unions

veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2880770
What did the unions spend on political advertising this year? I know they planned on 53 million just against McCain. I think the total they planned for this election cycle was 142 million over all. That is in addition to the millions they spend lobbying.
Maybe as part of the next stimulus package Congress can suspend Union's ability to collect dues for a few months. It appears they are collecting quite a bit in excess dues
Off topic and i vote Republican for the record
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2880773
I dont believe everyone has to belong.But there is no way Union and non can work side buy side.It would at the very least cause strife between employees vs employees, employees vs employers for a number of reasons.
Why not Veni?
To me this is the heart of the issues with Unions. If everyone has to belong in order to work a job I have to ask why? Why would Unions not allow non-union workers? Why would their be strife and resentment? If what you are saying is true then they would inevitably be lowered paid, correct?
The political lobbying and forced dues is a whole nother can of worms...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2880813
We could start pointing fingers else where as well in both parties.
Sure if you want to go back to hoover. But unions haven't been pro-republican since the great depression.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2880788
Why not Veni?
To me this is the heart of the issues with Unions. If everyone has to belong in order to work a job I have to ask why? Why would Unions not allow non-union workers? Why would their be strife and resentment? If what you are saying is true then they would inevitably be lowered paid, correct?
The political lobbying and forced dues is a whole nother can of worms...
Here is why in the building trades.A union job site consists of a General Contractor that has signed a union contract to use union labor.For many reasons.A few would be these, highly trained,safety trained and conscious ,resulting in cost efficiency,and sheer number of workers that cant be provided from another source because it doesn't exist in mass.If these GC's didnt like the union they arent bound to continue using them.There isnt any law that says you must use union labor that im aware of.So i would say we might be doing something right and everyone is making a decent living from the top down.I can almost guarentee if you put a non union worker with union workers given a option to join he would.Why would some one work for $10 when he could be making $20 doing the same thing. It boils down to this as i see it.Who get to determine the cost of the labor?The employee,employer,or consumer.It seems to me that we have found common ground or people would just turn away from union built home,buildings....and buy a non -union one that is supposedly cheaper,or the GC's would train and employ there own work force.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2880823
Sure if you want to go back to hoover. But unions haven't been pro-republican since the great depression.
You are telling me that the Republican party doesn't take Lobbyist money?This Union member is a Republican and so are many of my co workers.Dont group every individual together with their beliefs with that of a organization.Or as you say "as a whole"
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
What percentage of YOUR money do you think your union contributes to Republicans vs. Democrats? Do you think they ran any ads to support Republican candidates?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2880748
If a company signs a union contract it is bound by the legal contract until it expires.If they want out after the contract expires they are free to do so.The employees can either go along with this or find another job.But most all the companies i work for continue to resign.Some leave and new one sign.
That's what I don't get with these UAW workers. They say they can't take concessions or reductions because they have a signed contract with the Big 3 that can't be modified until it expires. They are legally bound to the union contract. Well if I were the Big 3, I'd say either you make concessions, or we go out of business. If we're out of business, you have no jobs. Have a legal contract do you? Good for you. I'm filing Chapter 7, and you get nothing. So which would your prefer?
1) A job that pays you the same hourly wage, but you don't get all the extra perks - paid leave even when laid off, free medical benefits, free life insurance, enormous pension, etc.
2) You lose your job completely and try to find a job with the other 150,000 unemployed workers.
The UAW members can call a special meeting to vote on the modifications. From what I'm reading, this UAW President and his other Board sidekicks don't want to do that. Sounds to me they aren't letting their members decide their own fate. Yea, being in a union has great benefits...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2880850
You are telling me that the Republican party doesn't take Lobbyist money?This Union member is a Republican and so are many of my co workers.Dont group every individual together with their beliefs with that of a organization.Or as you say "as a whole"
Please on an individual level, I think a lot of union members are republicans. The leadership are a bunch of democrats. For the most part. I haven't seen a major union endorse a Republican vs Dem. Much less a conservative.
But from a lobbiest perspective lobbiests like unions or major corps hit who ever has the most power at the time that will serve their interests.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
The union workers are supposed to be about 40% Republican.
For the 2008 elections the Building trades union contributed over 16 million to political campaigns. 8% of that went to Republicans
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2880908
What percentage of YOUR money do you think your union contributes to Republicans vs. Democrats? Do you think they ran any ads to support Republican candidates?
100% I know this .I dont like it ,but then again i dont like a lot of things.It is what it is .
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2880928
The union workers are supposed to be about 40% Republican.
For the 2008 elections the Building trades union contributed over 16 million to political campaigns. 8% of that went to Republicans

WOW! that much?That even shocks me.
 
sharkbait9

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2879767
Considering GM is paying a union member 106,000 a year for lawn maintenance, obviously something...
wait? what? 106 grand a year to cut a lawn. Damn. I thought I had it made, playing in front end loaders and tandems
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2880914
The UAW members can call a special meeting to vote on the modifications. From what I'm reading, this UAW President and his other Board sidekicks don't want to do that. Sounds to me they aren't letting their members decide their own fate. Yea, being in a union has great benefits...
Yeah the top brass will view any concession as a attempt to break the union"paranoia?". The NRA does the same thing.(back ground checks,waiting period...) I still support the NRA and the 2nd amendment though.I hope that the members do get to vote on it like it is set up to be.
 
scopus tang

scopus tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2880773
I dont believe everyone has to belong.But there is no way Union and non can work side buy side.It would at the very least cause strife between employees vs employees, employees vs employers for a number of reasons.
Veni, I have to disagree with you on this one - Wyoming is the "right to work state" - meaning that everyone has the right to work at any job, union or not and union member or not - and they do. Now I wouldn't say that it works perfect, but I could give you example after example; from coal mines to schools were union members work along side nonunion members day in and day out. Also, in many large companies (take UPS for example), the laborers are union, while the administration "bosses if you will" are all nonunion.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2881125
Veni, I have to disagree with you on this one - Wyoming is the "right to work state" - meaning that everyone has the right to work at any job, union or not and union member or not - and they do. Now I wouldn't say that it works perfect, but I could give you example after example; from coal mines to schools were union members work along side nonunion members day in and day out. Also, in many large companies (take UPS for example), the laborers are union, while the administration "bosses if you will" are all nonunion.
I think he was talking about at the same position.
After all side by side the guy not working as hard always breeds problems.
 
scopus tang

scopus tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2881155
I think he was talking about at the same position.
After all side by side the guy not working as hard always breeds problems.

Yep, and so am I; our coal mines employ UMWA members right next to nonunion members doing the same job. My wife and I are both employed as teachers in the same school - I'm a member, she isn't. Lots of other examples as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top