Airliners.net

It's been shown that right-to-work in the U.S. can lead to negatives consequences for workers who don't have a Union-lower pay, and fewer benefits. One thing that doesn't get enough PR is the fact that many non-union work places can have terrible safety records as well. He's an article about that very problem.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... shed-limbs

It also leads to the question of why do we simply fine companies, when we should be jailing those responsible for unsafe working conditions? Just like the bankers who knowingly break the law, fining a company doesn't stop the problem.

It also shows where oversight and regulation need to be included and enforced.

Yea works so good in California. Just look at that low unemployment rate. At least they are safe.

Yet another hate the rich thread. Well I guess it's better than a Hate Trump thread.

Hillis wrote:

It's been shown that right-to-work in the U.S. can lead to negatives consequences for workers who don't have a Union-lower pay, and fewer benefits. One thing that doesn't get enough PR is the fact that many non-union work places can have terrible safety records as well. He's an article about that very problem.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... shed-limbs

It also leads to the question of why do we simply fine companies, when we should be jailing those responsible for unsafe working conditions? Just like the bankers who knowingly break the law, fining a company doesn't stop the problem.

It also shows where oversight and regulation need to be included and enforced.

A right wing wet dream, right to work. right to hire and fire, no benefits, no pensions. All is to be given by the benevolent company and government, funny that! Not won by negotiation, no, no. We will do as we please. We hate big government, but we will force you to accept welfare while working, think Walmart. Think poverty, think no college for your children. No job security. A Utopia for the corporations and the wealthy. I will not even mention working conditions. I just love the people who have nothing supporting such. Think South.

NIKV69 wrote:

Yea works so good in California. Just look at that low unemployment rate. At least they are safe.

Yet another hate the rich thread. Well I guess it's better than a Hate Trump thread.

I ask, why do you support the rich? And trump is now down to 35 % approval. What a cluster F*** of an administration.

OMFG. Have you worked in a union organization? I have never seen people act like such babies in my life.

RTW has kept a lot of jobs inside the USA that would have left. You are mad that Americans can compete with each other? Yet you advocate a barrier-less world with China, India, Mexico, Bangladesh etc. There are other ways to help the middle class... largely to do with immigration violations, and to a lesser extent, trade. Unions really aren't sustainable except within the government. And the moral framework for that is quite sorry.

Flighty wrote:

OMFG. Have you worked in a union organization? I have never seen people act like such babies in my life.

RTW has kept a lot of jobs inside the USA that would have left. You are mad that Americans can compete with each other? Yet you advocate a barrier-less world with China, India, Mexico, Bangladesh etc. There are other ways to help the middle class... largely to do with immigration violations, and to a lesser extent, trade. Unions really aren't sustainable except within the government. And the moral framework for that is quite sorry.

Bullshit, and sure they stay because they can pay you anything they want. Do you want to earn a living where you can actually live, or be an economic slave? The advocates of RTW, must all be highly paid workers who are good at advocating for the wealthy. I sure hope they are wealthy, or they are sure naive, or maybe dumb.

NIKV69 wrote:

Yea works so good in California. Just look at that low unemployment rate. At least they are safe.

You mean the sixth largest economy in the world that supports the backward, inbred welfare-queen bible belt? Yah let's follow the latter's lead straight back in time to serfdom. Whoops it's already there.

MaverickM11 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Yea works so good in California. Just look at that low unemployment rate. At least they are safe.

You mean the sixth largest economy in the world that supports the backward, inbred welfare-queen bible belt? Yah let's follow the latter's lead straight back in time to serfdom. Whoops it's already there.

Amen Brother.

NIKV69 wrote:

Yea works so good in California. Just look at that low unemployment rate. At least they are safe.

Yet another hate the rich thread. Well I guess it's better than a Hate Trump thread.

You righties say "hate the rich" but us patriots say "protecting the poor." And, yes, California does have a low unemployment rate. So what? Oh, but that is not the REAL unemployment rate that you righties obsessed over under Obama, is it? What is the REAL unemployment rate now under the orange menace? 12%? 14%?

NIKV69 wrote:

Yea works so good in California. Just look at that low unemployment rate. At least they are safe.

No doubt you will call this fake data (even though Republicans are now in charge of all government agencies AND can manipulate data if they so wish).

According to the latest unemployment report by state from the BLS a total of 20 states have a higher unemployment rate than the 4.7% average of the nation.

These states are (in order and with their unemployment number from highest to the one closest to the average, colored based on party control, and italicized to depict right to work laws):
New Mexico (6.8%) (GOP governor with Dem legislature)
Alaska (6.4%) (Independent governor with split legislature)
Alabama (6.2%)
Louisiana (5.8%) (Dem governor with GOP legislature)
Illinois (5.4%) (GOP governor with Dem legislature)
Georgia (5.3%)
Michigan (5.3%)
Tennessee (5.3%)
Mississippi (5.2%)
West Virginia (5.2%) (Dem governor with GOP legislature)
Arizona (5.1%)
North Carolina (5.1%)(Dem governor with GOP legislature)
Ohio (5.1%)
California (5.0%)
Florida (5.0%)
Pennsylvania (5.0%) (Dem governor with GOP legislature)
Kentucky (4.9%)
Nevada (4.9%)(GOP governor with Dem legislature)
Texas (4.9%)
Washington (4.9%) (Dem governor with split legislature)

Just hit the average so not including them, but just as reference:
Connecticut(4.7%)
Wyoming (4.7%)

And because everyone likes to hit on New York:
New York (4.4%) (Dem governor with split legislature)

Let's tally the count:

Total states with unemployment higher than national average: 20
Right to work states: 13 (9 GOP led, 4 split control)
Not Right to work states: 7 (1 Dem led, 1 GOP led, 5 split control)

And if you look at the numbers in the link (here it is again, because it's a lot of data to process, I know), notice how California stands at 5.0%, which is close to their all time low of 4.7%. Alabama, on the other hand, is still further away from its all time low of 3.8%.

