers, by not allowing him/herself to be extorted by the union.

It's not extortion. Any sort of business dealing has costs.

As for "proving the non-union worker is obviously smarter", the entire point is creating a law that allows that to occur results in all the workers being non-union workers.