| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"T James" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2005 03:53:25 AM |
| Object: |
National Right to Work Act |
http://www.right-to-work.org/facts-issues/nrtwa.htm
The National Right to Work Committee® supports the enactment of a National
Right to Work Act. The passage of a National Right to Work law would eliminate
compulsory unionism in every state in the United States. Employees would be
free to choose whether or not to join a labor union.
The National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to federal law. It
would simply repeal five provisions in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
and one in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize the firing of workers for
refusal to pay union dues or "fees" to union officials.
Under the National Right to Work Act, workers would be free to choose union
representation voluntarily. No worker would be forced to accept unwanted union
"representation," and no worker would be prevented from joining a labor union.
Federal Legislation
Bill Position Description Status
H 500 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
S 370 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
.
|
|
| User: "Poor Man" |
|
| Title: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
06 Aug 2005 06:14:25 PM |
|
|
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42f46c75_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
http://www.right-to-work.org/facts-issues/nrtwa.htm
The National Right to Work Committee® supports the enactment of a National
Right to Work Act. The passage of a National Right to Work law would
eliminate
compulsory unionism in every state in the United States. Employees would
be
free to choose whether or not to join a labor union.
The National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to federal law.
It
would simply repeal five provisions in the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA)
and one in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize the firing of
workers for
refusal to pay union dues or "fees" to union officials.
Under the National Right to Work Act, workers would be free to choose
union
representation voluntarily. No worker would be forced to accept unwanted
union
"representation," and no worker would be prevented from joining a labor
union.
Federal Legislation
Bill Position Description Status
H 500 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
S 370 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
08 Aug 2005 09:16:48 AM |
|
|
I see nothing wrong with a person not wanting to join a union or pay union
dues(although in my opinion it's really kind of ignorant).Everyone should
have that right.BUT,on the other hand I feel that if a person elects to opt
out of union membership they should not be entitled to any of the benefits
that the Union has bargained for.When they opt out they should have to
bargain with management for ALL of their own benefits.And if that individual
needs any help(i.e.:disciplinary problems,medical problems,disability,paid
medical leave or even questions regarding any of these issues.)they should
be on their own.You can't have it both ways.
BrianD
UAW/Local 862
"Poor Man" <PoorMan@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lvbJe.23278$is3.20054@fe35.usenetserver.com...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42f46c75_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
http://www.right-to-work.org/facts-issues/nrtwa.htm
The National Right to Work Committee® supports the enactment of a
National
Right to Work Act. The passage of a National Right to Work law would
eliminate
compulsory unionism in every state in the United States. Employees would
be
free to choose whether or not to join a labor union.
The National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to federal
law. It
would simply repeal five provisions in the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA)
and one in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize the firing of
workers for
refusal to pay union dues or "fees" to union officials.
Under the National Right to Work Act, workers would be free to choose
union
representation voluntarily. No worker would be forced to accept unwanted
union
"representation," and no worker would be prevented from joining a labor
union.
Federal Legislation
Bill Position Description Status
H 500 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
S 370 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
08 Aug 2005 09:30:43 AM |
|
|
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:kPJJe.249123$xm3.43099@attbi_s21...
I see nothing wrong with a person not wanting to join a union or pay union
dues(although in my opinion it's really kind of ignorant).Everyone should have
that right.BUT,on the other hand I feel that if a person elects to opt out of
union membership they should not be entitled to any of the benefits that the
Union has bargained for.When they opt out they should have to bargain with
management for ALL of their own benefits.And if that individual needs any
help(i.e.:disciplinary problems,medical problems,disability,paid medical leave
or even questions regarding any of these issues.)they should be on their
own.You can't have it both ways.
BrianD
UAW/Local 862
What happens if these "individuals" get better
pay/benefits than the Union members? Is that
ok with you also?
"Poor Man" <PoorMan@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lvbJe.23278$is3.20054@fe35.usenetserver.com...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42f46c75_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
http://www.right-to-work.org/facts-issues/nrtwa.htm
The National Right to Work Committee® supports the enactment of a National
Right to Work Act. The passage of a National Right to Work law would
eliminate
compulsory unionism in every state in the United States. Employees would be
free to choose whether or not to join a labor union.
The National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to federal law.
It
would simply repeal five provisions in the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA)
and one in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize the firing of workers
for
refusal to pay union dues or "fees" to union officials.
Under the National Right to Work Act, workers would be free to choose union
representation voluntarily. No worker would be forced to accept unwanted
union
"representation," and no worker would be prevented from joining a labor
union.
Federal Legislation
Bill Position Description Status
H 500 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
S 370 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
08 Aug 2005 10:21:48 AM |
|
|
Why wouldn't it be ok with me?If that person can bargain with management for
better pay and benefits then more power to them.But that is a very unlikely
scenario for a blue collar worker.Unless of course that person is offering
to do a lot more for that increase in pay and benefits,such as working 60 or
more hour weeks,any or all weekends that the employer wants,etc.Personally
life is way to short for me.I certainly have no intention of giving my
entire life to some corporation just so they can make their stockholders
happy.
BrianD
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:Z_JJe.16$Kp.9@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:kPJJe.249123$xm3.43099@attbi_s21...
I see nothing wrong with a person not wanting to join a union or pay
union dues(although in my opinion it's really kind of ignorant).Everyone
should have that right.BUT,on the other hand I feel that if a person
elects to opt out of union membership they should not be entitled to any
of the benefits that the Union has bargained for.When they opt out they
should have to bargain with management for ALL of their own benefits.And
if that individual needs any help(i.e.:disciplinary problems,medical
problems,disability,paid medical leave or even questions regarding any of
these issues.)they should be on their own.You can't have it both ways.
BrianD
UAW/Local 862
What happens if these "individuals" get better
pay/benefits than the Union members? Is that
ok with you also?
"Poor Man" <PoorMan@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lvbJe.23278$is3.20054@fe35.usenetserver.com...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42f46c75_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
http://www.right-to-work.org/facts-issues/nrtwa.htm
The National Right to Work Committee® supports the enactment of a
National
Right to Work Act. The passage of a National Right to Work law would
eliminate
compulsory unionism in every state in the United States. Employees
would be
free to choose whether or not to join a labor union.
The National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to federal
law. It
would simply repeal five provisions in the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA)
and one in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize the firing of
workers for
refusal to pay union dues or "fees" to union officials.
Under the National Right to Work Act, workers would be free to choose
union
representation voluntarily. No worker would be forced to accept
unwanted union
"representation," and no worker would be prevented from joining a labor
union.
Federal Legislation
Bill Position Description Status
H 500 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
S 370 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
08 Aug 2005 11:20:49 AM |
|
|
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:gMKJe.249191$xm3.234706@attbi_s21...
Why wouldn't it be ok with me?
Just wanted to be sure you don't start
whining if a company gives better
pay/benefits based on quality/quantity
of work rather than membership in a
union. If the non-union worker is worth
more than the union wages/benefits, he
gets more. If he is worth less, he gets
less. All that is ok with you, right?
If that person can bargain with management for better pay and benefits then
more power to them.But that is a very unlikely scenario for a blue collar
worker.Unless of course that person is offering to do a lot more for that
increase in pay and benefits,such as working 60 or more hour weeks,any or all
weekends that the employer wants,etc.Personally life is way to short for me.I
certainly have no intention of giving my entire life to some corporation just
so they can make their stockholders happy.
BrianD
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:Z_JJe.16$Kp.9@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:kPJJe.249123$xm3.43099@attbi_s21...
I see nothing wrong with a person not wanting to join a union or pay union
dues(although in my opinion it's really kind of ignorant).Everyone should
have that right.BUT,on the other hand I feel that if a person elects to opt
out of union membership they should not be entitled to any of the benefits
that the Union has bargained for.When they opt out they should have to
bargain with management for ALL of their own benefits.And if that individual
needs any help(i.e.:disciplinary problems,medical problems,disability,paid
medical leave or even questions regarding any of these issues.)they should
be on their own.You can't have it both ways.
BrianD
UAW/Local 862
What happens if these "individuals" get better
pay/benefits than the Union members? Is that
ok with you also?
"Poor Man" <PoorMan@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lvbJe.23278$is3.20054@fe35.usenetserver.com...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42f46c75_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
http://www.right-to-work.org/facts-issues/nrtwa.htm
The National Right to Work Committee® supports the enactment of a National
Right to Work Act. The passage of a National Right to Work law would
eliminate
compulsory unionism in every state in the United States. Employees would
be
free to choose whether or not to join a labor union.
The National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to federal law.
It
would simply repeal five provisions in the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA)
and one in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize the firing of
workers for
refusal to pay union dues or "fees" to union officials.
Under the National Right to Work Act, workers would be free to choose
union
representation voluntarily. No worker would be forced to accept unwanted
union
"representation," and no worker would be prevented from joining a labor
union.
Federal Legislation
Bill Position Description Status
H 500 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
S 370 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
15 Aug 2005 04:26:25 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:bCLJe.318$op.225@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:gMKJe.249191$xm3.234706@attbi_s21...
Why wouldn't it be ok with me?
Just wanted to be sure you don't start
whining if a company gives better
pay/benefits based on quality/quantity
of work rather than membership in a
union. If the non-union worker is worth
more than the union wages/benefits, he
gets more. If he is worth less, he gets
less. All that is ok with you, right?
The question was answered BOB ... what's your point? Do you honestly think
any employer is going to pay you more for the same work just because you don't
join the union? Wake up BOB.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
15 Aug 2005 05:46:50 PM |
|
|
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5dZLe.4543$H_4.4182@trnddc07...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:bCLJe.318$op.225@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:gMKJe.249191$xm3.234706@attbi_s21...
Why wouldn't it be ok with me?
Just wanted to be sure you don't start
whining if a company gives better
pay/benefits based on quality/quantity
of work rather than membership in a
union. If the non-union worker is worth
more than the union wages/benefits, he
gets more. If he is worth less, he gets
less. All that is ok with you, right?
The question was answered BOB ... what's your point? Do you honestly think
any employer is going to pay you more for the same work just because you don't
join the union? Wake up BOB.
I'm quite awake, but apparently you are too
tired to comprehend what you read. Rest up
next time, ok?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
08 Aug 2005 10:32:00 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:gMKJe.249191$xm3.234706@attbi_s=
21...
Why wouldn't it be ok with me?
Just wanted to be sure you don't start
whining if a company gives better
pay/benefits based on quality/quantity
of work rather than membership in a
union. If the non-union worker is worth
more than the union wages/benefits, he
gets more. If he is worth less, he gets
less. All that is ok with you, right?
Ofcourse he isn't ok with it. He's a union guy. Oh sure he'll say he
is, but he's lying.
If that person can bargain with management for better pay and benefits =
then
more power to them.But that is a very unlikely scenario for a blue coll=
ar
worker.Unless of course that person is offering to do a lot more for th=
at
increase in pay and benefits,such as working 60 or more hour weeks,any =
or all
weekends that the employer wants,etc.Personally life is way to short fo=
r me.I
certainly have no intention of giving my entire life to some corporatio=
n just
so they can make their stockholders happy.
BrianD
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:Z_JJe.16$Kp.9@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:kPJJe.249123$xm3.43099@attbi=
_s21...
I see nothing wrong with a person not wanting to join a union or pay =
union
dues(although in my opinion it's really kind of ignorant).Everyone sh=
ould
have that right.BUT,on the other hand I feel that if a person elects =
to opt
out of union membership they should not be entitled to any of the ben=
efits
that the Union has bargained for.When they opt out they should have to
bargain with management for ALL of their own benefits.And if that ind=
ividual
needs any help(i.e.:disciplinary problems,medical problems,disability=
,paid
medical leave or even questions regarding any of these issues.)they s=
hould
be on their own.You can't have it both ways.