So remind me again how California is doing really bad?

Oh...I know how you'll come out. These numbers are fake and we must look at "real unemployment", which only serves to undermine the point that if these numbers mask the "real unemployment", then many of these states are placed higher (you can't say that 6.2 is AL's rate but look for the "real unemployment" for CA...THAT is the definition of cherrypicking). And it still undermines the fact that, on average, Right to Work states have higher unemployment rates (and we can also extend it to say that GOP policies don't create jobs as much as their supporters wished).

Your move.

einsteinboricua wrote:

So remind me again how California is doing really bad?

Well.. ..you are talking to the same people that still believe in trickle down economics, that high taxes and social security and generally anything provided for free makes the economy noncompetitive, despite being crushed on the world market by nations that have all that.

best regards
Thomas

Why is it called "right to work" when it has little or no connection to having an actual right to work?

If you want to ban closed shops, great, but just call a spade a spade would ya?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Why is it called "right to work" when it has little or no connection to having an actual right to work?

If you want to ban closed shops, great, but just call a spade a spade would ya?

Why was the "Moral Majority" called that when it was neither? Why is the GOP group called the "Freedom Caucus" when they support taking freedoms away from people? Because often, especially on the right, the name means exactly the opposite of what the group or the policy is really about.

http://www.wmur.com/article/right-to-wo ... se/8942743


A victory in New Hampshire for workers rights. I must say I am amazed at this. Republicans with a conscience.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Why is it called "right to work" when it has little or no connection to having an actual right to work?

The name comes from having the right to work without having to join a union or pay dues (ie. you're hired and have a right to go immediately to work without any other procedures).

In a way, I can understand the concept of joining a union to be voluntary. However, employees that wish to benefit from the union's negotiations should either become members and pay dues or get whatever's handed to them. My company uses this approach: part of the workforce is unionized and, while their collective bargaining agreement is in force, they're treated differently from non-unionized members. We undergo various changes in benefits (such as changes in the bonus payout, healthcare, etc.) while theirs remain static through the term of the agreement, until it is time to renegotiate.

These laws, however, don't seek to have a just approach to union representation. While it's true that some unions ask for too much and are not willing to compromise for the good of the company, let's not forget that unions are there to protect the employees (even the free riders) by ensuring they have appropriate compensation, benefits, and a safe workplace. These laws seek to weaken unions by allowing employees to opt out, but still enjoy the benefits of union negotiations. Less member dues means less resources for legal powers to negotiate with the employer. Eventually, a union may collapse and employees are back to square one, where the employer can do as it pleases and treat its employees as replaceable parts.

5 weeks of paid vacation, paid maternity leave, 6 + 6 (optional) months of maternity leave, a minimum wage you can live off, free* schooling, free* healthcare, upgrading staff competencies paid by the employer. All of this, and more, is the result of decades of union work where I'm from. 80% of the working population is in a union, and we're neither poor, unemployed or miserable. In fact, quite the opposite on all those fronts.

* Paid by corporate and income taxes

B777LRF wrote:

5 weeks of paid vacation, paid maternity leave, 6 + 6 (optional) months of maternity leave, a minimum wage you can live off, free* schooling, free* healthcare, upgrading staff competencies paid by the employer. All of this, and more, is the result of decades of union work where I'm from. 80% of the working population is in a union, and we're neither poor, unemployed or miserable. In fact, quite the opposite on all those fronts.

* Paid by corporate and income taxes

Good, your country voted for that. More power to you. Our country did not... and in some states, we protect a business owner from a labor organization takeover. A labor organization is not a government, it is just a for-profit club that feasts on valuable properties owned by others, without their consent.

I have no problem with people organizing, but I don't think workers own their workplace (with the power to exclude others) - that's communism. It may even be more extreme than communism. Government health care is another subject - we have much to learn from other countries.

Flighty wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

5 weeks of paid vacation, paid maternity leave, 6 + 6 (optional) months of maternity leave, a minimum wage you can live off, free* schooling, free* healthcare, upgrading staff competencies paid by the employer. All of this, and more, is the result of decades of union work where I'm from. 80% of the working population is in a union, and we're neither poor, unemployed or miserable. In fact, quite the opposite on all those fronts.

* Paid by corporate and income taxes

Good, your country voted for that. More power to you. Our country did not... and in some states, we protect a business owner from a labor organization takeover. A labor organization is not a government, it is just a for-profit club that feasts on valuable properties owned by others, without their consent.

I have no problem with people organizing, but I don't think workers own their workplace (with the power to exclude others) - that's communism. It may even be more extreme than communism. Government health care is another subject - we have much to learn from other countries.

