Labor Union Mentality - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

Flame Wars

Labor Union Mentality

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Labor Union Mentality
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-03- 01:04 PM Freightliner Corp. (builder of large over-the-road trucks) has fallen on bad times and announced they are closing a plant in Canada next fall, a year from now. So the workers will have plenty of time to find other jobs in what will hopefully be a better economy next year. The company is negotiating a severence package with the Union. They offered one week's pay for each year of service which is very typical in industry. The union didn't like the offer so the workers walked out. Freightliner has now locked them out. Who knows if Freightliner will open the plant again. So instead of having a job and benefits for a year plus severence pay, the workers are going into Christmas with nothing at a time of a world wide economic slowdown and limited job prospects. Nice going union. IP: Logged
Smokey Pilot	posted 11-03- 08:58 PM Yes, Jerry, it would be much better for the world, not to mention you labor reps, if the nasty old union would just go away. That way the company could just pull up stakes, throw their workers out the door and go to Mexico without having to negotiate with anybody. Freightliner is a subsidiary of Dalmier/Chrysler, not exactally a poverty stricken company the last I heard. They had plenty of money to forge a merger not too long ago. [This message has been edited by Smokey (edited 11-03-2001).] IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-03- 09:36 PM There you go always thinking the worse about businessmen (along with Republicans). They aren't moving to Mexico. They are transfering the work to Portland, OR which is also unionized. So what's your problem? Not poverty stricken? I forget how much Daimler/Chrysler lost so far this year. Was it $1 billion or $2 billion? Makes, no difference. I'm sure the Union will make it up to them in return for the raises they got when the company was making money. IP: Logged
Spanky the Mad Dog Pilot	posted 11-04- 02:20 AM Yep sounds like a bunch of dumbasses to me. Lets see your going to give me a years warning before laying me off AND pay me money just because I worked for a number of years? Even with a union they could have given them a days warning and walked out, what could the union do with out a business to work for anymore? I don't know how they could be much nicer that. Insane. IP: Logged
Todesvogel Pilot	posted 11-04- 11:47 AM I'm in a union (for engineers). As far as I can tell, it can't do much for me. That's ok, I figure my life is in my hands, and no one really has my best interest at heart but me. I also contribute $.75 a week to a political action committe (PAC) which lobbies congress on my company's behalf. Mommy & Daddy union would be helpful if I were a coal miner, as they could pressure the company for safer working conditions on my behalf. But those measures would result in lower supply of payroll, increase costs of production. Reducing worker income while driving up costs to consumers. A worker can't get ahead of the income powercurve by driving up production costs. Money is made by all by producing for less. IP: Logged
DanW Pilot	posted 11-04- 12:06 PM LOL! IP: Logged
Todesvogel Pilot	posted 11-04- 12:24 PM Why laugh? IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 11-05- 04:20 PM Union did about the same thing to the down I grew up in. They wanted an increase, International Harvester said they couldn't. In fact things were so tight they would have to go out of business if the workers went on strike. The workes did (go on strike), the plant did (go out of business) and the town was nearly ruined. Most common bummper sticker at the time was "Last one out, turn out the lights..." Just because Freightliner is part of Chrystler doesnt mean they are doing well. Unions suck. IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-05- 04:41 PM "Unions suck." Most people know this. If it weren't for union membership in government agencies (Federal, State, Local) there wouldn't be enough Union members in this country for them to survive. Government and Unions are in bed together. Government is the fastest growing segment of our economy so the Unions are growing fat on the back of tax payers. Why do you think the Demo's want to "Federalize" all the airport employees. It adds to union membership and Unions are the biggest donors to the Democratic Party. Subtract government union members and Unions don't have much left. IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 11-05- 04:47 PM They should never have considered federalizing them. They should have considered miltarizing them. IP: Logged
Smokey Pilot	posted 11-05- 07:13 PM LOL, looks like you guys's contract security scabs let a person through at Chicago with a briefcase full of knives, mace and a stun gun. I hope you fly a lot, you deserve exactly the amount of security your willing to pay for. Another thing you need is about 6 months work in a non-union sweat shop. It would even be better if you could go back to the 1930's and work. IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 11-05- 07:32 PM How does current contract workers compare to militarizing (not federalizing) the security force? I am not saying that unions dont have their time and place (they did circa 1933 ). But there are times they do far more damage than good..... IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-05- 08:14 PM So Smokey, how does putting them on the Federal payroll suddenly make them competent? 1930's sweatshop??? Why stop there? Why not feudal England and we can talk about overthowing the King? LOL Hate to tell you but your attitudes and thinking are 70 years behind. That explains a lot. IP: Logged
Smokey Pilot	posted 11-05- 08:45 PM Just do away with unions and see how fast employers turn there businesses into sweat shops. They will go back 70 years in no time. Union employers pay better wages therefore they have more and better qualified people to select from when filling a vacancy. This leads to more compentent people being on the job. As far as the airlines go, I don't fly so I really don't see why I should have to support the airline industry through tax dollars or any other means. Why can't the price of the ticket reflect all the costs of opperating the business plus a fair profit? If the price of the ticket becomes too expensive and no one wants a plane ride then it's tough shit. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? The person riding the plane should foot the bill. IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-05- 10:07 PM If you don't want tax dollars supporting the airline industry, why are you asking that tax dollars pay for the airline baggage screeners? Make up your mind Smokey! By the way, the guy in Chicago with the knives, etc., is a foreign national here on an expired student visa. Guess who manages and controls visas? The INS. Guess who should have deported him when his visa expired? The INS. In case you didn't know Smokey, the INS is a government agency with government employees recieving high pay and benefits. How come they are as incompetent as the "scabs" you say should become government employees? This is the same INS which allowed most of 9/11 hijackers to remain in the country without valid visas. There goes your theory about the federal employees doing such a good job at security. IP: Logged
DanW Pilot	posted 11-05- 11:00 PM LOL!! Unions rule. Rat construction workers make 10 bucks an hour(even less, since they are all wetbacks..they are luck to make 6 an hour) Union construction workers make double that with benefits..... "So Smokey, how does putting them on the Federal payroll suddenly make them competent?" It would help Mr. Business man...anything is better than the lowest bidder, minimum wage, crackhead security guards that scan luggage now. What price is your safety worth? "If you don't want tax dollars supporting the airline industry, why are you asking that tax dollars pay for the airline baggage screeners? Make up your mind Smokey!" Smokes is talking about corporate welfare dumbass......GIVING money to corporations because they are they are loosing money. Tax dollars paying for Federal Screeners is no different than the Post Office (accept the post office is an actual corporate intity that is ran by the gov't) "The INS. Guess who should have deported him when his visa expired? The INS. In case you didn't know Smokey, the INS is a government agency with government employees recieving high pay and benefits. " Uh, check the job listings dude, INS agents don't make jack SHIT for money...they live in remote locations, and have to have a college degree and pass a spanish fluency test. Not your average Taco Bell worker. There aren't enough INS agents to go around...it's not imcompetence, it's lack of personnel and priorities. Anyway, retort away...it's fun to bitch slap you around....... IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-06- 01:13 AM "Unions rule." I'm sure that's exactly what those out of work Freightliner employees in Canada are saying right now. LOL If unions are so great why is it that less than 10% of non-government workers join them? If the government won't hire enough INS agents to do the job, what makes you think they will hire enough baggage inspectors? The post office is asking Congress for $3 billion dollars to cover expenses this year. Why is this also not government welfare? They are required by law to be self-supporting. Suck my retort DanWimp! IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 11-06- 10:30 AM quote: Originally posted by Smokey: Union employers pay better wages therefore they have more and better qualified people to select from when filling a vacancy. This leads to more compentent people being on the job. What complete and utter tripe. IP: Logged
3dp Pilot	posted 11-06- 12:36 PM I'm only jumping in here to drop off a bit of info on an issue near and dear to my heart, and then I'll go! Admittedly, many unions grossly abuse their influence and are in great need of reform. That said, an organization formed by workers to protect their interests is inherently a good thing. I can personally testify to the dramatic change in employer attitude from when I first became unemployed back in March through September when I finally landed something. Many (certainly not all) companies will certainly take advantage of the situation if their workers have no protection. Now to my main point. When upper management in the U.S. is pulling down hundreds of times more per year than its average employees, and (more importantly if you want an apples/apples comparison) ten times more than comparable management in other regions such as Japan and Europe, it is obvious where one of the major cash drains on these companies are. But for the most part, they do not take any massive pay cuts when the company's in trouble, but they get huge compensation when the company does well. By their own reasoning, shouldn't it be a two way street? CEOs who have been fired in this country for doing a bad job get compensation packages worth more than I will make in my lifetime. What they make is nothing short of obscene and a moral outrage when their is so much need in the world. As I said, I'm not absolving the unions of their fair share of the blame sometimes, but when you're seeking to place responsibility, look to the top first, that's where to real influence and money reside. ------------------ Be seeing you, 3dp Visit RAF Harkness! [This message has been edited by 3dp (edited 11-06-2001).] IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-06- 01:06 PM While I won't disagree with the you on the fact that top US executives get far more than their foreign counterparts, it's hardly a major cash drain. Their pay, as a percentage of corporate income, is a nit. Also, most of their income is tied to bonuses and stock options, not guaranteed. Bill Gates didn't become the richest man in the world from his salary. I do agree that such high pay levels leaves a bad taste in most people's mouths. It gives unions a wedge to drive between the employees and management and causes further mistrust of big business by the public. IP: Logged
Lothar Pilot	posted 11-06- 01:53 PM From my perspective, a lot of the problem with highly paid and poorly performing executives is that their salaries are set by the board of directors. The CEO, CFO and board members are all part of a small and highly incestuous group of old battleaxes. These people will take care of their own first and foremost, because Company A's boardmemebers are the CEOs of Company B, C, and D. They want everyone to throw money at the losers because they know they may be in the same position next quarter. Similarly, you don't find much "new blood" getting into the Fortune 500 CEO ranks, because these old geezers don't want the competition. This has been my experience, anyway. As for companies "taking advantage" of their employees? They will do it every time, especially if they are publicly traded. A publicly traded company's purpose is to: 1. Make money 2. Make money 3. Make money This means they have to pay employees as little as possible and with as few benefits as possible, short of having them all quit. If they didn't, their shareholders would sue them. Remember: talking about publicly trading companies "doing the right thing" is like talking about a monitor lizard "doing the right thing". It is a concept which just doesn't fit in the context. For this reason, unions can be good. Employees need some leverage. Maybe they all suck in practice, I've never worked with one. IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-06- 02:04 PM The purpose and foundation of capitalism is to: 1. Make Money 2. Make Money 3. Make Money What economic system are you suggesting we change to? The reason you hold a job is to: 1. Make Money 2. Make Money 3. Make Money So is making money all that bad? IP: Logged
Lothar Pilot	posted 11-06- 02:11 PM Of course the purpose of capitalism is to make money. I'm not suggesting it "should" be anything else, any more than I'm suggesting lizards should show sensitivity. You should be aware of the system you are working in, Pretending a company you work for (except small, owner operated ones) cares about you as an employee is foolish. For this reason we have to expect that companies will take advantage of their employees. Its just how it is. This isn't always true with small companies, which is why I've tried to limit my comments to publicly traded companies. [This message has been edited by Lothar (edited 11-06-2001).] IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center