BrianD
UAW/Local 862
What happens if these "individuals" get better
pay/benefits than the Union members? Is that
ok with you also?
"Poor Man" <PoorMan@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lvbJe.23278$is3.20054@fe35.usenetserver.com...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42f46c75_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
http://www.right-to-work.org/facts-issues/nrtwa.htm
The National Right to Work Committee=AE supports the enactment of a=
National
Right to Work Act. The passage of a National Right to Work law would
eliminate
compulsory unionism in every state in the United States. Employees =
would
be
free to choose whether or not to join a labor union.
The National Right to Work Act would not add a single word to feder=
al law.
It
would simply repeal five provisions in the National Labor Relations=
Act
(NLRA)
and one in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize the firing of
workers for
refusal to pay union dues or "fees" to union officials.
Under the National Right to Work Act, workers would be free to choo=
se
union
representation voluntarily. No worker would be forced to accept unw=
anted
union
"representation," and no worker would be prevented from joining a l=
abor
union.
Federal Legislation
Bill Position Description Status
H 500 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
S 370 Support National Right to Work Act Text/Status
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
15 Aug 2005 04:38:16 AM |
|
|
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1123558320.921824.225420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bob wrote:
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:gMKJe.249191$xm3.234706@attbi_s21...
Why wouldn't it be ok with me?
Just wanted to be sure you don't start
whining if a company gives better
pay/benefits based on quality/quantity
of work rather than membership in a
union. If the non-union worker is worth
more than the union wages/benefits, he
gets more. If he is worth less, he gets
less. All that is ok with you, right?
Ofcourse he isn't ok with it. He's a union guy. Oh sure he'll say he
is, but he's lying.
Use your head. What company pays more just because somebody doesn't belong to
a union? NONE. You won't find an employer on the planet willing to pay you
more to do the same work just because you won't join ... there would be no
reason to have a union otherwise. Do you people ever engage your brain before
replying?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
15 Aug 2005 05:46:00 PM |
|
|
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:coZLe.4550$H_4.1703@trnddc07...
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1123558320.921824.225420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bob wrote:
"Brian" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:gMKJe.249191$xm3.234706@attbi_s21...
Why wouldn't it be ok with me?
Just wanted to be sure you don't start
whining if a company gives better
pay/benefits based on quality/quantity
of work rather than membership in a
union. If the non-union worker is worth
more than the union wages/benefits, he
gets more. If he is worth less, he gets
less. All that is ok with you, right?
Ofcourse he isn't ok with it. He's a union guy. Oh sure he'll say he
is, but he's lying.
Use your head. What company pays more just because somebody doesn't belong to
a union? NONE. You won't find an employer on the planet willing to pay you
more to do the same work just because you won't join ... there would be no
reason to have a union otherwise. Do you people ever engage your brain before
replying?
Please reread what I said. You have mischaracterized
it ... and hopefully it wasn't intentional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
16 Aug 2005 09:04:46 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:PW8Me.15392$XM3.7493@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Just wanted to be sure you don't start
whining if a company gives better
pay/benefits based on quality/quantity
of work rather than membership in a
union. If the non-union worker is worth
more than the union wages/benefits, he
gets more. If he is worth less, he gets
less. All that is ok with you, right?
Ofcourse he isn't ok with it. He's a union guy. Oh sure he'll say he
is, but he's lying.
Use your head. What company pays more just because somebody doesn't belong
to a union? NONE. You won't find an employer on the planet willing to pay
you more to do the same work just because you won't join ... there would be
no reason to have a union otherwise. Do you people ever engage your brain
before replying?
Please reread what I said. You have mischaracterized
it ... and hopefully it wasn't intentional.
I don't have to reread anything. You live in a fantasy world if you think
employers are going to pay more for non-union labor ... it doesn't happen.
They don't have to and won't. I would be happy to read some facts to the
contrary. I would be very surprised to learn of an employer that would treat
workers decently without the leverage of concerted union negotiations. Please
cite these corporate examples of humanity and I will gladly salute them.
Meanwhile, I will stand with what I said previously ... unions negotiate
better pay, benefits and working conditions ... companies don't just hand them
over out of the goodness of their heart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
16 Aug 2005 05:50:51 PM |
|
|
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124201087.3984179a8b1802a8beef5cb6ba25ff99@teranews...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:PW8Me.15392$XM3.7493@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Just wanted to be sure you don't start
whining if a company gives better
pay/benefits based on quality/quantity
of work rather than membership in a
union. If the non-union worker is worth
more than the union wages/benefits, he
gets more. If he is worth less, he gets
less. All that is ok with you, right?
Ofcourse he isn't ok with it. He's a union guy. Oh sure he'll say he
is, but he's lying.
Use your head. What company pays more just because somebody doesn't belong
to a union? NONE. You won't find an employer on the planet willing to pay
you more to do the same work just because you won't join ... there would be
no reason to have a union otherwise. Do you people ever engage your brain
before replying?
Please reread what I said. You have mischaracterized
it ... and hopefully it wasn't intentional.
I don't have to reread anything. You live in a fantasy world if you think
employers are going to pay more for non-union labor ... it doesn't happen.
They don't have to and won't. I would be happy to read some facts to the
contrary.
I work for a company who pays me more than
99% of the employees in the union. I was once
a member of the union, but no longer.
I would be very surprised to learn of an employer that would treat workers
decently without the leverage of concerted union negotiations. Please cite
these corporate examples of humanity and I will gladly salute them. Meanwhile,
I will stand with what I said previously ... unions negotiate better pay,
benefits and working conditions ... companies don't just hand them over out of
the goodness of their heart.
And I'll simply ask you ...
Would you whine if a company paid employees
what they are worth if they are not in the union,
and union wages if they are in the union?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
16 Aug 2005 07:10:37 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:s5uMe.9916$xW.7977@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
I work for a company who pays me more than
99% of the employees in the union. I was once
a member of the union, but no longer.
And you are not doing the same work as the union employees are you?
I would be very surprised to learn of an employer that would treat workers
decently without the leverage of concerted union negotiations. Please cite
these corporate examples of humanity and I will gladly salute them.
Meanwhile, I will stand with what I said previously ... unions negotiate
better pay, benefits and working conditions ... companies don't just hand
them over out of the goodness of their heart.
And I'll simply ask you ...
Would you whine if a company paid employees
what they are worth if they are not in the union,
and union wages if they are in the union?
Since there is no viable way to determine "what they are worth" it is a rather
silly question isn't it? How do you determine "what they are worth"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
16 Aug 2005 08:13:55 PM |
|
|
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1gvMe.5910$%K4.2296@trnddc09...
And I'll simply ask you ...
Would you whine if a company paid employees
what they are worth if they are not in the union,
and union wages if they are in the union?
Since there is no viable way to determine "what they are worth" it is a rather
silly question isn't it?
Employers do it every day. It's quite
viable. Now, answer the question.
How do you determine "what they are worth"?
Who cares? I asked a simple question, now
answer it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
16 Aug 2005 08:17:43 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:S9wMe.21779$rp.8996@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1gvMe.5910$%K4.2296@trnddc09...
And I'll simply ask you ...
Would you whine if a company paid employees
what they are worth if they are not in the union,
and union wages if they are in the union?
Since there is no viable way to determine "what they are worth" it is a
rather silly question isn't it?
Employers do it every day. It's quite
viable. Now, answer the question.
How do you determine "what they are worth"?
Who cares? I asked a simple question, now
answer it.
I am not in the habit of taking orders from misguided individuals who think
people have some intrinsic worth once they get promoted or moved to a salaried
job. Fact is ... I don't take orders from anyone so go ***** up a rope for all
I care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
16 Aug 2005 09:14:41 PM |
|
|
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XewMe.6129$Y55.3913@trnddc06...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:S9wMe.21779$rp.8996@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1gvMe.5910$%K4.2296@trnddc09...
And I'll simply ask you ...
Would you whine if a company paid employees
what they are worth if they are not in the union,
and union wages if they are in the union?
Since there is no viable way to determine "what they are worth" it is a
rather silly question isn't it?
Employers do it every day. It's quite
viable. Now, answer the question.
How do you determine "what they are worth"?
Who cares? I asked a simple question, now
answer it.
I am not in the habit of taking orders from misguided individuals who think
people have some intrinsic worth once they get promoted or moved to a salaried
job. Fact is ... I don't take orders from anyone so go ***** up a rope for all
I care.
I now understand why you need the
protection provided by a union.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 04:43:49 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2xMe.22085$rp.4960@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I now understand why you need the
protection provided by a union.
I suppose you could call it protection ... I prefer to think of it as job
security. The union provided a means for me (and many thousands of others) to
work a regular schedule and live very well without having to kiss anybody's
*****. Never took my work home or had a beeper or cell phone to yank me back to
work at all hours. Paid overtime for anything over the regular schedule that
I volunteered for. Paid holidays, vacation, personal time, etc. Very good
benefits and now retired after 30 years of work with a good pension. I guess
I can't understand why anyone would want to have to bow to some manager to get
a decent job when they don't have to. I never had any qualms about speaking
my mind at work because my livelihood was not at the whim of some tyrant but
determined by my skills and seniority. The simple fact is that unions provide
better pay, benefits and working conditions than the same job in a non-union
environment. And it also provided better job security than any company job
because the contract provided there had to be cause to be fired. And refusing
to laugh at the boss's jokes would not be considered cause. I realize there
are some willing to sell themselves differently and are quite happy to do so.
I have no problem with that at all. I just don't care to hear all the union
put-downs from those who are not happy with having sold their souls to the
company.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 07:27:56 AM |
|
|
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pFDMe.18552$Rp5.15902@trnddc03...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2xMe.22085$rp.4960@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I now understand why you need the
protection provided by a union.
I suppose you could call it protection ... I prefer to think of it as job
security. The union provided a means for me (and many thousands of others) to
work a regular schedule and live very well without having to kiss anybody's
*****. Never took my work home or had a beeper or cell phone to yank me back to
work at all hours. Paid overtime for anything over the regular schedule that
I volunteered for. Paid holidays, vacation, personal time, etc. Very good
benefits and now retired after 30 years of work with a good pension. I guess
I can't understand why anyone would want to have to bow to some manager to get
a decent job when they don't have to. I never had any qualms about speaking
my mind at work because my livelihood was not at the whim of some tyrant but
determined by my skills and seniority. The simple fact is that unions provide
better pay, benefits and working conditions than the same job in a non-union
environment. And it also provided better job security than any company job
because the contract provided there had to be cause to be fired. And refusing
to laugh at the boss's jokes would not be considered cause. I realize there
are some willing to sell themselves differently and are quite happy to do so.
I have no problem with that at all. I just don't care to hear all the union
put-downs from those who are not happy with having sold their souls to the
company.
I was a union member for many years and I am
quite aware of the benefits and the drawbacks.
However, that is not relevant to the question
I asked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 09:31:07 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2GMe.22499$rp.19100@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pFDMe.18552$Rp5.15902@trnddc03...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2xMe.22085$rp.4960@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I now understand why you need the
protection provided by a union.
I suppose you could call it protection ... I prefer to think of it as job
security. The union provided a means for me (and many thousands of others)
to work a regular schedule and live very well without having to kiss
anybody's *****. Never took my work home or had a beeper or cell phone to
yank me back to work at all hours. Paid overtime for anything over the
regular schedule that I volunteered for. Paid holidays, vacation, personal
time, etc. Very good benefits and now retired after 30 years of work with
a good pension. I guess I can't understand why anyone would want to have
to bow to some manager to get a decent job when they don't have to. I
never had any qualms about speaking my mind at work because my livelihood
was not at the whim of some tyrant but determined by my skills and
seniority. The simple fact is that unions provide better pay, benefits and
working conditions than the same job in a non-union environment. And it
also provided better job security than any company job because the contract
provided there had to be cause to be fired. And refusing to laugh at the
boss's jokes would not be considered cause. I realize there are some
willing to sell themselves differently and are quite happy to do so. I have
no problem with that at all. I just don't care to hear all the union
put-downs from those who are not happy with having sold their souls to the
company.
I was a union member for many years and I am
quite aware of the benefits and the drawbacks.
However, that is not relevant to the question
I asked.
Perhaps not. I can't imagine a way to make your question relevant. It is
very difficult to relate different jobs and their pay scales. Do you believe
a garbage collector should receive more pay than a Registered Nurse? How much
is a school teacher "worth"? Personally I found most of the office staff
where I worked to be highly overpaid. I worked with several so-called
engineers who couldn't do basic trig problems or volume equations yet they
made significantly more money than others. I don't begrudge them their pay,
but at the same time I don't think they provide any production value to
warrant it. I figured they must have required higher pay to put up with the
daily boring meetings and weird flavor-of-the-month moral building concepts,
etc. Six-Sigma was taking Caterpillar by storm when I left and it will take a
while to top that particular ***** storm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 11:13:08 AM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2GMe.22499$rp.19100@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pFDMe.18552$Rp5.15902@trnddc03...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2xMe.22085$rp.4960@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I now understand why you need the
protection provided by a union.
I suppose you could call it protection ... I prefer to think of it as job
security. The union provided a means for me (and many thousands of others)
to work a regular schedule and live very well without having to kiss
anybody's *****. Never took my work home or had a beeper or cell phone to
yank me back to work at all hours. Paid overtime for anything over the
regular schedule that I volunteered for. Paid holidays, vacation, personal
time, etc. Very good benefits and now retired after 30 years of work with
a good pension. I guess I can't understand why anyone would want to have
to bow to some manager to get a decent job when they don't have to. I
never had any qualms about speaking my mind at work because my livelihood
was not at the whim of some tyrant but determined by my skills and
seniority. The simple fact is that unions provide better pay, benefits and
working conditions than the same job in a non-union environment. And it
also provided better job security than any company job because the contract
provided there had to be cause to be fired. And refusing to laugh at the
boss's jokes would not be considered cause. I realize there are some
willing to sell themselves differently and are quite happy to do so. I have
no problem with that at all. I just don't care to hear all the union
put-downs from those who are not happy with having sold their souls to the
company.
I was a union member for many years and I am
quite aware of the benefits and the drawbacks.
However, that is not relevant to the question
I asked.
Perhaps not. I can't imagine a way to make your question relevant. It is
very difficult to relate different jobs and their pay scales. Do you believe
a garbage collector should receive more pay than a Registered Nurse?
You probably think they should.
How much is a school teacher "worth"? Personally I found most of the office > staff where I worked to be highly overpaid. I worked with several so-called
engineers who couldn't do basic trig problems or volume equations yet they
made significantly more money than others. I don't begrudge them their pay,
but at the same time I don't think they provide any production value to
warrant it. I figured they must have required higher pay to put up with the
daily boring meetings and weird flavor-of-the-month moral building concepts,
etc. Six-Sigma was taking Caterpillar by storm when I left and it will take a
while to top that particular ***** storm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 12:02:25 PM |
|
|
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1124295188.621935.58240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Legel wrote:
Perhaps not. I can't imagine a way to make your question relevant. It is
very difficult to relate different jobs and their pay scales. Do you
believe
a garbage collector should receive more pay than a Registered Nurse?
You probably think they should.
Actually I don't, but they do because people are more concerned about getting
their garbage collected every week than they are about getting decent health
care the few times they require it. Nurses would be paid a whole lot more if
you had to spend a day a week in their care. Instead we treat them like
waitresses and clerks and then wonder why there is a shortage. Wait until we
import a few million nurses and you need to explain what hurts to someone who
doesn't speak the language and could care less if it hurts or not. Progress.
People are too short-sighted sometimes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 11:09:46 AM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2xMe.22085$rp.4960@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I now understand why you need the
protection provided by a union.
I suppose you could call it protection ... I prefer to think of it as job
security.
Sounds more like favortism to me.
The union provided a means for me (and many thousands of others) to
work a regular schedule and live very well without having to kiss anybody's
*****. Never took my work home or had a beeper or cell phone to yank me back to
work at all hours.
So you weren't made to do as much work as you would have without the
union. Nice dedication you got going there. Instead of you having to do
that, though, a scab would have to do it in your place and not get paid
more for it. Tell me how that's fair.
Paid overtime for anything over the regular schedule that I volunteered for. > Paid holidays, vacation, personal time, etc. Very good benefits and now
And why did you deserve all that? You obviously weren't as dedicated or
did as much work as a scab.
retired after 30 years of work with a good pension. I guess I can't understand > why anyone would want to have to bow to some manager to get a decent job when
You can't understand why someone would want to really earn the benefits
that you get for doing little.
they don't have to. I never had any qualms about speaking my mind at work > because my livelihood was not at the whim of some tyrant but determined by my > skills and seniority.
What seniority? You mentioned all these benfits and extra pay you got
from being a unionite, but never said anything about being promoted.
Considering your lack of work ethic, I'd be hard pressed to believe you
were ever promoted.
The simple fact is that unions provide better pay,benefits and working > conditions than the same job in a non-union environment. And it also provided > better job security than any company job because the contract provided there > had to be cause to be fired. And refusing to laugh at the boss's jokes would > not be considered cause.
In otherwords, you got extra rewards that you didn't deserve because
you weren't willing to work hard for several years and work your way up
the ladder much less show your boss the respect he deserves for doing
just that.
I realize there are some willing to sell themselves differently and are quite > happy to do so. I have no problem with that at all. I just don't care to hear > all the union put-downs from those who are not happy with having sold their > souls to the company.
That has nothing to do with it. We complain about unions because all
the rhetoric they give about looking out for the little guy is a total
crock. Unions provide lazy bums with undeserved rewards as a means of
telling business owners and CEO's how to run their businesses and do
their jobs because they think that guys in those positions have a
certain amount of clout or power and they want that clout and power for
themselves. And if the business guys don't comply with their demands,
the unions threaten to go on strike (which nothing other than flat-out
extortion).
Unions are crooks. That's all they are. That's why they're all run by
the mafia. They steal from businesses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 11:58:23 AM |
|
|
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1124294986.327715.124540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Legel wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2xMe.22085$rp.4960@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I now understand why you need the
protection provided by a union.
I suppose you could call it protection ... I prefer to think of it as job
security.
Sounds more like favortism to me.
I suppose it would considering your obvious lack of understanding.
The union provided a means for me (and many thousands of others) to
work a regular schedule and live very well without having to kiss anybody's
*****. Never took my work home or had a beeper or cell phone to yank me back
to
work at all hours.
So you weren't made to do as much work as you would have without the
union. Nice dedication you got going there. Instead of you having to do
that, though, a scab would have to do it in your place and not get paid
more for it. Tell me how that's fair.
More ignorant *****. Another idiot who thinks employers are stupid enough
to allow workers to slack off just because they belong to a union. Fact is
the union busting scabs were rewarded with do-nothing jobs for selling their
souls to the company. Most of them were let go after a couple years ... once
they couldn't justify keeping the inexperienced boat anchors.
Paid overtime for anything over the regular schedule that I volunteered
for. > Paid holidays, vacation, personal time, etc. Very good benefits
and now
And why did you deserve all that? You obviously weren't as dedicated or
did as much work as a scab.
Again your stupidity shines. I wasn't the least dedicated, but I was the
fourth generation to work there and make Caterpillar one of the moste
profitable companies on the planet. I earned every penney of what I received.
The scabs simply filled spots on the floor until they were let go.
retired after 30 years of work with a good pension. I guess I can't
understand > why anyone would want to have to bow to some manager to get a
decent job when
You can't understand why someone would want to really earn the benefits
that you get for doing little.
You couldn't stand in my shadow for a day so don't tell me about "doing
little". I handled steel and iron construction equip. parts 8 hours a day,
every working day for 30 years. I doubt you would last a week.
they don't have to. I never had any qualms about speaking my mind at work
because my livelihood was not at the whim of some tyrant but determined
by my > skills and seniority.
What seniority? You mentioned all these benfits and extra pay you got
from being a unionite, but never said anything about being promoted.
Considering your lack of work ethic, I'd be hard pressed to believe you
were ever promoted.
Actually I turned down every promotion to the office because I couldn't be a
hypocrite and swallow the crap. I have a habit of speaking my mind. I was at
the top pay scale for union wages for 25 of those 30 years as a skilled
machinist, tool and die maker. You confuse work ethic with blind obedience.
I did my work well ... as good or better than anyone. I simply didn't take a
lot of ***** while doing it. Caterpillar provided me a job, they did not own
me. I defined my work ... it did not define me.
The simple fact is that unions provide better pay,benefits and working
conditions than the same job in a non-union environment. And it also
provided > better job security than any company job because the contract
provided there > had to be cause to be fired. And refusing to laugh at
the boss's jokes would > not be considered cause.
In otherwords, you got extra rewards that you didn't deserve because
you weren't willing to work hard for several years and work your way up
the ladder much less show your boss the respect he deserves for doing
just that.
As I have said before, I don't use "other words" ... I speak English and said
exactly what I meant to say. You, on the other hand, have no idea what you
are talking about so you resort to "other words." I worked hard for 30 years
at the top levels of research machining. I have handled more complex machine
parts and exotic metals than you can even dream about so save your sarcasm. I
gave every boss the respect he earned. If he treated me like you are acting I
simply ignored him until a real one came along ... and they always did. I met
very few bosses in the past 20 years who "earned" their job. They simply
showed up from college expecting instant respect. Forget it.
I realize there are some willing to sell themselves differently and are
quite > happy to do so. I have no problem with that at all. I just don't
care to hear > all the union put-downs from those who are not happy with
having sold their > souls to the company.
That has nothing to do with it. We complain about unions because all
the rhetoric they give about looking out for the little guy is a total
crock. Unions provide lazy bums with undeserved rewards as a means of
telling business owners and CEO's how to run their businesses and do
their jobs because they think that guys in those positions have a
certain amount of clout or power and they want that clout and power for
themselves. And if the business guys don't comply with their demands,
the unions threaten to go on strike (which nothing other than flat-out
extortion).
Unions are crooks. That's all they are. That's why they're all run by
the mafia. They steal from businesses.
You are welcome to your opinion ... but I will tell you it is only an
unsubstantiated opinion. If you spent some time in a union factory and then a
non-union one I think you might learn something. I suspect you would prefer
to shoot off you ignorant mouth instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 01:21:19 PM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1124294986.327715.124540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Legel wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:T2xMe.22085$rp.4960@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I now understand why you need the
protection provided by a union.
I suppose you could call it protection ... I prefer to think of it as job
security.
Sounds more like favortism to me.
I suppose it would considering your obvious lack of understanding.
Oh I understand perfectly. You do as much work as you want to do and
not an ounce more. If you don't want to work over time, fine. Let some
scab do it. He deserves it for not joining up with your union gang.
The union provided a means for me (and many thousands of others) to
work a regular schedule and live very well without having to kiss anybody's
*****. Never took my work home or had a beeper or cell phone to yank me back
to
work at all hours.
So you weren't made to do as much work as you would have without the
union. Nice dedication you got going there. Instead of you having to do
that, though, a scab would have to do it in your place and not get paid
more for it. Tell me how that's fair.
More ignorant *****. Another idiot who thinks employers are stupid enough
to allow workers to slack off just because they belong to a union. Fact is
the union busting scabs were rewarded with do-nothing jobs for selling their
souls to the company. Most of them were let go after a couple years ... once
they couldn't justify keeping the inexperienced boat anchors.
Oh please! Union workers get more rewards without doing extra work and
you know it. You people are bums. And the only reason a scab would get
a do-nothing job is because it's the only one he's qualified for.
Paid overtime for anything over the regular schedule that I volunteered
for. > Paid holidays, vacation, personal time, etc. Very good benefits
and now
And why did you deserve all that? You obviously weren't as dedicated or
did as much work as a scab.
Again your stupidity shines. I wasn't the least dedicated, but I was the
fourth generation to work there and make Caterpillar one of the moste
profitable companies on the planet. I earned every penney of what I received.
The scabs simply filled spots on the floor until they were let go.
Bunk! Once Caterpillar earned those larger profits, you people were
given bonuses. But that wasn't good enough for you, oh no. You had to
have raises instead and you whined and screamed in the streets.
retired after 30 years of work with a good pension. I guess I can't
understand > why anyone would want to have to bow to some manager to get a
decent job when
You can't understand why someone would want to really earn the benefits
that you get for doing little.
You couldn't stand in my shadow for a day so don't tell me about "doing
little". I handled steel and iron construction equip. parts 8 hours a day,
every working day for 30 years. I doubt you would last a week.
I doubt you did, but you'd be surprised what I can handle.
they don't have to. I never had any qualms about speaking my mind at work
because my livelihood was not at the whim of some tyrant but determined
by my > skills and seniority.
What seniority? You mentioned all these benfits and extra pay you got
from being a unionite, but never said anything about being promoted.
Considering your lack of work ethic, I'd be hard pressed to believe you
were ever promoted.
Actually I turned down every promotion to the office because I couldn't be a
hypocrite and swallow the crap. I have a habit of speaking my mind. I was at
the top pay scale for union wages for 25 of those 30 years as a skilled
machinist, tool and die maker. You confuse work ethic with blind obedience.
I did my work well ... as good or better than anyone. I simply didn't take a
lot of ***** while doing it. Caterpillar provided me a job, they did not own
me. I defined my work ... it did not define me.
You are defined by your work, you idiot. You can't define anything.
The simple fact is that unions provide better pay,benefits and working
conditions than the same job in a non-union environment. And it also
provided > better job security than any company job because the contract
provided there > had to be cause to be fired. And refusing to laugh at
the boss's jokes would > not be considered cause.
In otherwords, you got extra rewards that you didn't deserve because
you weren't willing to work hard for several years and work your way up
the ladder much less show your boss the respect he deserves for doing
just that.
As I have said before, I don't use "other words" ... I speak English and said
exactly what I meant to say. You, on the other hand, have no idea what you
are talking about so you resort to "other words." I worked hard for 30 years
at the top levels of research machining. I have handled more complex machine
parts and exotic metals than you can even dream about so save your sarcasm.
Yeah when you felt like it maybe.
I gave every boss the respect he earned. If he treated me like you are acting > I simply ignored him until a real one came along ... and they always did. I > met very few bosses in the past 20 years who "earned" their job. They simply
showed up from college expecting instant respect. Forget it.
Sure, whatever.
I realize there are some willing to sell themselves differently and are
quite > happy to do so. I have no problem with that at all. I just don't
care to hear > all the union put-downs from those who are not happy with
having sold their > souls to the company.
That has nothing to do with it. We complain about unions because all
the rhetoric they give about looking out for the little guy is a total
crock. Unions provide lazy bums with undeserved rewards as a means of
telling business owners and CEO's how to run their businesses and do
their jobs because they think that guys in those positions have a
certain amount of clout or power and they want that clout and power for
themselves. And if the business guys don't comply with their demands,
the unions threaten to go on strike (which nothing other than flat-out
extortion).
Unions are crooks. That's all they are. That's why they're all run by
the mafia. They steal from businesses.
You are welcome to your opinion ... but I will tell you it is only an
unsubstantiated opinion. If you spent some time in a union factory and then a
non-union one I think you might learn something. I suspect you would prefer
to shoot off you ignorant mouth instead.
Most likely the workers in the union one would still be on their coffee
they took right after lunch ended.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 01:37:35 PM |
|
|
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1124302879.091572.121490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Legel wrote:
I suppose it would considering your obvious lack of understanding.
Oh I understand perfectly. You do as much work as you want to do and
not an ounce more. If you don't want to work over time, fine. Let some
scab do it. He deserves it for not joining up with your union gang.
He/she doesn't have to do it either. It's the contract stupid.
More ignorant *****. Another idiot who thinks employers are stupid
enough
to allow workers to slack off just because they belong to a union. Fact is
the union busting scabs were rewarded with do-nothing jobs for selling
their
souls to the company. Most of them were let go after a couple years ...
once
they couldn't justify keeping the inexperienced boat anchors.
Oh please! Union workers get more rewards without doing extra work and
you know it. You people are bums. And the only reason a scab would get
a do-nothing job is because it's the only one he's qualified for.
Please yourself. I know nothing of the kind and you will find no evidence to
support your assertions. Us people are the most productive people on the
planet and there is plenty of evidence to support that. The reason a scab
would get a do-nothing job is because he/she was hired to fill a real
machinists job and rarely knows how to do more than push the big green button
.... and then the big red one when things go BANG!
Again your stupidity shines. I wasn't the least dedicated, but I was the
fourth generation to work there and make Caterpillar one of the moste
profitable companies on the planet. I earned every penney of what I
received.
The scabs simply filled spots on the floor until they were let go.
Bunk! Once Caterpillar earned those larger profits, you people were
given bonuses. But that wasn't good enough for you, oh no. You had to
have raises instead and you whined and screamed in the streets.
Wrong again oh foolish one. Caterpillar wanted to remove many of our work
clauses, including union grievance procedures, job classes. They implemented
two-tier wages which subjected the new workers to much lower wages and
benefits. Your really ought to read some history before shooting off your
ignorant replies. Our strikes were for Unfair Labor Practices which had
nothing to do with economic issues.
What seniority? You mentioned all these benfits and extra pay you got
from being a unionite, but never said anything about being promoted.
Considering your lack of work ethic, I'd be hard pressed to believe you
were ever promoted.
Actually I turned down every promotion to the office because I couldn't be
a
hypocrite and swallow the crap. I have a habit of speaking my mind. I was
at
the top pay scale for union wages for 25 of those 30 years as a skilled
machinist, tool and die maker. You confuse work ethic with blind
obedience.
I did my work well ... as good or better than anyone. I simply didn't take
a
lot of ***** while doing it. Caterpillar provided me a job, they did not
own
me. I defined my work ... it did not define me.
You are defined by your work, you idiot. You can't define anything.
I suspect you are. I am not. I did the work I wanted to do. Why would
anyone lock themselves into a job they don't want to do? You sound like quite
the puppet if you can't even define your own employment.
You are welcome to your opinion ... but I will tell you it is only an
unsubstantiated opinion. If you spent some time in a union factory and
then a
non-union one I think you might learn something. I suspect you would
prefer
to shoot off you ignorant mouth instead.
Most likely the workers in the union one would still be on their coffee
they took right after lunch ended.
And that would be the fault of the employer if such stupidity were allowed. I
suspect you don't have much real world work experience.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 10:33:03 AM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:S9wMe.21779$rp.8996@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1gvMe.5910$%K4.2296@trnddc09...
And I'll simply ask you ...
Would you whine if a company paid employees
what they are worth if they are not in the union,
and union wages if they are in the union?
Since there is no viable way to determine "what they are worth" it is a
rather silly question isn't it?
Employers do it every day. It's quite
viable. Now, answer the question.
How do you determine "what they are worth"?
Who cares? I asked a simple question, now
answer it.
I am not in the habit of taking orders from misguided individuals who think
people have some intrinsic worth once they get promoted or moved to a salaried
job. Fact is ... I don't take orders from anyone so go ***** up a rope for all
I care.
Nice cop out, pal. And way to show your commie beliefs as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 11:41:01 AM |
|
|
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1124292783.613758.189150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Legel wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:S9wMe.21779$rp.8996@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1gvMe.5910$%K4.2296@trnddc09...
And I'll simply ask you ...
Would you whine if a company paid employees
what they are worth if they are not in the union,
and union wages if they are in the union?
Since there is no viable way to determine "what they are worth" it is a
rather silly question isn't it?
Employers do it every day. It's quite
viable. Now, answer the question.
How do you determine "what they are worth"?
Who cares? I asked a simple question, now
answer it.
I am not in the habit of taking orders from misguided individuals who think
people have some intrinsic worth once they get promoted or moved to a
salaried
job. Fact is ... I don't take orders from anyone so go ***** up a rope for
all
I care.
Nice cop out, pal. And way to show your commie beliefs as well.
No cop out PAL and you wouldn't recognize a "commie" if he slapped your
ignorant mouth. I stand by my assertion that you can't compare different
people in different jobs, union or otherwise, and determine their "worth"
simply on the basis of the desk they sit at.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 11:57:48 AM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1124292783.613758.189150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Legel wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:S9wMe.21779$rp.8996@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1gvMe.5910$%K4.2296@trnddc09...
And I'll simply ask you ...
Would you whine if a company paid employees
what they are worth if they are not in the union,
and union wages if they are in the union?
Since there is no viable way to determine "what they are worth" it is a
rather silly question isn't it?
Employers do it every day. It's quite
viable. Now, answer the question.
How do you determine "what they are worth"?
Who cares? I asked a simple question, now
answer it.
I am not in the habit of taking orders from misguided individuals who think
people have some intrinsic worth once they get promoted or moved to a
salaried
job. Fact is ... I don't take orders from anyone so go ***** up a rope for
all
I care.
Nice cop out, pal. And way to show your commie beliefs as well.
No cop out PAL and you wouldn't recognize a "commie" if he slapped your
ignorant mouth. I stand by my assertion that you can't compare different
people in different jobs, union or otherwise, and determine their "worth"
simply on the basis of the desk they sit at.
Their worth is determined by how important their position is to the
company, you stupid fool. Only a commie like you would be dumb enough
to believe that all positions are equaly important.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almost like it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
17 Aug 2005 12:05:50 PM |
|
|
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1124297868.830659.12530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Their worth is determined by how important their position is to the
company, you stupid fool. Only a commie like you would be dumb enough
to believe that all positions are equaly important.
And sometime workers decide they are worth more. Those workers join unions
and receive better pay, benefits, and working conditions. And once again, the
commie label has been pretty well been used up ... try something new for a
change.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Unions Suck" |
|
| Title: Re: What a strange name for a bill that destroys unions. It's almostlike it's DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Like the Clear Skies Act. |
16 Aug 2005 07:03:21 PM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
Since there is no viable way to determine "what they are worth" it is a
rather silly question isn't it? How do you determine "what they are
worth"?
They are worth what the market will pay. there are plenty of companies
that base salary on market salary surveys.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|