Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed May 18, 2011 5:30 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

In this episode the Obama's NRLB seeks to punish Boeing for trying to do business in America. How dare they?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Ragorn » Wed May 18, 2011 1:52 pm

So Boeing had a plant in a union state, and the union went on strike. Boeing told the union to get fucked, and announced plans to open a plant in a non-union state. Oops, that's actually illegal, and the union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB reviewed the case, determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that Boeing was in violation of the law, and filed suit in federal court.

I didn't read your link, and I don't care to, because it's an opinion piece and I don't give a shit about that blogger's opinion. I looked into this issue a couple weeks ago the last time the conservative outrage manufacturing plant kicked into overdrive. Boeing is likely in violation of the law, but the plant in SC will be permitted to open pending conclusion of the suit.

Sorry Big Business, you can't get away with fucking your workers just because you don't like unions. That's actually why unions were formed, to prevent you from doing that.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed May 18, 2011 3:53 pm

There were a lot of important facts in the opinion piece that would seriously help your opinion be taken seriously had you accounted for them.

For example: Boeing's new plant also was unionized. How do you punish the union by opening another union plant?

Nice try though.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Wed May 18, 2011 4:16 pm

I actually agree with Ragorn that the case has merit based on the law.

The problem is the case has merit.

If you want to open a plant in SC fine, if you want to open a plant in SC because the union in Washington won't obey you, thats illegal.

I fundamentally disagree it should be illegal. If both options are relatively equal in benefit to the corporation (and I doubt that is the case, the SC plant is probably a lot better deal) then it shouldn't matter whether they even overtly and actually claim to be punishing the union for their antibusiness policies. Now if the company is spending twice as much to have the plant in SC, well that would be covered under shareholders lawsuit.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Ragorn » Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:There were a lot of important facts in the opinion piece that would seriously help your opinion be taken seriously had you accounted for them.

For example: Boeing's new plant also was unionized. How do you punish the union by opening another union plant?

Nice try though.

Actually, the new plant was not unionized, and if that "opinion piece" claims it was, then it's shitty journalism and you should look for other sources.

One such source: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/04/2 ... olina.html

Note the phrase "non-union factory."
Last edited by Ragorn on Wed May 18, 2011 5:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Ragorn » Wed May 18, 2011 5:27 pm

kiryan wrote:I fundamentally disagree it should be illegal. If both options are relatively equal in benefit to the corporation (and I doubt that is the case, the SC plant is probably a lot better deal) then it shouldn't matter whether they even overtly and actually claim to be punishing the union for their antibusiness policies. Now if the company is spending twice as much to have the plant in SC, well that would be covered under shareholders lawsuit.

Now this is a valid and logical argument. I'm on the fence about whether it SHOULD be legal or not. But the fact is, it's currently not, and Boeing is likely in violation of federal law.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Wed May 18, 2011 5:51 pm

well I agree that theres enough evidence to warrant an investigation... however, barring some internal memos saying it would be against their business interests to open the plant in SC Boeing should prevail in a fair environment. It'll probably be settled somewhat quietly with some sort of concession by Boeing... probably not the plant, but something.

even if there are internal memo saying we're going to move the plant to SC because of the union, they should lose if opening the plant in SC is the proper business decision regardless of the "claimed" reasons. I find it hard to believe it could be "fairly" found to be retaliation if it is what the business should do from a cost perspective. With an Obama lead NLRB... who knows.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Ragorn » Wed May 18, 2011 7:43 pm

kiryan wrote:well I agree that theres enough evidence to warrant an investigation... however, barring some internal memos saying it would be against their business interests to open the plant in SC Boeing should prevail in a fair environment. It'll probably be settled somewhat quietly with some sort of concession by Boeing... probably not the plant, but something.

even if there are internal memo saying we're going to move the plant to SC because of the union, they should lose if opening the plant in SC is the proper business decision regardless of the "claimed" reasons. I find it hard to believe it could be "fairly" found to be retaliation if it is what the business should do from a cost perspective. With an Obama lead NLRB... who knows.

My understanding, and I don't have the source handy so I could be mistaken about this, is that Boeing made veiled statements to the union leaders that they would move the plant if a favorable labor settlement wasn't reached. Negotiations occurred, a contract was on the table, and then Boeing pulled out and announced plans to move the plant.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu May 19, 2011 2:26 am

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:There were a lot of important facts in the opinion piece that would seriously help your opinion be taken seriously had you accounted for them.

For example: Boeing's new plant also was unionized. How do you punish the union by opening another union plant?

Nice try though.

Actually, the new plant was not unionized, and if that "opinion piece" claims it was, then it's shitty journalism and you should look for other sources.

One such source: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/04/2 ... olina.html

Note the phrase "non-union factory."

Yes, it _was_ unionized. The workers at the SC plant voted to end union representation in 2009. (probably the reason why the unions have their panties in a bunch) Democracy in action, but under threat by the Obama administration.

FURTHERMORE the collective bargaining agreement between IAM and Boeing gives the company the right to locate new production facilities where it deems best.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Ragorn » Thu May 19, 2011 3:57 pm

Yes, it _was_ unionized. The workers at the SC plant voted to end union representation in 2009. (probably the reason why the unions have their panties in a bunch) Democracy in action, but under threat by the Obama administration.

It is illegal to retaliate against a union's right to collective bargaining by opening a plant in a non-union state or locale. It doesn't matter if SC was unionized, or the workers are voluntarily non-union. Hear that? Doesn't matter. It is illegal. The NLRA has been in place for 80 fucking years. Stop crying about it.

Obama Administration: Correctly enforcing the law, under powers granted them by the Consitution of the United States of America.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu May 19, 2011 6:11 pm

Ragorn wrote:It is illegal to retaliate against a union's right to collective bargaining by opening a plant in a non-union state or locale.

Now look at who's reaching. A legitimate business decision to do business in America, to create American jobs, while retaining and hiring additionally in their original Washington plant, and building a plant that was unionized in America, and Somehow, you believe that Boeing was retaliating against the union.

How do you expect anybody but other communist labor union whores to take you seriously?

At the very worst, some executives said some stupid shit and they should be fined the hundreds of thousands or even few million dollars. Not block a plant and punish thousands of regular, innocent, and hard working Americans by taking their jobs. The NLRB is a sham and a puppet that sees its primary mission as expanding union dues in America at the expense of all those who value freedom and choice and have the courage to defeat the union through democracy where it was simply taking advantage of them.

FYI, Kiryan, an internal memo is not a threat. It is an internal memo.

Image
March on, commu-nion members. There are still a few good, hardworking Americans in South Carolina that you haven't been trying to take advantage of yet.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Thu May 19, 2011 6:19 pm

I don't think there is a limit to how the retaliation occurs... a union sued a city in Missouri I think for taking away free coffee and casual fridays after a failed negotiation between the union and the city... Are they entitled to cut services to save mpney, sure but if the primary purpose of that cut is punish, then its retaliation.

I detest the fact that they have a valid reason to investigate, but under law I think there is enough evidence.

As I said, I expect them to find that the business had a legitimate reason to open up the plant somewhere else because it was better for the company. I hope and expect them to find that it was not retaliation... but simply a business decision phrased in the form of if you don't give us X concessions, we will have to open up the plant in SC because its better for the business. I wouldn't see that as much retaliation as the facts of the business environment. Again, if it costs them more to build/operate in SC, you may have a case for retaliation. If this case comes down to laying out a business case = retaliation because it was being negotiated, then I'm really going to have an aneurysm.

I know that seems to conflict with my initial example of the valid business decision to cut coffee, but providing coffee really isn't a function of business, it can derive benefit to the employees, but providing free coffee is to make employees happy so if you cut it, you are intentionally deciding to make employees less happy. Its not really a budget issue (unless maybe the city was facing large cuts or something). This is fundamentally different thatn the business impliations of building a plant in WA vs SC.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu May 19, 2011 6:31 pm

Kiryan, a new plant is new work. When you place a new order with a new vendor, you are not retaliating against your old vendor - they do not have a right to your new order.

Similarly, with the unionized Washington plant, the union did not have a right to new facilities. Their plant actually grew and saw hiring. Boeing was completely within its rights to select a different state for new work. You can't retaliate by not giving something that people never had the right to. That's not retaliation.

Using your coffee example, the union does not have some new right to tea that was never theirs in the first place.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu May 19, 2011 6:38 pm

Furthermore, this is more than an 'investigation.' The Obama administration has requested that the courts suspend production at the SC plant. The Obama administration requested that the thousands of hard working Americans at the plant go without work.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Thu May 19, 2011 7:01 pm

I didn't realize they had already basically decided they were guilty.

I understand its new work teflor and that the union has no 'right' to it. however, the company has a relationship with the union. If the company takes action against the unions as a means to punish them... even in areas unrelated to existing contracts i see how that can be retaliation. Whether its cutting coffee service or suddenly enforcing rules in the existing agreements.

We protect whistleblowers from retaliation, people who go on medical leave, unions I think deserve those protections as well... and its impossible to enumerate all the ways you can retaliate.

I certainly hope they will find that the SC move was a business decision that affected the union negatively and despite them having had a chance to win the business by x concession, making the proper business decision is not retaliation simply because the union didnt win the contract due to its rejection of the offered terms.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu May 19, 2011 7:11 pm

But that's the whole point. The actions they are taking are only retaliatory if the union had the right in the first place.

Their collective bargaining agreement specifically gives Boeing the right, and not the union.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Thu May 19, 2011 7:54 pm

I don't know teflor... let assume there is no business justification for putting the plant in SC. maybe its not retaliation in terms of that specific negotation / contract for the new work because they aren't entitled to it... but couldn't it be retaliation against the union in general?

Couldn't you be retaliating against one part of a group for something that another part of the same group did? It just doesn't seem clear cut to me that its impossible for any retaliation to have occured.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri May 20, 2011 3:27 am

I would have to say, avoiding the problems the union presents is a compelling business case.

The fact that they are not only keeping their union factory open, but hiring additional union employees indicates zero retaliation.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Vigis » Fri May 20, 2011 9:38 am

I don't know that any of us have enough information to judge Boeing, the union, or the NLRB; and to be honest, I don't feel like researching it enough so I feel comfortable to make a judgment.

Here are a few questions I'd need answered first:

1. What is the cost of opening the new plant in SC vs. retooling or expanding the plant in WA?

2. Did the plant in WA require retooling at all?

3. Did the plant in WA have the space required to handle additional work in addition to new work? If so, go back to question 1.

4. What is the relationship between WA congressmen and the NLRB? - To be honest, I'd be more inclined to believe that this is happening at a congressional level than an administration level; all administrations have been very favorable to Boeing in the past.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri May 20, 2011 1:25 pm

Vigis,

While normally your questions would be completely appropriate, this was for a new facility. The plant in WA is still open and adding workers.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Fri May 20, 2011 4:19 pm

I think vigis is helping to clarify what questions might need to be asked to find out if the SC plant was in the businesses best interests... or whether another reason, retaliation, was primary in the decision.

I however agree with Teflor's statement that having a non unionzed plant is a valid business reason to not give the work to an existing union plant or a particularly hostile factory. However, this would probably fall under retaliation when reviewed by a labor friendly NLRB as being illegal.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sun May 22, 2011 3:04 am

Kiryan, that's just not what I said.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Ragorn » Mon May 23, 2011 3:18 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:It is illegal to retaliate against a union's right to collective bargaining by opening a plant in a non-union state or locale.

Now look at who's reaching. A legitimate business decision to do business in America, to create American jobs, while retaining and hiring additionally in their original Washington plant, and building a plant that was unionized in America, and Somehow, you believe that Boeing was retaliating against the union.

How do you expect anybody but other communist labor union whores to take you seriously?

Sorry dude, I'm quoting facts. You can express your distaste for the facts of the matter all you want, but I don't take personal responsibility for the way the law is written or the actions of the Boeing corporation.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon May 23, 2011 5:44 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:It is illegal to retaliate against a union's right to collective bargaining by opening a plant in a non-union state or locale.

Now look at who's reaching. A legitimate business decision to do business in America, to create American jobs, while retaining and hiring additionally in their original Washington plant, and building a plant that was unionized in America, and Somehow, you believe that Boeing was retaliating against the union.

How do you expect anybody but other communist labor union whores to take you seriously?

Sorry dude, I'm quoting facts. You can express your distaste for the facts of the matter all you want, but I don't take personal responsibility for the way the law is written or the actions of the Boeing corporation.

You aren't quoting facts. It's your opinion that the new factory is a retaliation.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Ragorn » Mon May 23, 2011 5:50 pm

Actually, it's the opinion of the NRLB, based on communication between Boeing management and the chief of the union. I was merely reciting for you the facts present in the case.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon May 23, 2011 6:18 pm

Ragorn wrote:Actually, it's the opinion of the NRLB, based on communication between Boeing management and the chief of the union. I was merely reciting for you the facts present in the case.

Ragorn wrote:It is illegal to retaliate against a union's right to collective bargaining by opening a plant in a non-union state or locale. It doesn't matter if SC was unionized, or the workers are voluntarily non-union. Hear that? Doesn't matter. It is illegal. The NLRA has been in place for 80 fucking years. Stop crying about it.

Ragorn wrote:Boeing is likely in violation of the law


You are clearly not reciting the facts in the case. You made the assertion that Boeing's plant was an act of retaliation, clearly a matter of opinion.

My arguments and attack were targeted solely upon your opinion and assertion. In no way does my argument seek to refute what the NRLB's opinion IS, nor what the facts in the case are. What is being decided is the question of retaliation. You asserted that it was both retaliation and illegal. I disagree.

Edited to remove edit after response.
Last edited by Teflor Lyorian on Mon May 23, 2011 6:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Ragorn » Mon May 23, 2011 6:35 pm

Okay teffie, whatever you say.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon May 23, 2011 6:42 pm

Hey, if the workers actually got fucked, I would be supportive. But in this case, the workers still have their jobs, still have their livelihoods, and opportunity still exists in America. The union is a driving power that has both abused and used Americans in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Mon May 23, 2011 7:24 pm

Unions were created because Americans were used and abused by corporations and employers, remeber that. They were the ones that really helped to bring in job safety reform, standards in wages, and employee rights. They gave a voice to the employees rather than just allow a company to bully people into doing things thier ways, they instead evened the playing field.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon May 23, 2011 7:32 pm

Unions are very different from corporations. They not only have the power corporations have access to: money, law, etc. Unions also have the power of the vote. The major union interests, the AFL-CIO and SEIU have worked for decades to use their advantage to craft a very, very union friendly Federal government.

This has unbalanced the power and have forced many employers to vote with their feet by moving facilities out of the country.

Power, whether it be in the hands of corporate boardrooms or six star hotel union conventions must work for the people in order for the nation to be productive. I would classify the union as being an unbalanced power working against the people for the last twenty years in our country.

Americans have a need for industry, as strongly as it has a need for labor protections and rights. Both must be met, and one need must not overly gain at the sacrifice of the other.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Mon May 23, 2011 9:03 pm

I don't think its disputable that unions had a positive benefit on America and were necessary at a point in time.

However just because the union 100 years ago did good or was good, doesn't mean it is today or is needed today... or is even working in the interests of workers and the American people.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon May 23, 2011 9:11 pm

There is definitely still a need for the union today. Trouble is, the need for the union, I don't think is being met in reality by the unions. The union was never supposed to be a device that pitted Americans against Americans.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Mon May 23, 2011 9:35 pm

i definetly agree, i think the only place where unions are still neccessary is in large construction projects, its hard for a single company to employ the neccessary man power needed to build the large plants in the oil sands, or the skyscrapers in alot of cities. However victimizing corporations at the hands of the unions that they made neccessary to create is something im not a fan of. Corporations have proven time and again that they show no concern for the people that work for them or even the people that buy thier product as long as they continue to buy thier product.

Manufacturing plants would still move to other countries due to insanely cheap labor, no value of human life, lax labor rules and tax breaks. You can blame unions all you want for this manufacturing will always move to where ever it is cheapest for them to operate.

Government unions are something that will have to be done away with eventually, the same with a large amount of social security and welfare programs otherwise the system will crumble. However the politician who suggests attempting to do away with alot of these things will be commiting political suicide. It takes a person with incredible determination and a large amount of personal sacrifice to do what is best for society when it comes to making unpopular decisions, and it takes only one person to take and change all that they accomplished.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Mon May 23, 2011 9:56 pm

i dont understand why you would need unions on working large projects...

wouldnt you use sub contractors?

unions are bad for large projects because you have to manage all the union rules. This is how you get plumbers sitting around and getting paid $100 bucks an hour because the union stipulated person Y wasn't there or the union stipulated tool Z and inspection A wasn't done.

==

government unions are only a problem because politicians A) don't account for their expenses properly so they can continue to spend more and B) work for and reward their supporters rather than all people. I think if we take away their ability to bargain for pay and benefits it would go a long way to solving the problem without requiring the unions to disband. Maybe not, regardless the situation is untenable today and the unions must be severely curtailed or eliminated.

public sector unions might be more necessary than private sector because how do you protect yourself from the government who makes the rules? How do you protect yourself from politicians who set their agenda and engage in rampant influence peddling rather than the private sector who is generally oriented around profit... I sympathize with teachers who get fired because they gave the Mayor's kid an F... but this is the 1 in 1000. Instead they are protecting the teacher who is lazy or says inappropriate things or indoctrinates or just isnt effective.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue May 24, 2011 4:40 am

Amena, would you mind explaining the unions/large construction projects relationship?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Tue May 24, 2011 1:31 pm

Ive worked alot in the oil sands in Fort Mac (alberta). I have worked both union and non-union building plants up there. I know this is just my perspective on this.

When i worked the union plant we did have a lot of man power and yes there were a group of people there who were lazy and dog-fucked the day away. But there was also a larger group of people who did the work, got thier shit done and worked together about the whole thing. We did occassionally get in trouble for doing stupid things like cleaning up messes, Assisting someone who is lifting a heavy load, but basically we just told the union shithead to fuck off and go do some actual work.

The non-union plant i helped build, did not have the man power available to get the job done in the given timeline, when you need 1000s of employees its hard for most subcontractors to get the neccessary amount of people, as well you have bickering about what is and is not each subcontractors job. In all honesty i spent more time dealing with the bullshit between each individual subcontractor than i did working. Its a nightmare to have to deal with different companies when you are building the same plant. Always petty power trips and in-fighting.

The non-union plant when i left was 3 months behind schedule, the union plant was alot closer to being completed, and alot closer to actually making the company some profit. Again this is just my perspective, and here in Alberta we do have a different philosophy when it comes down to work ethic even those in the union, especially those working in the oilfield. I understand that this is not always the case, but this has been my personal experience.

I should also mention that the foreman at the union plant, got to choose who was staying for the next phase of the project when they no longer needed as many people, and with few exception the lazy dog-fuckers were the first to go.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby kiryan » Tue May 24, 2011 5:24 pm

Ok heres somethign from the union's perspective I believe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hinde ... 66089.html

McNerney says that "Boeing never sought to threaten or punish [workers] for exercising their rights." Yet the NLRB based its finding on the very specific comment by Boeing executives that "avoiding strikes was a central reason for the decision."

This appears to be the problem. Boeing demanded a long term no strike clause in order to open up the plant in washington. Since the union refused, they opend the plant up in SC. The union believes this is retaliation because they have a right to strike... at least until they sign away their right to strike.

I see how the union finds this an un-negotiable point, but I fail to see how this amounts to retaliation in the NRLB view... since the work was new work as Teflor has stated a few times and they were engaged in a negotation on possible terms for the new work...

I you had several new contracts a day to fill and you started not giving new contracts to a particular supplier because they refused to give you a lower price, that wouldn't be retaliation, it would just be business. If you stopped giving them new contracts because they were a minority would it suddenly become retaliation? If its retaliation/discrimination by race then the act must've been retaliation when it was based on price as well? Using a standard such as that... seems like it could be applied in a limitless fashion. Now not giving new work to a union is considered retaliation against the union. I don't think we've seen a racket like that since Al Capone!

And the gall to claim retaliation... when Boeing just suffered at least 3 Union work stoppages/strikes on the work on the 787 dream liner which I think is now 3 years late... and undoubteldy costing Boeing millions in direct payments to their customers or concessions... When I worked at a company that did work with Boeing, you had to pay either 100k or 1 million a day if you were late delivering your product for installation in the aircraft (I don't remember which number, I think it was million).

==

He goes on to bash globalization. The stats are unfortunate, but I don't think he realizes the union is part of the problem that prevents companies from keeping jobs in the US. Boeings decision couldn't highlight this any better, not going to open up the plant in Washington because of the union, going to open it up in SC. When SC becomes to onerous to work with, or the US in general, we'll move it overseas. Go ahead put your finger in the dike and ignore the problem.

I do like his point about American workesr being among the highest skilled and most productive in the world and needing to be treated well and protected... but its like trying to get a bigger and bigger piece of a sinking ship, the captain goes down with the ship... have you ever really thought about the "human resources" department... you're not a human being, you're a human resource. Managed as the author agrees to create wealth.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue May 24, 2011 8:01 pm

amena wolfsnarl wrote:Ive worked alot in the oil sands in Fort Mac (alberta). I have worked both union and non-union building plants up there. I know this is just my perspective on this.

When i worked the union plant we did have a lot of man power and yes there were a group of people there who were lazy and dog-fucked the day away. But there was also a larger group of people who did the work, got thier shit done and worked together about the whole thing. We did occassionally get in trouble for doing stupid things like cleaning up messes, Assisting someone who is lifting a heavy load, but basically we just told the union shithead to fuck off and go do some actual work.

The non-union plant i helped build, did not have the man power available to get the job done in the given timeline, when you need 1000s of employees its hard for most subcontractors to get the neccessary amount of people, as well you have bickering about what is and is not each subcontractors job. In all honesty i spent more time dealing with the bullshit between each individual subcontractor than i did working. Its a nightmare to have to deal with different companies when you are building the same plant. Always petty power trips and in-fighting.

The non-union plant when i left was 3 months behind schedule, the union plant was alot closer to being completed, and alot closer to actually making the company some profit. Again this is just my perspective, and here in Alberta we do have a different philosophy when it comes down to work ethic even those in the union, especially those working in the oilfield. I understand that this is not always the case, but this has been my personal experience.

I should also mention that the foreman at the union plant, got to choose who was staying for the next phase of the project when they no longer needed as many people, and with few exception the lazy dog-fuckers were the first to go.

Is Alberta a big pro-labor, pro-union providence? Do you think perhaps the unions actively made it difficult for the non-union job to hire workers?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Tue May 24, 2011 8:33 pm

ive heard alberta been called the Texas of canada, im told Texas is big anti-union. For the most part the only place union labor in alberta is done is in Fort Mac, otherwise its all done by non union, with a couple exceptions of course. For the most part alot of the skilled work force that i know, myself included perfer to work non-union, the pay is the same for non-leadhands, the added perk of hiring on our trucks as well as contracting out ourself is alot more appealing for the lead hand types than union working.

$35 an hour for journeyman pipefitter compared to 48 an hour for contract pipefitter (journeyman status is optional) as well as $1.15 per KM for your vehicle (usually i travel 300+ km, mind you a truck costs 110k to tool and rig up new), or a flat day rate of 200. Typically there are about 6 or 7 trucks on a new construction lease at any given time. Of course that is with about 6 years experience and you have to set up your own corporation and pay your own taxes after the wages. On top of that you can get paid for your generators, cargo trailers, holiday trailers (aka the office), quads, skidoos, and side by sides if you are working the correct job. So you can imagine that most would perfer to work non union. Alot of the union in Ft Mac is from other provinces. I personally only go up there if there isnt alot of work going on around my end of the province, and that has come to an end with me being a single parent now.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Taking Sides and Hating States: NLRB

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue May 24, 2011 8:42 pm

Union issues in Canada I feel are pretty different than in the United States. But our labor unions are fairly corrupt.

I'm starting to feel like I should flee this BBS. Everyone up in here is divorced damnit!
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest