Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2008-01-01 07:17:14
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6658|Brisneyland

lowing wrote:

1. No shit, any smart union would of course go to bat to keep THEIR meal tickets employed, if Quantas cuts employees, union dues is also cut, can't have that. Make no mistake that if the union and the company reach some sort of agreement, where the union income is not affected by any changes, the union would pass off such a deal to the membership as a fought and won scenario for the employess, regardless of how many jobs were lost.
Great, so you are saying you agree with me. The unions are in interested in keeping workers employed. Thats a good thing for unions to do for workers. Thats what they are there for.

lowing wrote:

2. The union is using this as nothing morethan a bargaining chip for something bigger, blackmail if you will. YOu are actually going to post an example that employees have to work HARD now for a paycheck, instead of just showing up. This kind of bullshit happens all day long at the airlines. The biggest lever a union has against the company is to make EVERY issue a SAFTY issue. So a team losses 1 worker and all of sudden everyone winds up in the emergency room, typical union tactic here as well.
You are effectivley saying that safety in the workplace is not important, and that workers have no right asking for decent safety standards. Thats not good enough. Safety in the workplace benefits the employer too as litigation for compensation can = big dollars. Sorry mate, unions protecting their workers safety is an extremely valid cause. If they didnt, you would be the first to say " Unions dont care for workers, they dont try to improve workplace safety". Your argument here is not valid.

lowing wrote:

3. So the union is going to fight for a womens right to NOT work and still get paid?! Ever thought the a company is not running a daycare, or a social services clinic? It is running a business, a business to make money. If you were a business owner. These women are not the only women in the world to have kids, so you are a working parent, join the fuckin' club. They honestly think they deserve special treatment or speacial conciderations or special work rules because they now have kids?? Why SHOULD a company give a shit about YOUR babysitting needs? This is their problem, not the companies.
OK clearly you didnt read the article. Nowhere in the article did it mention the workers wanted free daycare or "social services" as you said. All they asked for was to be put on a 4 day/week roster (which was the contract Qantas signed before they left), not free childcare, free money or any of the other bullshit you mention. It is in a countries interest to get mothers back to work, less money paid out in benefits= more money being earnt then spent, which is good for the economy. Family issues aside, the main issue here is that the company effectively broke the contract, then expected the workers to meet the shortfall. Unions helping these people out is a valid cause.

Theres not much substance in what I am seeing from you, just the usual "unions are all corrupt" or "unions = liberals" crap. All your evidence sounds anecdotal to me, so I dont have much faith in it.
2008-01-01 07:46:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. No shit, any smart union would of course go to bat to keep THEIR meal tickets employed, if Quantas cuts employees, union dues is also cut, can't have that. Make no mistake that if the union and the company reach some sort of agreement, where the union income is not affected by any changes, the union would pass off such a deal to the membership as a fought and won scenario for the employess, regardless of how many jobs were lost.
Great, so you are saying you agree with me. The unions are in interested in keeping workers employed. Thats a good thing for unions to do for workers. Thats what they are there for.

lowing wrote:

2. The union is using this as nothing morethan a bargaining chip for something bigger, blackmail if you will. YOu are actually going to post an example that employees have to work HARD now for a paycheck, instead of just showing up. This kind of bullshit happens all day long at the airlines. The biggest lever a union has against the company is to make EVERY issue a SAFTY issue. So a team losses 1 worker and all of sudden everyone winds up in the emergency room, typical union tactic here as well.
You are effectivley saying that safety in the workplace is not important, and that workers have no right asking for decent safety standards. Thats not good enough. Safety in the workplace benefits the employer too as litigation for compensation can = big dollars. Sorry mate, unions protecting their workers safety is an extremely valid cause. If they didnt, you would be the first to say " Unions dont care for workers, they dont try to improve workplace safety". Your argument here is not valid.

lowing wrote:

3. So the union is going to fight for a womens right to NOT work and still get paid?! Ever thought the a company is not running a daycare, or a social services clinic? It is running a business, a business to make money. If you were a business owner. These women are not the only women in the world to have kids, so you are a working parent, join the fuckin' club. They honestly think they deserve special treatment or speacial conciderations or special work rules because they now have kids?? Why SHOULD a company give a shit about YOUR babysitting needs? This is their problem, not the companies.
OK clearly you didnt read the article. Nowhere in the article did it mention the workers wanted free daycare or "social services" as you said. All they asked for was to be put on a 4 day/week roster (which was the contract Qantas signed before they left), not free childcare, free money or any of the other bullshit you mention. It is in a countries interest to get mothers back to work, less money paid out in benefits= more money being earnt then spent, which is good for the economy. Family issues aside, the main issue here is that the company effectively broke the contract, then expected the workers to meet the shortfall. Unions helping these people out is a valid cause.

