What's new

XPO | This is how unions in the states use to operate. They all stood together

Songremainsthesame said:
With all due respect RTW laws in UAW heavy states don’t really affect the UAW. It was firmly in place long before RTW laws were thought of or written. Sure it gives workers the right to not join the union if employed at an auto manufacturer represented by the UAW. But not joining a union if employed at a union shop is just dumb if you ask me. I wouldn’t forego the pension and representation, nor would I place myself in a position of conflict with my fellow workers. If someone is looking to work at a union shop doesn’t it make sense that said person WANTS said representation?

I am not a pro union person, nor am I strictly anti-union. But I do see that the current law structure makes it near impossible to organize. It discourages a large portion of a company’s employees from trying, leaving the effort to a smaller percentage of workers, who, wonder of wonders, end up not being successful in their effort.
Click to expand...
Now that's the problem. You don't understand RTW laws. RTW laws do not affect Health and Welfare or Pensions. RTW does not restrict organizing or collective bargaining. Unions DO NOT represent individuals. Unions represent the bargaining unit.
 
Razorblade said:
Now that's the problem. You don't understand RTW laws. RTW laws do not affect Health and Welfare or Pensions. RTW does not restrict organizing or collective bargaining. Unions DO NOT represent individuals. Unions represent the bargaining unit.
Click to expand...
Yes, they represent the bargaining unit, but when you allow someone to use the union to their advantage without paying for it, how is that helping the union as a whole? Furthermore, why would anyone invite that kind of trouble into their life by working in a union shop and not electing to pay dues? That creates a rift (possibly violent) in a workforce, which I would imagine only benefits the company, not the employees. Further, if a union cannot obtain dues from all represented in a bargaining unit, just how hard are they going to push and how much money are they willing to spend to promote organization? I believe that is at the heart of the decline in effectiveness of unions (particularly Teamsters) in organizing new companies. If the union isn’t willing to invest in new organization, companies will always hold the upper hand.
 
Songremainsthesame said:
Yes, they represent the bargaining unit, but when you allow someone to use the union to their advantage without paying for it, how is that helping the union as a whole? Furthermore, why would anyone invite that kind of trouble into their life by working in a union shop and not electing to pay dues? That creates a rift (possibly violent) in a workforce, which I would imagine only benefits the company, not the employees. Further, if a union cannot obtain dues from all represented in a bargaining unit, just how hard are they going to push and how much money are they willing to spend to promote organization? I believe that is at the heart of the decline in effectiveness of unions (particularly Teamsters) in organizing new companies. If the union isn’t willing to invest in new organization, companies will always hold the upper hand.
Click to expand...
Song, you are arguing with a man that worked his time under the NMFA as a Union member and at one time an organizer. He currently draws a pension from what was negotiated by the Teamsters that his employer(s) payed into the pension fund that he gets his monthly pension check from. So, needless to say, he is biting the very hand that negotiated the pension amount that he currently gets. He is a Measter, not a Teamster.
He is not worth your time to argue with as his only concern is himself and no one else!!!
 
Steward of the Rock said:
Song, you are arguing with a man that worked his time under the NMFA as a Union member and at one time an organizer. He currently draws a pension from what was negotiated by the Teamsters that his employer(s) payed into the pension fund that he gets his monthly pension check from. So, needless to say, he is biting the very hand that negotiated the pension amount that he currently gets. He is a Measter, not a Teamster.
He is not worth your time to argue with as his only concern is himself and no one else!!!
Click to expand...
Duly noted. That doesn’t really make sense to me. If I had decades at a union carrier I would hope to have some loyalty to the organization that represented me for all that time. Granted, it seems that your mileage my vary in experience, that some BAs and locals fight harder for their members than others, which shouldn’t be, but if I were drawing a full pension you wouldn’t hear a discouraging word from me.
 
Songremainsthesame said:
Duly noted. That doesn’t really make sense to me. If I had decades at a union carrier I would hope to have some loyalty to the organization that represented me for all that time. Granted, it seems that your mileage my vary in experience, that some BAs and locals fight harder for their members than others, which shouldn’t be, but if I were drawing a full pension you wouldn’t hear a discouraging word from me.
Click to expand...
Are you drawing Social Security? Then according to your logic you can not say a discouraging word about the U.S. Government!
 
Pokey Okie said:
Are you drawing Social Security? Then according to your logic you can not say a discouraging word about the U.S. Government!
Click to expand...
We all have the right to express our opinions about the government or the Union. However, if you feel that being a Union member is not for you, then you can work for an employer that is non-Union. If you feel that the US government is not for you, then you can choose to live elsewhere. Of course, that is my opinion only.
In either case, you should not reap the benefits that are provided without paying or doing your part. Again…….just my opinion!!!
 
Pokey Okie said:
Are you drawing Social Security? Then according to your logic you can not say a discouraging word about the U.S. Government!
Click to expand...
No I’m not, I’m paying someone else’s right now fully aware it won’t be there for me, so yes, I can say plenty. And even if I were drawing social security, I didn’t have the option to not pay into it in the first place, so yeah, I could say plenty in that case as well.
 
Steward of the Rock said:
We all have the right to express our opinions about the government or the Union. However, if you feel that being a Union member is not for you, then you can work for an employer that is non-Union. If you feel that the US government is not for you, then you can choose to live elsewhere. Of course, that is my opinion only.
In either case, you should not reap the benefits that are provided without paying or doing your part. Again…….just my opinion!!!
Click to expand...
Exactly. If I worked at a company represented by the Teamsters I would do my part to make the company and the union a better place.
 
Fly-by-night said:
There is an easy fix to this, but the politicians don't want to do it. Tax form would be one piece of paper. It's called the flat tax. Everyone pays the same flat percentage with no tax credits or deductions. Everyone meaning everyone that gets a paycheck, or govt check. The tax system in the USA is so unfair. The more you make the higher you tax percentage is, but if you make under a certain amount you pay no taxes.
If they did this the so-called tax loophole would be gone
Click to expand...
May I add that there are 10’s of millions of employees vs 1000’s of owners.
 
Razorblade said:
The wealthy don't need a defender. They don't need unions or tenure because they make good decisions and are constantly learning and investing based on experience. The wealthy did not have money fall from the sky, they worked hard and earned it. The 401K and IRA have made millionaires out of tens of thousands of "working" people including this retired Teamster. Do I not deserve it because I didn't punch a time clock to earn it?
Right to Work laws are the only way members have to hold their officers accountable. RTW laws do not inhibit a worker right to organize or bargain collectively. 27 states have RTW laws, including the UAW states of Michigan and Indiana.
The so called loopholes exist because the tax laws are too complicated, 75,000 pages in the federal tax code. The solution is simple, eliminate the income tax and impose a national sales tax. The wealthy will pay more because they spend more and everybody pays something, their fair share.
I understand it just fine. Your philosophy is there for all to see. The rich don't deserve it and they should be required to give it to us. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That was written by Karl Marx in 1848 in his Communist Manifesto.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. I will say that a majority of today’s wealth was created generations ago when there was more opportunity. Gates, Musk & Bezos are true innovators. Most of the 1% are riding what their grandfather did. I don’t share Gates political views. I don’t support EV’s. I don’t patronize Amazon (but they don’t seem to hurt for drivers or contractors).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top