Workers owning the business is called "Employee Ownership", not communism. And why the hell do you want to protect a business owner who screws over his workers with low pay, few benefits and bad working conditions? Why do you support the big guy over the little guy? Why is it you would deny to Americans the ability to have health care, education, leave after a newborn arrives, and other things that would make life happier and less stressful for people? Over a word?

America is one of the most unhappy places in the world. The nations that provide those service mentioned above are happier, healthier and much more content with life. You believe in a system where everyone is miserable excpet the few sitting on the top. You and your way of thinking is broken and should be thrown into the trash heap of history.

Hillis wrote:

It's been shown that right-to-work in the U.S. can lead to negatives consequences for workers who don't have a Union-lower pay, and fewer benefits. One thing that doesn't get enough PR is the fact that many non-union work places can have terrible safety records as well. He's an article about that very problem.

Hang on, slow your roll, though I tend to agree with your posts, you are way wrong on this one, my company has 22,000 non union employees, they are non union because they choose not to be btw, we spend a small fortune every year on safety, it's not a union/non-union issue, it's work culture issue, by that I mean, some companies are willing to take the risk on things, yes even companies with union work forces, my company is not, every employee from a dishwasher to the president of the company goes through a number of courses each year to hammer home the basics of work place safety.

We then provide constant training designed around each job, we employee 1 person per property who's sole job is to enforce safety procedures, they have the power to stop anyone from doing anything at anytime, be they employees or contractors on our property.

There are two good reasons to do this, the first and most important, we don't want anyone to get hurt, it is way to easy to suffer a life changing injury in any workplace.

The second is money, we cut our workmens comp by 90% by getting very aggressive with the safety culture, for us that translates to a roughly $7 million a year saving.

Hillis wrote:

Flighty wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

5 weeks of paid vacation, paid maternity leave, 6 + 6 (optional) months of maternity leave, a minimum wage you can live off, free* schooling, free* healthcare, upgrading staff competencies paid by the employer. All of this, and more, is the result of decades of union work where I'm from. 80% of the working population is in a union, and we're neither poor, unemployed or miserable. In fact, quite the opposite on all those fronts.

* Paid by corporate and income taxes

Good, your country voted for that. More power to you. Our country did not... and in some states, we protect a business owner from a labor organization takeover. A labor organization is not a government, it is just a for-profit club that feasts on valuable properties owned by others, without their consent.

I have no problem with people organizing, but I don't think workers own their workplace (with the power to exclude others) - that's communism. It may even be more extreme than communism. Government health care is another subject - we have much to learn from other countries.

Workers owning the business is called "Employee Ownership", not communism. And why the hell do you want to protect a business owner who screws over his workers with low pay, few benefits and bad working conditions? Why do you support the big guy over the little guy? Why is it you would deny to Americans the ability to have health care, education, leave after a newborn arrives, and other things that would make life happier and less stressful for people? Over a word?

America is one of the most unhappy places in the world. The nations that provide those service mentioned above are happier, healthier and much more content with life. You believe in a system where everyone is miserable excpet the few sitting on the top. You and your way of thinking is broken and should be thrown into the trash heap of history.

If you do not support the ability of people to own a business, then nobody will have a business. That is what Venezuela is dealing with right now. Cuba dealt with it. It ends up to where both countries, incredibly fertile and talented, have to import food, because they can't even do basic farming anymore. It is hard to have a social paradise with no money.

Without prosperity, we can't even begin to discuss government-funded health care and education programs. It all depends whether you understand what prosperity is, and where it comes from. It doesn't come from bureaucrats - Africa has plenty of them and so does Haiti.

I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned health and safety. Unions have always been the main driving force for safety of the workforce. This goes right back to some of the very first union movements where collective bargaining and the safety of the worker were the very first issues on which unions fought (and occasionally even died).

Without unions (people coming together to work collectively to improve their lot) there wouldn't even be a United States of America.

Some unions have arguably overreached at times but the principle of the trade union movement is a sound one. E Pluribus Unum indeed.

Flighty wrote:

If you do not support the ability of people to own a business, then nobody will have a business.

If someone who owns a business cannot pay his/her workers a livable wage, with decent benefits and decent working conditions, then they shouldn't be in business.

You want people to literally beg for scraps. You have no problem with businesses that are mentioned in this article. You simply take the side of the rich and wealthy.

[quote="Channex757"]I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned health and safety. Unions have always been the main driving force for safety of the workforce. This goes right back to some of the very first union movements where collective bargaining and the safety of the worker were the very first issues on which unions fought (and occasionally even died).

Without unions (people coming together to work collectively to improve their lot) there wouldn't even be a United States of America.

Some unions have arguably overreached at times but the principle of the trade union movement is a sound one. E Pluribus Unum indeed.[/quote

No question about that, without unions , first called Guilds, I believe we would be still called Serfs. We would be toiling day and night, losing our health, watching our families living in poverty and living very short lives. This is not about just money, it is about power, the power to control others, the power to enslave and to enrich.

I just love these fool advocates of this system. I worked with many of them over the years, the petty low level managers who wanted that power and laughably thought they were part of the corporation or part of the power structure. They would take a promotion and then profess their dislike of the very union who were their friends and fellow workers until the conversion to wannabees who 99 and nine tenths percent never went any higher. As I have said many times, I will compare my standard of living to those wannabees anyday. I was union, My son is union. All I have I owe to union membership and wages and benifits. The power structure would take it all away in a blink, and with help of their fool advocates continue to keep trying.


Every advance in wages, benifits, safety , standards of living, health insurance was hard won by Unions and their members who fought for every bit of improvement in the lives of workers, union and non union, and this is what they hate so much that everyone was helped. By the way, I worked for a corporation which had was union, is still union and makes tons of money. Also we had many thousands of union people, far more than 22 k. Also, my friend who was my Boss now pays for his health insurance, a betrayal by the corporation he served so well. I do not. Go union.

WarRI1 wrote:

Every advance in wages, benifits, safety , standards of living, health insurance was hard won by Unions and their members who fought for every bit of improvement in the lives of workers, union and non union, and this is what they hate so much that everyone was helped. By the way, I worked for a corporation which had was union, is still union and makes tons of money. Also we had many thousands of union people, far more than 22 k. Also, my friend who was my Boss now pays for his health insurance, a betrayal by the corporation he served so well. I do not. Go union.

Just to be clear, I am in no way putting down unions, certainly without them many professions would be far more dangerous than they have become now.

What I am saying is, union or no union, if safety is not the #1 priority then people will get hurt, i've seen it to many times where even though a construction site was manned by union people, with a union shop steward on site, basic safety procedures were being ignored (tying off 20 floors up, not using protective clothing when handling chemicals), both unions AND a management team that understands the importance of a safe work environment are essential the the well being of everyone in the work place.

jetwet1 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Every advance in wages, benifits, safety , standards of living, health insurance was hard won by Unions and their members who fought for every bit of improvement in the lives of workers, union and non union, and this is what they hate so much that everyone was helped. By the way, I worked for a corporation which had was union, is still union and makes tons of money. Also we had many thousands of union people, far more than 22 k. Also, my friend who was my Boss now pays for his health insurance, a betrayal by the corporation he served so well. I do not. Go union.

Just to be clear, I am in no way putting down unions, certainly without them many professions would be far more dangerous than they have become now.

What I am saying is, union or no union, if safety is not the #1 priority then people will get hurt, i've seen it to many times where even though a construction site was manned by union people, with a union shop steward on site, basic safety procedures were being ignored (tying off 20 floors up, not using protective clothing when handling chemicals), both unions AND a management team that understands the importance of a safe work environment are essential the the well being of everyone in the work place.

I understand, I was just pointing out that like you said and I agree unions are the only reason non union workers benifitted from activistism. I was a union member, and I advocate for all workers, workers are always being attacked in this country, and the fools who advocate such are pathetic. They cannot see beyond their own narrow little world. I hate to sound radical, but that is the only way to accomplish anything against the wealthy and the power structure.

Channex757 wrote:

I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned health and safety. Unions have always been the main driving force for safety of the workforce. This goes right back to some of the very first union movements where collective bargaining and the safety of the worker were the very first issues on which unions fought (and occasionally even died).

Ahem:

einsteinboricua wrote:

While it's true that some unions ask for too much and are not willing to compromise for the good of the company, let's not forget that unions are there to protect the employees (even the free riders) by ensuring they have appropriate compensation, benefits, and a safe workplace.

Flighty wrote:

If you do not support the ability of people to own a business, then nobody will have a business.

Nobody here is arguing against this. However, just like making a living abroad, your ability to have a business isn't a free deal. There's a working government ensuring your business can move its good from start to finish with trade deals and infrastructure. That costs money to maintain, build, or improve. In addition, if you have workers, they should be paid a living wage and ensure they have a safe workplace. I agree: unions at times have overreached. But rather than weaken them, they should be treated as partners. After all, its members work for you. Treat them as partners, they'll do their best. You see this example with Southwest Airlines.

Hillis wrote:

Flighty wrote:

If you do not support the ability of people to own a business, then nobody will have a business.

If someone who owns a business cannot pay his/her workers a livable wage, with decent benefits and decent working conditions, then they shouldn't be in business.

You want people to literally beg for scraps. You have no problem with businesses that are mentioned in this article. You simply take the side of the rich and wealthy.

I have a mixed opinion on this issue. If you are first starting up I get your struggles as a business and perhaps paying a low wage is an necessity if there is other performance compensation such as employee ownership. If that business takes off those early employees will cash in giving them a huge incentive to bust their butts.

However where I agree is that a lot of the businesses that don't pay a living wage are major corporations that can get away with it. They can use endless litigation that can drain the resources of a Union, lobby the government etc.

jetwet1 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

It's been shown that right-to-work in the U.S. can lead to negatives consequences for workers who don't have a Union-lower pay, and fewer benefits. One thing that doesn't get enough PR is the fact that many non-union work places can have terrible safety records as well. He's an article about that very problem.

Hang on, slow your roll, though I tend to agree with your posts, you are way wrong on this one, my company has 22,000 non union employees, they are non union because they choose not to be btw, we spend a small fortune every year on safety, it's not a union/non-union issue, it's work culture issue, by that I mean, some companies are willing to take the risk on things, yes even companies with union work forces, my company is not, every employee from a dishwasher to the president of the company goes through a number of courses each year to hammer home the basics of work place safety.

We then provide constant training designed around each job, we employee 1 person per property who's sole job is to enforce safety procedures, they have the power to stop anyone from doing anything at anytime, be they employees or contractors on our property.

There are two good reasons to do this, the first and most important, we don't want anyone to get hurt, it is way to easy to suffer a life changing injury in any workplace.

The second is money, we cut our workmens comp by 90% by getting very aggressive with the safety culture, for us that translates to a roughly $7 million a year saving.

I acknowledge that your company does these things without being in a union environment and many can learn from treating your employees well pays off in the long term will more than likely avoid having a union fight in the future. However a lot of CEO's of publicly traded companies have to worry about the current quarter and then the next quarter.

What is the ownership structure of the company?

What I do worry about is that a lot of the benefits that non-union employees receive are from things like labour laws and health and safety laws will disappear over time. These were created by collective bargaining and made law. This is where the non-union employees need to be thankful as many of the benefits they receive are now laws thanks to unions and if you don't think this can disappear then just wait longer.

Flighty wrote:

If you do not support the ability of people to own a business, then nobody will have a business.

Funny how people do own businesses in highly unionised enviroments and those nations are also highly competitive in the global markets.......

Happy cows give more milk. Some employers understand that, others need to be forced by law and unions to recognise that.

Best regards
Thomas

StarAC17 wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

It's been shown that right-to-work in the U.S. can lead to negatives consequences for workers who don't have a Union-lower pay, and fewer benefits. One thing that doesn't get enough PR is the fact that many non-union work places can have terrible safety records as well. He's an article about that very problem.

Hang on, slow your roll, though I tend to agree with your posts, you are way wrong on this one, my company has 22,000 non union employees, they are non union because they choose not to be btw, we spend a small fortune every year on safety, it's not a union/non-union issue, it's work culture issue, by that I mean, some companies are willing to take the risk on things, yes even companies with union work forces, my company is not, every employee from a dishwasher to the president of the company goes through a number of courses each year to hammer home the basics of work place safety.

We then provide constant training designed around each job, we employee 1 person per property who's sole job is to enforce safety procedures, they have the power to stop anyone from doing anything at anytime, be they employees or contractors on our property.

There are two good reasons to do this, the first and most important, we don't want anyone to get hurt, it is way to easy to suffer a life changing injury in any workplace.

The second is money, we cut our workmens comp by 90% by getting very aggressive with the safety culture, for us that translates to a roughly $7 million a year saving.

I acknowledge that your company does these things without being in a union environment and many can learn from treating your employees well pays off in the long term will more than likely avoid having a union fight in the future. However a lot of CEO's of publicly traded companies have to worry about the current quarter and then the next quarter.

What is the ownership structure of the company?

What I do worry about is that a lot of the benefits that non-union employees receive are from things like labour laws and health and safety laws will disappear over time. These were created by collective bargaining and made law. This is where the non-union employees need to be thankful as many of the benefits they receive are now laws thanks to unions and if you don't think this can disappear then just wait longer.

You should change that to ALL CEO's of publicly traded companies. IIRC the US Supreme Court ruled that a publicly traded company's responsibility is to its shareholders and maximizing shareholder value. Aka, make sure Wall St can make a profit when they sell.

Perhaps we need to refocus a bit. CEOs can also be in professional unions too, and companies can also be in industry unions.

Shouldn't this be stopped in the same way that we try to crack down on traditional unions?

jetwet1 wrote:

Hang on, slow your roll, though I tend to agree with your posts, you are way wrong on this one, my company has 22,000 non union employees, they are non union because they choose not to be btw, we spend a small fortune every year on safety, it's not a union/non-union issue, it's work culture issue, by that I mean, some companies are willing to take the risk on things, yes even companies with union work forces, my company is not, every employee from a dishwasher to the president of the company goes through a number of courses each year to hammer home the basics of work place safety.

We then provide constant training designed around each job, we employee 1 person per property who's sole job is to enforce safety procedures, they have the power to stop anyone from doing anything at anytime, be they employees or contractors on our property.

There are two good reasons to do this, the first and most important, we don't want anyone to get hurt, it is way to easy to suffer a life changing injury in any workplace.

The second is money, we cut our workmens comp by 90% by getting very aggressive with the safety culture, for us that translates to a roughly $7 million a year saving.

My company is about 65,000 people around the world, some unionized, some not. My experience is in the US. Most of our US facilities are unionized, but a few aren't. The few that aren't are overwhelmingly considered our best sites on a wide variety of factors (safety, employee engagement, productivity, etc.). Having been assigned to both unionized facilities and non-unionized facilities in our network, I can say I greatly prefer the non-unionized side of our network. Much happier environment.

cjg225 wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

Hang on, slow your roll, though I tend to agree with your posts, you are way wrong on this one, my company has 22,000 non union employees, they are non union because they choose not to be btw, we spend a small fortune every year on safety, it's not a union/non-union issue, it's work culture issue, by that I mean, some companies are willing to take the risk on things, yes even companies with union work forces, my company is not, every employee from a dishwasher to the president of the company goes through a number of courses each year to hammer home the basics of work place safety.

We then provide constant training designed around each job, we employee 1 person per property who's sole job is to enforce safety procedures, they have the power to stop anyone from doing anything at anytime, be they employees or contractors on our property.

There are two good reasons to do this, the first and most important, we don't want anyone to get hurt, it is way to easy to suffer a life changing injury in any workplace.

The second is money, we cut our workmens comp by 90% by getting very aggressive with the safety culture, for us that translates to a roughly $7 million a year saving.

My company is about 65,000 people around the world, some unionized, some not. My experience is in the US. Most of our US facilities are unionized, but a few aren't. The few that aren't are overwhelmingly considered our best sites on a wide variety of factors (safety, employee engagement, productivity, etc.). Having been assigned to both unionized facilities and non-unionized facilities in our network, I can say I greatly prefer the non-unionized side of our network. Much happier environment.

That I cannot imagine, no union, no protection from unjust firing, also treatment, pay scales, benifits. I would ask what state, or area is this non union workers paradise. Are pay scales comparable, are benifits, are we talking Southern, are we talking foreign auto industry who flocked to historically non union states, where people would sell their souls for a decent job. Any job is better than the cotton fields. Deep South for sure.

Of course they have employee councils or some other foolish empowerment of the people which when the crunch comes maynot be all that good. Of course the fear of a union also benefits the non union so happy employees which is further proof of the benifit of a unions existance. Of course we also have Boeing in good old Alabamy.

WarRI1 wrote:

That I cannot imagine, no union, no protection from unjust firing, also treatment, pay scales, benifits.

Experience says Unions mostly protect against _justified_ firings.

The mandatory membership for a job aspect is imho problematic.
Union has a monopoly on jobs. The system lacks negative feedback.
( US unions just like US management doesn''t seem to be too far away from organized crime anyway. )

Pensions, healthcare still are not "secure".
Workplace savety and such doesn't belong into unions hands either.

WarRI1 wrote:

That I cannot imagine, no union, no protection from unjust firing, also treatment, pay scales, benifits. I would ask what state, or area is this non union workers paradise. Are pay scales comparable, are benifits, are we talking Southern, are we talking foreign auto industry who flocked to historically non union states, where people would sell their souls for a decent job. Any job is better than the cotton fields. Deep South for sure.

Of course they have employee councils or some other foolish empowerment of the people which when the crunch comes maynot be all that good. Of course the fear of a union also benefits the non union so happy employees which is further proof of the benifit of a unions existance. Of course we also have Boeing in good old Alabamy.

In the south, yes. Pharma industry.

Pay isn't comparable to the union sites mostly because the union sites are in the northeast, where cost of living is substantially higher. I was stunned how much less things cost when I moved down there. I had lived in the deep south as a little kid, so I didn't remember what the cost differential really was.

The site where I worked has been open since the mid 80s. Out of several hundred employees, there's a very large amount who have been at the site 15+ years and a rather remarkable amount who have been around since the site was opened.

WIederling wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

That I cannot imagine, no union, no protection from unjust firing, also treatment, pay scales, benifits.

Experience says Unions mostly protect against _justified_ firings.

The mandatory membership for a job aspect is imho problematic.
Union has a monopoly on jobs. The system lacks negative feedback.
( US unions just like US management doesn''t seem to be too far away from organized crime anyway. )

Pensions, healthcare still are not "secure".
Workplace savety and such doesn't belong into unions hands either.

Once again, bullshit.

cjg225 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

That I cannot imagine, no union, no protection from unjust firing, also treatment, pay scales, benifits. I would ask what state, or area is this non union workers paradise. Are pay scales comparable, are benifits, are we talking Southern, are we talking foreign auto industry who flocked to historically non union states, where people would sell their souls for a decent job. Any job is better than the cotton fields. Deep South for sure.

Of course they have employee councils or some other foolish empowerment of the people which when the crunch comes maynot be all that good. Of course the fear of a union also benefits the non union so happy employees which is further proof of the benifit of a unions existance. Of course we also have Boeing in good old Alabamy.

In the south, yes. Pharma industry.

Pay isn't comparable to the union sites mostly because the union sites are in the northeast, where cost of living is substantially higher. I was stunned how much less things cost when I moved down there. I had lived in the deep south as a little kid, so I didn't remember what the cost differential really was.

The site where I worked has been open since the mid 80s. Out of several hundred employees, there's a very large amount who have been at the site 15+ years and a rather remarkable amount who have been around since the site was opened.

Thanks for the information, yes the price of everything is higher here. Therefore one does not exist too well on minimum wage jobs. I have no problem with anyone staying at a non-union job. Any job where the company appreciates the work of the work force and pays a living wage and benefits for the area cannot be condemned by anyone with a brain. Of course we have seen the very opposite all too often with many corporations and companies and those who blindly condemn unions are the brainless unrealistic folks. I am being polite here. Most of them (brainless/unrealistic) without a doubt have benefited from the wash down of unions as I mentioned. The very threat of a union being voted in usually brings better wages and consideration of the very people who work there. A management person who treats people like humans is seldom disliked, but many are by their own actions. There are a certain percentage of management and union and non-union folks who are difficult let us say as employees. Blanket condemnations are absurd. You get my drift???

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not really a fan of Right-To-Work laws as nobody's rights are violated if the union and employer agree to operate a union shop or a closed shop. Likewise, nobody's rights are violated if an employer refuses to negotiate with a union. The rights of the shareholders are violated when they are forced into an economic transaction against their will to enter an economic relationship with the union.

In order to protect rights on all sides, the union must demonstrate it's value to both members and employers such that both will elect to do business with the union. An arrangement where all rights are preserved would resemble that between an agent and athletes or actors. The agent must sell their ability to secure attractive work to the talent they represent and simultaneously sell the teams or producers on the abilities of their clients.

Hillis wrote:

One thing that doesn't get enough PR is the fact that many non-union work places can have terrible safety records as well. He's an article about that very problem.

Let's not pretend that unions actually care about safety, at least beyond the idea that workers who are injured or killed won't be paying dues anymore.

http://jalopnik.com/5967123/chrysler-ha ... ring-lunch

When it comes to worker safety, here's an idea I would propose: All proceeds from fines levied by OSHA must be disbursed to the workers endangered.

WarRI1 wrote:

Do you want to earn a living where you can actually live, or be an economic slave?

I'd like to be held to a higher standard than just showing up and be rewarded for something other beyond just marking time.

B777LRF wrote:

5 weeks of paid vacation, paid maternity leave, 6 + 6 (optional) months of maternity leave, a minimum wage you can live off, free* schooling, free* healthcare, upgrading staff competencies paid by the employer.

Why can't the employer decide if (or which) of their workers justify that sort of compensation?

Hillis wrote:

The nations that provide those service mentioned above are happier, healthier and much more content with life.

Of course getting stuff with other people's money makes people happy. I'd be happier if I could go steal a new Ferrari, but that doesn't make it right.

tommy1808 wrote:

Happy cows give more milk.

This is true, but some cows give no milk and are best off as belts and beef.

WIederling wrote:

Experience says Unions mostly protect against _justified_ firings.

The mandatory membership for a job aspect is imho problematic.
Union has a monopoly on jobs. The system lacks negative feedback

Indeed.

WIederling wrote:

Pensions, healthcare still are not "secure".

Also true.

Hillis wrote:

Flighty wrote:

If you do not support the ability of people to own a business, then nobody will have a business.

If someone who owns a business cannot pay his/her workers a livable wage, with decent benefits and decent working conditions, then they shouldn't be in business.

You want people to literally beg for scraps. You have no problem with businesses that are mentioned in this article. You simply take the side of the rich and wealthy.

I have a problem with greedy businesses including greedy unions, which are businesses too.

And to respond to someone else, unions are not "partners" in the legal sense. That is mafia stuff. "Hey, we are your partners now..." yikes. Workers are paid for their work, they do not need to get a seat on the board or a piece of the company. I have good jobs these days but I rarely get much stock, I'm not like a big executive who is truly a partner in the business. I get what I can through job interviews. It's not easy. Is someone defending my interests? Yeah, me. I don't expect any help nor do I really deserve it.

Lots of people are making low wages, and I think it is a real problem. Our economy is filled with many extra low wage workers from other countries. That is just a fact. I think roofers should earn $75,000 per year. And they would, if we followed the law in this country about who can work here.

BMI727 wrote:

Likewise, nobody's rights are violated if an employer refuses to negotiate with a union.

Wrong. Collective bargaining is a human right. An employer can only chose to not negotiate at all, he has no more right not to negotiate with a union than he has to not negotiate with any single employee. Their "working power" is their property, an no one has the right to tell them how to use it. Collectively or not.

Or using the logic you employ every single time in favor or "owners" of whatever item that comes up, when regulations limit profit or take some of the profits away: Unionized Employees make on average 5 to 10% more than their non-unionized coworkers. Not negotiating with unions is therefore theft. I guess we should start jailing those criminals.

Or just start ignoring the inconsistent ramblings of the mentally ill Ayn Rands altogether. ... there where and are good reasons she didn´t publish under her own name.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Wrong. Collective bargaining is a human right.

Bullshit. Free association is a human right, but being employed by a particular employer is not.

Furthermore, shouldn't workers have the right to associate with a union every bit as much as an employer has a right to not be associated with a union? Why do you believe that some people should have greater rights than others?

Or to put it another way, if you reverse the situation by saying that employees would be forced to negotiate with a given employer you would have what is essentially slavery. It would clearly be wrong in that case, so advocating such policy in the other direction is just as wrong.

tommy1808 wrote:

Or using the logic you employ every single time in favor or "owners" of whatever item that comes up, when regulations limit profit or take some of the profits away: Unionized Employees make on average 5 to 10% more than their non-unionized coworkers. Not negotiating with unions is therefore theft.

It's not theft any more than my not shopping at a particular business for one reason or another is theft.

BMI727 wrote:

Furthermore, shouldn't workers have the right to associate with a union every bit as much as an employer has a right to not be associated with a union? Why do you believe that some people should have greater rights than others?

Employers have Unions, at least here. Employers have the same right not to join one as employees have, if they join one Employees have no right not to negotiate with them.

Same rights on both sides.

best regards
Thomas

Flighty wrote:

Lots of people are making low wages, and I think it is a real problem. Our economy is filled with many extra low wage workers from other countries. That is just a fact. I think roofers should earn $75,000 per year. And they would, if we followed the law in this country about who can work here.

It's no wonder Trump won. Everything is someone else's (particularly Brown people) fault. Yet you don't seem to look at the other side of the coin:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Lots of people are making low wages, and I think it is a real problem. Our economy is filled with many extra low wage workers from other countries. That is just a fact. I think roofers should earn $75,000 per year.

It's no wonder Trump won. Everything is someone else's (particularly Brown people) fault. Yet you don't seem to look at the other side of the coin:

Low wages in the US has long been a problem. The buying power of the minimum wage continues t4o shrink, especially when compared to the buying power of the minimum wage when President Reagan was in office

Failure to bring up the minimum wage and keep it current with inflation is fast way to develop a ref class in this country,

BMI727 wrote:

I

B777LRF wrote:

5 weeks of paid vacation, paid maternity leave, 6 + 6 (optional) months of maternity leave, a minimum wage you can live off, free* schooling, free* healthcare, upgrading staff competencies paid by the employer.

Why can't the employer decide if (or which) of their workers justify that sort of compensation?

Simple: If we leave these decisions to the employers, most - if not all - would come to the conclusion it's not justified for any worker. Every single benefit we, as workers, have gained over the years have been the direct result of either unions, or politicians heavily influence by unions, and their efforts to improve. Left to their own devices and without a powerful counterpart, employers would naturally be disinclined to improve conditions for workers.

B777LRF wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

I

B777LRF wrote:

5 weeks of paid vacation, paid maternity leave, 6 + 6 (optional) months of maternity leave, a minimum wage you can live off, free* schooling, free* healthcare, upgrading staff competencies paid by the employer.

Why can't the employer decide if (or which) of their workers justify that sort of compensation?

Simple: If we leave these decisions to the employers, most - if not all - would come to the conclusion it's not justified for any worker. Every single benefit we, as workers, have gained over the years have been the direct result of either unions, or politicians heavily influence by unions, and their efforts to improve. Left to their own devices and without a powerful counterpart, employers would naturally be disinclined to improve conditions for workers.

Absolutely. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool. Anyone who believes in the generosity of business people will be poor and deprived and on a subsistance level as has been and still shown every day here and elsewhere. Union pressure and the support of government labor laws has been the only factor in improving workers lives. With the global economy that improvement is being destroyed here, thanks to our corporations and lately our own politicians. Think Trump and his policies and business practices.

B777LRF wrote:

Every single benefit we, as workers, have gained over the years have been the direct result of either unions, or politicians heavily influence by unions, and their efforts to improve.

This is an objectively false assertion.

B777LRF wrote:

Left to their own devices and without a powerful counterpart, employers would naturally be disinclined to improve conditions for workers.

The rise of the knowledge economy has never made this statement less true than it is today.

WarRI1 wrote:

Anyone who believes in the generosity of business people will be poor and deprived and on a subsistance level as has been and still shown every day here and elsewhere.

It's not generosity. It is the ability of employees to provide genuine and differentiated value to employers.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Lots of people are making low wages, and I think it is a real problem. Our economy is filled with many extra low wage workers from other countries. That is just a fact. I think roofers should earn $75,000 per year. And they would, if we followed the law in this country about who can work here.

It's no wonder Trump won. Everything is someone else's (particularly Brown people) fault. Yet you don't seem to look at the other side of the coin:

I am sort of OK with a high minimum wage. It is fine for people like me, well behaved, experienced, well trained people who are legal US workers. People like me will be able to start off at or above this minimum wage, build experience and occupy leadership positions permanently. Lower value workers will just be cast aside, because it will be illegal to employ them. I am not sure what the plan is for them.

Flighty wrote:

I am sort of OK with a high minimum wage. It is fine for people like me, well behaved, experienced, well trained people who are legal US workers. People like me will be able to start off at or above this minimum wage, build experience and occupy leadership positions permanently. Lower value workers will just be cast aside, because it will be illegal to employ them. I am not sure what the plan is for them.

God, but that paragraph reeks with arrogance. Most people are well-behaved, legal workers. The ones that are illegal are hiried by businesses whose jobs Americans won't take because they're backbreakingly physical work, and said businesses can pay them less than minimum wage under-the-table.

Don't blame the workers for that; blame the companies who hire them, and refuse to pay wages that Americans can live on. And, what, in your mind, is a lower-value worker and what do they do? Are they the onces picking up after you in your office? Or are they the ones cleaning the restrooms at work? Who are they? You make them sound like they're sub-human, and can just be discared like the trash you throw into the waster basket.

That whole paragraph smell of overt racism.

BMI727 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Every single benefit we, as workers, have gained over the years have been the direct result of either unions, or politicians heavily influence by unions, and their efforts to improve.

This is an objectively false assertion.

Prove it. Simply you saying it doesn't make it so. The 40 hour work week, OSHA, the minimum wage, the end to child labor, health care coverage and medical leave. ALL of that is the result of union activism that everyone, whether they're part of a union or not, benefits from in the United States.

But let's see yoru proof to the contrary.

BMI727 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Left to their own devices and without a powerful counterpart, employers would naturally be disinclined to improve conditions for workers.

The rise of the knowledge economy has never made this statement less true than it is today.

WarRI1 wrote:

Anyone who believes in the generosity of business people will be poor and deprived and on a subsistance level as has been and still shown every day here and elsewhere.

It's not generosity. It is the ability of employees to provide genuine and differentiated value to employers.

And they only giave genuine and differentiated values to employees because workers fought, and some died, to get it. The early Industrialization of the United States was filled with companies that didn't give one damn about any workers.