Theres not much substance in what I am seeing from you, just the usual "unions are all corrupt" or "unions = liberals" crap. All your evidence sounds anecdotal to me, so I dont have much faith in it.
1.Unions are not interested in keeping YOU employed, they are interested in keeping your union dues, which is why you still owe it when you are on strike and not collecting an income. If keeping you employed is the only way to keep dues up then that is what is in the best interest of the union. Also, riddle me this batman, why does your union leadership NOT go on strike with its union members? Why does the union leadership NOT forfeit there paychecks along with its membership during strikes??


2. I am an aircraft mechanic I know allllllllll about safety so no lecturing me please on the issue. Safety has always been the catch all attention getter in every issue at an airline. You scream safety at an airline is the same as a women screaming sexual harassment or a minority screaming discrimination, it gets attention, regardless if that attention is founded or not. Unions know this and they play to it.

3. As for the women seeking special schedules because they have families, I will stand by my post. The company is not in business to oversee your personal needs, if you can not get on board with what the company is doing then seek life elsewhere. If I recall it is the EMPLOYER who asked for the job, not the company begging them to go work there. If your personal life interferes with company business do not expect the company to re-arrange its business practices for you. Time for a reality check.

Not very politically correct I know but there ya go.
2008-01-01 07:48:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Here in the states there are several terrific companies to work for that are non-union from what I gather, these employees are even allowed to own their own homes and not live on the plantation.
http://killercoke.org/crimes.htm

Charming.

If it wasn't for unions children would still be put to work in mines for tuppence an hour for 80 hours a week like in all those backwardass countries where there are no unions (like Bangladesh).
Yeah, unions did it, not evolution in social behavior or morality. Was it a union that stopped crucifixions as well, or impaling with spears or public beheadings in France? Go unions
2008-01-01 07:53:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

TeamZephyr wrote:

I'd get involved here but it would be kind of useless.

But Lowing I will say one thing. You're sounding like those paranoid delusional Area 51 hippies trying to make everything the union does sound like a friggin conspiracy to keep them in power.

Hes the fact, People pay unions to represent them=Unions representing them.
Unions sure are big BUSINESS aren't they?? I need a union or my career will collapse!!!! and I am paranoid huh?

By the way, I am farrrrrrrrrrrrrr from being hippie
2008-01-01 08:04:58
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6588|what

lowing wrote:

1.Unions are not interested in keeping YOU employed, they are interested in keeping your union dues, which is why you still owe it when you are on strike and not collecting an income. If keeping you employed is the only way to keep dues up then that is what is in the best interest of the union.
Of course they are interested in keeping the workers employed. Why the hell wouldn't they? It is why they are supported by workers. If they didn't want to keep workers job security, there would be no union membership.

lowing wrote:

Also, riddle me this batman, why does your union leadership NOT go on strike with its union members? Why does the union leadership NOT forfeit there paychecks along with its membership during strikes??
If the union leadership does go on strike, often it becomes difficult to then negotiate with the boss\ceo\board. And the salary that they are earning is put on hold when the business's workers go on strike, many contracts stipulate that during the event of worker action salary may be distrupted. If the strike lasts, then the company will have no income which equals salary payment ceasation even if the contract says otherwise. The point of the strike is to forfeit salary while trying for better working pay and\or conditions. You don't see workers get paid to do nothing, and if the workers are willing to forfeit pay and potentially employment for better conditions then that is saying something.

lowing wrote:

2. I am an aircraft mechanic I know allllllllll about safety so no lecturing me please on the issue. Safety has always been the catch all attention getter in every issue at an airline. You scream safety at an airline is the same as a women screaming sexual harassment or a minority screaming discrimination, it gets attention, regardless if that attention is founded or not. Unions know this and they play to it.
Unions play to it, because it is a core value and belief that ALL workers deserve to work in a SAFE environment. Do you think that this cause is unjust? Do you beleive that safety issues only arrise after a union member points it out? Or that it shouldn't be the job of the union to propose worker safety initiatives?

lowing wrote:

3. As for the women seeking special schedules because they have families, I will stand by my post. The company is not in business to oversee your personal needs, if you can not get on board with what the company is doing then seek life elsewhere. If I recall it is the EMPLOYER who asked for the job, not the company begging them to go work there. If your personal life interferes with company business do not expect the company to re-arrange its business practices for you. Time for a reality check.
With women in the workforce I can't see a problem with maturnity leave, paid or unpaid, that is the company's perogative. Do you expect women to forfeit a secure job to take maturnity leave and not come back? That's rediculous business planning. A workforce is more effective if it is able to retain trained and skilled workers. Letting a woman leave for a few months with pay is not a big ask, and will be beneficial to the company when she returns.

There are a number of costs involved in human resources that can be a strain if the company has to fork out expenses to hire and train new staff, rather than welcome back a new mother who is happy to return to the workplace.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-01-01 08:12:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

1.Unions are not interested in keeping YOU employed, they are interested in keeping your union dues, which is why you still owe it when you are on strike and not collecting an income. If keeping you employed is the only way to keep dues up then that is what is in the best interest of the union.
Of course they are interested in keeping the workers employed. Why the hell wouldn't they? It is why they are supported by workers. If they didn't want to keep workers job security, there would be no union membership.

lowing wrote:

Also, riddle me this batman, why does your union leadership NOT go on strike with its union members? Why does the union leadership NOT forfeit there paychecks along with its membership during strikes??
If the union leadership does go on strike, often it becomes difficult to then negotiate with the boss\ceo\board. And the salary that they are earning is put on hold when the business's workers go on strike, many contracts stipulate that during the event of worker action salary may be distrupted. If the strike lasts, then the company will have no income which equals salary payment ceasation even if the contract says otherwise. The point of the strike is to forfeit salary while trying for better working pay and\or conditions. You don't see workers get paid to do nothing, and if the workers are willing to forfeit pay and potentially employment for better conditions then that is saying something.

lowing wrote:

2. I am an aircraft mechanic I know allllllllll about safety so no lecturing me please on the issue. Safety has always been the catch all attention getter in every issue at an airline. You scream safety at an airline is the same as a women screaming sexual harassment or a minority screaming discrimination, it gets attention, regardless if that attention is founded or not. Unions know this and they play to it.
Unions play to it, because it is a core value and belief that ALL workers deserve to work in a SAFE environment. Do you think that this cause is unjust? Do you beleive that safety issues only arrise after a union member points it out? Or that it shouldn't be the job of the union to propose worker safety initiatives?

lowing wrote:

3. As for the women seeking special schedules because they have families, I will stand by my post. The company is not in business to oversee your personal needs, if you can not get on board with what the company is doing then seek life elsewhere. If I recall it is the EMPLOYER who asked for the job, not the company begging them to go work there. If your personal life interferes with company business do not expect the company to re-arrange its business practices for you. Time for a reality check.
With women in the workforce I can't see a problem with maturnity leave, paid or unpaid, that is the company's perogative. Do you expect women to forfeit a secure job to take maturnity leave and not come back? That's rediculous business planning. A workforce is more effective if it is able to retain trained and skilled workers. Letting a woman leave for a few months with pay is not a big ask, and will be beneficial to the company when she returns.

There are a number of costs involved in human resources that can be a strain if the company has to fork out expenses to hire and train new staff, rather than welcome back a new mother who is happy to return to the workplace.
1. I guess we agree, the union is interested in union dues, NOT your employment

2. ya lost me on this one, I doubt nor have I ever heard of, the president of the teamsters union giving up 1 cent when a local goes on strike.

3. Again it sounds like we agree, the compnay takes care of its employees for retention and money saving aspects of that retention, NOT because a union says so.

DO we agree that unions are a business, a, for profit business, or do we not.


As for the safety issue, a union will cite safety concerns to get their members an extra coffee break during a shift. This is the kinda bullshit I refer.

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-01 08:14:47)

2008-01-01 08:16:21
trippy982
Member
+34|6833
Union will always have enough power a company is able to give to them.  If a company needs to layoff people or cut salaries in order to not go into bankruptcy and stay in business, a union will have to forfeit their high pay salary and jobs anyways or else risk the company closing and lose everything.
2008-01-01 10:26:47
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7036|132 and Bush

trippy982 wrote:

Union will always have enough power a company is able to give to them.  If a company needs to layoff people or cut salaries in order to not go into bankruptcy and stay in business, a union will have to forfeit their high pay salary and jobs anyways or else risk the company closing and lose everything.
Yep I've seen it plenty of times. I worked on both sides (management/union) for many years. It's contracted labor.. thats it. Call it a union and people get their panties in a twist.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-01 10:32:49
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6961|South Florida

ATG wrote:

Unions=organized crime.

Whenever i work for the L.A. Unified School District I have to factor $8.00 per man hour into my contract for the union. Trouble is, I ain't in the Union.

Those motherfuckers get their money either way and the union slugs are the most useless employees on the face of the planet.

Whatever unions once represented is dead. It is crime, nothing more.

Want to know why it cost 30k per student per year in L.A.? ( # may be off )

It is because of the multiple levels of theft that are taking from the pot before the students get the money.

There isn't really anything in life I hate more than organized crime paid for by tax dollars.
Unions suck.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2008-01-01 12:22:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

Kmarion wrote:

trippy982 wrote:

Union will always have enough power a company is able to give to them.  If a company needs to layoff people or cut salaries in order to not go into bankruptcy and stay in business, a union will have to forfeit their high pay salary and jobs anyways or else risk the company closing and lose everything.
Yep I've seen it plenty of times. I worked on both sides (management/union) for many years. It's contracted labor.. thats it. Call it a union and people get their panties in a twist.
It is not as simple as calling a union contracted labor, contracted labor means when the contract is up so is your employment.  When a contract is up in a union shop that does not mean the employees are terminated. 

I work with contracted labor, and a union has nothing to do with them.
2008-01-01 12:29:56
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7036|132 and Bush

If the contract expires and a new one is not signed the Union will not require the employees to work unless they have made an agreement with the employer to extend the previous contract. They work from contract period to contract period otherwise.

http://www.teamster.org/divisions/parce … ations.htm
UPS has been doing it for over 100 hundreds years.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-01 13:04:57
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6991

lowing wrote:

Yeah, unions did it, not evolution in social behavior or morality. Was it a union that stopped crucifixions as well, or impaling with spears or public beheadings in France? Go unions
Morality and balance sheets are incompatible lowing. The only recourse to justice people in developing countries have against unscrupulous employers IS their union - their 'socially evolved' government isn't going to do anything about work conditions, they're generally part of the problem - taking backhanders from industry and whatnot.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-01 13:05:49)

2008-01-01 13:27:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

Kmarion wrote:

If the contract expires and a new one is not signed the Union will not require the employees to work unless they have made an agreement with the employer to extend the previous contract. They work from contract period to contract period otherwise.

http://www.teamster.org/divisions/parce … ations.htm
UPS has been doing it for over 100 hundreds years.
I am well aware of union practices, but do you hear yourself "Union will not require the employees to work unless they have made an agreement with the employer."

New flash, the fuckin UNION ain't the ones signing your paycheck, the company does, the union has no authority to "require" you to do shit. Unless of course you do not mind strong arm tactics like having your tires slashed or death threats in your locker. If you DO mind these sort of tactics then I suggest ya better cower and fall in line, cuz the UNION will TELL YOU what is in your best interests.
2008-01-01 13:29:40
RECONDO67
Member
+60|7071|miami FL
some people don't appreciate the unions simply because unions are part of your state but in my state there are no unions and employers  pretty much take advantage of the workers.
2008-01-01 13:31:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah, unions did it, not evolution in social behavior or morality. Was it a union that stopped crucifixions as well, or impaling with spears or public beheadings in France? Go unions
Morality and balance sheets are incompatible lowing. The only recourse to justice people in developing countries have against unscrupulous employers IS their union - their 'socially evolved' government isn't going to do anything about work conditions, they're generally part of the problem - taking backhanders from industry and whatnot.
Unions are a BUSINESS that keep balance sheets as well Cam, there is little difference between them and any other business in regards to morality or unscrupulous behavior. The major difference I suppose is the union is in bed with the company but insists it is faithful to the employees while the company insists it is in bed with the stock holders and do not lie about that.
2008-01-01 13:33:28
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

RECONDO67 wrote:

some people don't appreciate the unions simply because unions are part of your state but in my state there are no unions and employers  pretty much take advantage of the workers.
Well gee whiz!!!!! did your employer force you to go to work for them, or did you research your employer then APPLY to work for them, then sit at home and HOPE they call you for a interview and a job?? When you got that job were you excited about getting it?? Or did you run to the police screaming slavery and torture?
2008-01-01 13:35:36
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6991

lowing wrote:

Unions are a BUSINESS that keep balance sheets as well Cam, there is little difference between them and any other business in regards to morality or unscrupulous behavior. The major difference I suppose is the union is in bed with the company but insists it is faithful to the employees while the company insists it is in bed with the stock holders and do not lie about that.
They are not a business in the sense you believe. Unions are non-profit organisations with elected leaderships. A far cry from the picture you're painting. Perhaps you guys in the US just have a fucked up union system, I don't know. All decisions on work conditions have to be put to a ballot of union members - it's democratic over here. Perhaps it ain't that way over there.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-01 13:40:25)

2008-01-01 13:45:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Unions are a BUSINESS that keep balance sheets as well Cam, there is little difference between them and any other business in regards to morality or unscrupulous behavior. The major difference I suppose is the union is in bed with the company but insists it is faithful to the employees while the company insists it is in bed with the stock holders and do not lie about that.
They are not a business in the sense you believe. Unions are non-profit organisations with elected leaderships. A far cry from the picture you're painting. Perhaps you guys in the US just have a fucked up union system, I don't know. All decisions on work conditions have to be put to a ballot of union members - it's democratic over here. Perhaps it ain't that way over there.
Non-profit huh,

How much does your leadership pay itself? What is the dues for? How do they lobby the politicans without funds? Why does anyone bother to run for union leadership if there is no power and money involved? Or is everyone a choirboy in the EU that are just interested in the wellbeing of their fellow man.
2008-01-01 13:49:42
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6991

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Unions are a BUSINESS that keep balance sheets as well Cam, there is little difference between them and any other business in regards to morality or unscrupulous behavior. The major difference I suppose is the union is in bed with the company but insists it is faithful to the employees while the company insists it is in bed with the stock holders and do not lie about that.
They are not a business in the sense you believe. Unions are non-profit organisations with elected leaderships. A far cry from the picture you're painting. Perhaps you guys in the US just have a fucked up union system, I don't know. All decisions on work conditions have to be put to a ballot of union members - it's democratic over here. Perhaps it ain't that way over there.
Non-profit huh,

How much does your leadership pay itself? What is the dues for? How do they lobby the politicans without funds? Why does anyone bother to run for union leadership if there is no power and money involved? Or is everyone a choirboy in the EU that are just interested in the wellbeing of their fellow man.
There is only one salaried member of staff on the union. All elected representatives work on a voluntary basis. The fund is used for legal actions, etc. People run for union leadership here so that they can influence their work conditions and the work conditions of others. There is not one jot of profit.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-01 13:50:35)

2008-01-01 13:55:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


They are not a business in the sense you believe. Unions are non-profit organisations with elected leaderships. A far cry from the picture you're painting. Perhaps you guys in the US just have a fucked up union system, I don't know. All decisions on work conditions have to be put to a ballot of union members - it's democratic over here. Perhaps it ain't that way over there.
Non-profit huh,

How much does your leadership pay itself? What is the dues for? How do they lobby the politicans without funds? Why does anyone bother to run for union leadership if there is no power and money involved? Or is everyone a choirboy in the EU that are just interested in the wellbeing of their fellow man.
There is only one salaried member of staff on the union. All elected representatives work on a voluntary basis. The fund is used for legal actions, etc. People run for union leadership here so that they can influence their work conditions and the work conditions of others. There is not one jot of profit.
Really? Ya mean all of your representatives are unemployed and do not collect a paycheck? I am not talking about your local level I am sure at your local level your company WASTES its money on people taking care of union business instead of productivity of the company. I bet you will also not admit that your local leadership were probably the biggest pieces of shit employees your company ever had, always bitching and never working.

How much does the leadership in your union at the national level make?
2008-01-01 14:02:45
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6991

lowing wrote:

Really? Ya mean all of your representatives are unemployed and do not collect a paycheck? I am not talking about your local level I am sure at your local level your company WASTES its money on people taking care of union business instead of productivity of the company. I bet you will also not admit that your local leadership were probably the biggest pieces of shit employees your company ever had, always bitching and never working.

How much does the leadership in your union at the national level make?
No - all of my representatives are colleague engineers within the company. The representatives we elected are ordinary hard-working individuals and friends who we trust. They reluctantly took the positions through being proposed by others - not through self promotion. Our union fees pay for the salary of one representative at national level. I don't know his salary but it certainly isn't of stellar proportions.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-01 14:04:44)

2008-01-01 14:08:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7036|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

If the contract expires and a new one is not signed the Union will not require the employees to work unless they have made an agreement with the employer to extend the previous contract. They work from contract period to contract period otherwise.

http://www.teamster.org/divisions/parce … ations.htm
UPS has been doing it for over 100 hundreds years.
I am well aware of union practices, but do you hear yourself "Union will not require the employees to work unless they have made an agreement with the employer."

New flash, the fuckin UNION ain't the ones signing your paycheck, the company does, the union has no authority to "require" you to do shit. Unless of course you do not mind strong arm tactics like having your tires slashed or death threats in your locker. If you DO mind these sort of tactics then I suggest ya better cower and fall in line, cuz the UNION will TELL YOU what is in your best interests.
Perhaps I didn't word that simple enough for you. The union does not require you to work... meaning sure you can cross the line, but that pretty much means you are no longer a member.

You do realize the members vote on the contracts and elect leaders as well. If they don't see it fit for them and their interest the contract will not pass and the leaders will not get the position.

And of course the the company writes the checks per the bargaining agreement.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-01 14:12:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Really? Ya mean all of your representatives are unemployed and do not collect a paycheck? I am not talking about your local level I am sure at your local level your company WASTES its money on people taking care of union business instead of productivity of the company. I bet you will also not admit that your local leadership were probably the biggest pieces of shit employees your company ever had, always bitching and never working.

How much does the leadership in your union at the national level make?
No - all of my representatives are colleague engineers within the company. The representatives we elected are ordinary hard-working individuals and friends who we trust. They reluctantly took the positions through being proposed by others - not through self promotion. Our union fees pay for the salary of one representative at national level. I don't know his salary but it certainly isn't of stellar proportions.
It is all the same here Cam, but funny how corruption seems to be synonymous with union activity with all of these choirboys representing us huh?

What is the name of your union?
2008-01-01 14:18:04
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6991

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Really? Ya mean all of your representatives are unemployed and do not collect a paycheck? I am not talking about your local level I am sure at your local level your company WASTES its money on people taking care of union business instead of productivity of the company. I bet you will also not admit that your local leadership were probably the biggest pieces of shit employees your company ever had, always bitching and never working.

How much does the leadership in your union at the national level make?
No - all of my representatives are colleague engineers within the company. The representatives we elected are ordinary hard-working individuals and friends who we trust. They reluctantly took the positions through being proposed by others - not through self promotion. Our union fees pay for the salary of one representative at national level. I don't know his salary but it certainly isn't of stellar proportions.
It is all the same here Cam, but funny how corruption seems to be synonymous with union activity with all of these choirboys representing us huh?

What is the name of your union?
Amicus. It's a UK based union.

There are no such union corruption scandals here in Europe. I've never once heard mention of such activity in the newspapers or the television. Perhaps we have a tighter rein on it than you guys do.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-01 14:19:35)

2008-01-01 14:26:56
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7087|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


No - all of my representatives are colleague engineers within the company. The representatives we elected are ordinary hard-working individuals and friends who we trust. They reluctantly took the positions through being proposed by others - not through self promotion. Our union fees pay for the salary of one representative at national level. I don't know his salary but it certainly isn't of stellar proportions.
It is all the same here Cam, but funny how corruption seems to be synonymous with union activity with all of these choirboys representing us huh?

What is the name of your union?
Amicus. It's a UK based union.

There are no such union corruption scandals here in Europe. I've never once heard mention of such activity in the newspapers or the television. Perhaps we have a tighter rein on it than you guys do.
You have heard of such activities here in the US I assume??

You now know why I feel the way I do about unions.

I will not even check, but I will bet you can not put the name of an US union and the word corruption behind it, with out getting several hits.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard