Right to Work Bill

[Roadie]

Oh, guess I lost track.

Where is my score card???? I had it a minute ago....

I think there's an app for that

 

[Stschil]

I think there's an app for that

I have a voodoo doll app, but I swear I wasn't using it!

 

[PistolBob]

I also have a rash on my leg.

What does my taxes not being spent on important things have to do with my employer screwing me or not screwing me?

That's right. I'm glad you understand.

 

[rooster007]

After being told four or five times? Seriously?! I'm wondering if you have select hearing....

Please could you quote the 4 or 5 times . That would greatly be appreciated , as it relates to my post/respnse . If you can I will consede and concur. Thank you sir/ madam

P.S. would all future poster please put a designator as to their gender in signature line. But like it should matter ,since we are all gender neutral none

 

[NYFelon]

I come from a union family. Dad worked for NYTel/Nynex/Verizon for 34 years, all of them in a Union. Uncle worked for the same. Mom Worked for NYTel/AT&T/Lucent for 22 years (got put into a forced retirement package).

My Dad turned 60 last July. Even with his lifelong payment of dues for membership in a union, and his "generous" pension, he still has to work delivering cheesecakes 4 days a week to make ends meet. My Mom Works at a grocery store after her forced retirement and her pension doesn't mature for another 4 years. My Uncle had to sell his Condo in Bay Ridge (a very nice neighborhood in Brooklyn) to move into an apartment in Sheepshead Bay (a y neighborhood in Brooklyn).

I worked steel (non-union) for quite a few years right out of high school (before and after my state paid vacation), and never hurt for money. I can negotiate my own wage, please and thank you. I don't need some fat [ethnic epithet deleted] in a black suit with pinky rings to set my wage. I see all the "good" unions did my folks. Mods forgive me, but, to hell with them.

 

[IndyBeerman]

AJ It is called job security/soladrity ,(did I spell that right ) AJ , if I were a business owner of a union shop and they passed right ot work the first thing I would do:

Stage 1
All new hires would be non-union (yes) because I would talk them out of union rep, and threaten them , yes threaten them .

Hmm.. sounds like felony charges here....
BTW, welcome to your new room with free meals, your lower bunk mate is Bubba Joe, he's a former union dock worker that was threatened from day one because he was forced to pay abnormally high union dues to keep his job and not garner anything from it until he snapped. Enjoy your stay.

All new hires would would make half of what the union guys would.

Stage 2
I would ride the union guys like borrowed mules because their unions don't mean crap .

I would systematically fire all of the union guys, for what ever reasons I could find.

Stage 3
By reducing my labor cost by 50% I could be more competitive in the market place and put a lot more money in my pocket .

Ok maybe not competitve ,but dump more money in my pocket

Dang guys I'm starting to sound like one of the Occupy Indy people. Sorry

My granfather always said that an employee has a responsibility to their employer ,and a employer has a responsibility to their employees.

I use to own my own business , but I sold it , I felt that I was responsible for over 38 people . Not just my 9 employees but also their kids,wife, and the people that depended on them.

Owning 10 lemonade stands does not constitute running a business, just as much as your statement above as what you would do.

Your statement of:

By reducing my labor cost by 50% I could be more competitive in the market place and put a lot more money in my pocket .

Ok maybe not competitve ,but dump more money in my pocket

Shows us that you're willing to sacrifice product quality for profit, by having a lower grade product you will continually sell less and less product because of the quality until the point that your company collapses on top of it self because of shoddy workmanship and an undesirable product.

So, you've basically spelled it out for yourself that by hiring low wage unqualified employees your business will fail.
Businesses that prosper without union employees prosper and grow because they pay a wage that will let the put a viable quality product in the market that will be bought over and over. It happened because they paid wages to attract qualified workers, not because a union was around to falsely prop up those wages.

I work at one of those non union jobs that is willing to pay higher wages to attract a better qualified working person.

Guess what, in my business to my knowledge there was only one union company left in Indiana and that was 11 YEARS AGO, they are no longer union. Since that time my wages have increased and it was not because of a union to prop it up. My company determined it was the only way to retain and and attract qualified employees to do the job.

 

[Caleb]

Please could you quote the 4 or 5 times . That would greatly be appreciated , as it relates to my post/respnse . If you can I will consede and concur. Thank you sir/ madam

P.S. would all future poster please put a designator as to their gender in signature line. But like it should matter ,since we are all gender neutral none

So why should I go back to do what you should have done?

 

[rooster007]

Owning 10 lemonade stands does not constitute running a business, just as much as your statement above as what you would do.

Your statement of:

Shows us that you're willing to sacrifice product quality for profit, by having a lower grade product you will continually sell less and less product because of the quality until the point that your company collapses on top of it self because of shoddy workmanship and an undesirable product.

So, you've basically spelled it out for yourself that by hiring low wage unqualified employees your business will fail.
Businesses that prosper without union employees prosper and grow because they pay a wage that will let the put a viable quality product in the market that will be bought over and over. It happened because they paid wages to attract qualified workers, not because a union was around to falsely prop up those wages.

I work at one of those non union jobs that is willing to pay higher wages to attract a better qualified working person.

Guess what, in my business to my knowledge there was only one union company left in Indiana and that was 11 YEARS AGO, they are no longer union. Since that time my wages have increased and it was not because of a union to prop it up. My company determined it was the only way to retain and and attract qualified employees to do the job.

Indy I greatly appreciate your response , but that was totally hypothetical
I would never treat employees that help put bread on my table that way either union or non-union . Please read the last two statements of the above again. No I did not own 10 lemonade stands , I owned and electrical engineering firm in fishers. When I sold it, I sold it to the engineers and techs, who worked for me. Yes I sold it for a profit, I guess, considering all of the 18-20 hours days I put in. And through some really bad investments I had to start over.

 

[mojo2530]

honestly iam a little dissapointed in the responses. this could have been a good debate and a chance to educate or at least understand others views. here is the simple truth as i see it.

the company has the right to hire union or non-union contractors.
the reason they hire union contractors is because the union contractors are trained and can provide superior workmanship. union shops can provide more man power, a superior product, in a better time frame, whith less injuries, and they can assure the company this.

right to work WILL destroy unions, lower wages, and make the already troubling unemployment numbers even higher.

 

[rooster007]

So why should I go back to do what you should have done?

Come on Caleb prove your statement

 

[Caleb]

honestly iam a little dissapointed in the responses. this could have been a good debate and a chance to educate or at least understand others views. here is the simple truth as i see it.

the company has the right to hire union or non-union contractors.
the reason they hire union contractors is because the union contractors are trained and can provide superior workmanship. union shops can provide more man power, a superior product, in a better time frame, whith less injuries, and they can assure the company this.

right to work WILL destroy unions, lower wages, and make the already troubling unemployment numbers even higher.

The union shop I used to work for had horrible quality, always late on delivering parts to auto manufacture, machines are old and fail half the time, and you practically live at the damn place. Plus all the mandatory weekends and overtime you had to work at last min notice...they couldn't give two pieces of dog **** about you or your safety working conditions.

 

[Caleb]

Come on Caleb prove your statement

Go back and look

 

[Roadie]

honestly iam a little dissapointed in the responses. this could have been a good debate and a chance to educate or at least understand others views. here is the simple truth as i see it.

the company has the right to hire union or non-union contractors.
the reason they hire union contractors is because the union contractors are trained and can provide superior workmanship. union shops can provide more man power, a superior product, in a better time frame, whith less injuries, and they can assure the company this.

right to work WILL destroy unions, lower wages, and make the already troubling unemployment numbers even higher.

Honestly, I am a little disappointed in the responses. This could have been a good debate and a chance to educate or at least understand others views. Here is the simple truth as i see it:

• Your side has posted no PROOF of its assumptions
• I would bet most of you havent READ the Bill
• Your post makes assumptions about, and insults, non Union skilled Laborers
• Employees are going to be given the Right to choose, that's a GOOD thing
• Only 10% of all workers in Indiana are Unionized
• Even if ALL UNIONS suddenly ceased to exist, which they won't, the affect would be minimal

How's that?

EDIT: Oh, and AGAIN....

"If you have to FORCE someone to join a Union because they will choose NOT to without Government intervention, what does that say about the Unions? "

 

[rooster007]

Go back and look

NO you through down the gaunlet , now prove it.

You can't, can you, Please don't make emontional statement like that and except everyone to believe them.
PROVE IT (4 - 5 TIMES )
AND I WILL CONCUR AND CONSEDE!!!!!!

 

[rooster007]

CALEB ------------------PROOF

 

[Stschil]

honestly iam a little dissapointed in the responses. this could have been a good debate and a chance to educate or at least understand others views. here is the simple truth as i see it.

the company has the right to hire union or non-union contractors.
the reason they hire union contractors is because the union contractors are trained and can provide superior workmanship. union shops can provide more man power, a superior product, in a better time frame, whith less injuries, and they can assure the company this.

right to work WILL destroy unions, lower wages, and make the already troubling unemployment numbers even higher.

I don't think RTW is narrowly targeted at Skill Trades. There are plenty of union jobs that only require a body at a work bench.

 

[dross]

The law allows workers to unionize. (Wagner Act)

The law allows states to pass Right to Work laws. (Taft-Hartley)

You either believe in "Rule of Law" or you don't.

The rule of law doesn't mean what most people think it means. It doesn't have anything to do with obeying laws.

That something is a law doesn't make it right. It just means there are consequences for disobeying. The discussion here is whether a right to work law should be passed. In the course of that discussion, some of us are expressing disagreement with laws that have been passed that we think are unjust, an example being labor laws.

 

[mojo2530]

well my friend sounds like you worked for a poor excuse for a union shop. there are exceptions to any rule. just as i am sure there are both good and bad non-union shops. but as a rule a non union shop can not provide the man power or results that a uion shop can. I currently work for a union shop in Indiana, and can assure exspense (with in reason) is not spared at the cost of safety or qaulity. and mostly thats because thats what the company dictates and expects the union contractor to provide. maybe we should be worried about expecting more from companies here in indiana and not destroying the unions.the job site i work at employs nearly 10,000 contractors and at times is a bit of a fiasco, but has one of the best safety and quality records in the WORLD, and is acomplishing tasks in amazing time frames.i dont claim that unions are perfect, nothing is . but i do think its one of the last remaining ways a blue collar guy can educate himself earn an honest wage capable of supporting his family, and be some what protected from mis treatment by large companies and corporations. There are strength in numbers. and that statment is as true today as when our great grandfathers were organizing local unions and fighting for 40 hour work weeks, better conditions, and fair pay!

 

[rooster007]

OK ROADIE, CALEB, do you know what happens if the union I work for decides to strike .... guess what you don't have any food in the grocery stores in three days. Other that want is grow local. Do you have what is nessasary to sustain your family. At the turn of the century there wer on average of 110,000 railroad deaths @ year that were killed in work related accidents , YES 1 HUNDRED AND 10 THOUSAND PLUS. Now please argue that.

 

[OneBadV8]

OK ROADIE, CALEB, do you know what happens if the union I work for decides to strike .... guess what you don't have any food in the grocery stores in three days. Other that want is grow local. Do you have what is nessasary to sustain your family. At the turn of the century there wer on average of 110,000 railroad deaths @ year that were killed in work related accidents , YES 1 HUNDRED AND 10 THOUSAND PLUS. Now please argue that.

turn of the century? like 1900? before OSHA?