Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 This will be interesting. This "dissident" group seems to be far more interested in organizing non-unionized workers than in maintaining the status quo. Other large unions are said to be following suit. I for one cannot understand why unions have not taken a more militant stance against Wal-Mart for instance. A national boycott would hit them where it hurts, and might actually force them to pay their employees a wage high enough to keep them off medicaid, food stamps, etc. Union membership is declining, so I view this as a positive step for the labor movement. I wish success to Andy Stern of SEIU, and the other unionists and congratulate them for having the courage to try a new approach. Time For A Change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 This will be interesting. This "dissident" group seems to be far more interested in organizing non-unionized workers than in maintaining the status quo. Other large unions are said to be following suit. I for one cannot understand why unions have not taken a more militant stance against Wal-Mart for instance. A national boycott would hit them where it hurts, and might actually force them to pay their employees a wage high enough to keep them off medicaid, food stamps, etc. In the first paragraph, you complain that the Teamsters biggest problem is they don't focus on current members. In the second paragraph, you complain that they should focus on a boycott of Wal-Mart. Umm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 In the first paragraph, you complain that the Teamsters biggest problem is they don't focus on current members. In the second paragraph, you complain that they should focus on a boycott of Wal-Mart. Umm. 389326[/snapback] What are you talking about? SEIU and tht Teamsters are breaking ties with the AFL-CIO. One of their major reasons is because the AFL-CIO leadership is not placing enough effort/funds into organizing workers. Who said anything about current members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 What are you talking about? SEIU and tht Teamsters are breaking ties with the AFL-CIO. One of their major reasons is because the AFL-CIO leadership is not placing enough effort/funds into organizing workers. Who said anything about current members? 389345[/snapback] Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought you were, maybe, making sense in suggesting that Unions should focus less on recruitment, and more on fixing what shreds of credibility they still have, if any. Do you think that Unions should be focused on organizing more workers? Like those at Wal-Mart (one of the biggest companies in the world) and Toyota (soon to be the largest auto-maker in the world)? And they should do this, instead of trying to change their relationship with companies like Ford, GM, and Chevy (the Bloated 3), each of which is in crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought you were, maybe, making sense in suggesting that Unions should focus less on recruitment, and more on fixing what shreds of credibility they still have, if any. Do you think that Unions should be focused on organizing more workers? Like those at Wal-Mart (one of the biggest companies in the world) and Toyota (soon to be the largest auto-maker in the world)? And they should do this, instead of trying to change their relationship with companies like Ford, GM, and Chevy (the Bloated 3), each of which is in crisis? 389370[/snapback] I see nothing wrong with attempting to do both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I see nothing wrong with attempting to do both. 389374[/snapback] Do think that unionizing Wal-Mart and Toyota (whose workers have rejected UAW overtures before) might have an adverse effect on them? State of Ford, GM = BAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 oh no, not another Unions and Wal-mart thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Do think that unionizing Wal-Mart and Toyota (whose workers have rejected UAW overtures before) might have an adverse effect on them? State of Ford, GM = BAD 389446[/snapback] No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I see nothing wrong with attempting to do both. 389374[/snapback] That's like saying 'Our house is on fire! Quick, let's build a new addition!" Howz about unions trying to fix their current disorganization before attempting to grow into new areas? Methinks the unions are so scared about becoming irrelevent they want to get into Walmart (and Toyota,etc) simply to get more union dues so they can keep the bloated behemoth on life support another decade or two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Good one!! 389642[/snapback] Dude, we have already leapt WAY across the line of boring others. Why don't you run by us how great it is to work at Walmart, and how happy you feel about paying taxes to provide food stamps and medical care out of your tax dollars to WalMart employees, while they abuse their workers, pay them virtual slave wages, and lose law suits for discrimination, denying overtime, etc. Sure, they would be worse off as teamsters, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 That's like saying 'Our house is on fire! Quick, let's build a new addition!" Howz about unions trying to fix their current disorganization before attempting to grow into new areas? Methinks the unions are so scared about becoming irrelevent they want to get into Walmart (and Toyota,etc) simply to get more union dues so they can keep the bloated behemoth on life support another decade or two... 389656[/snapback] Well, I respectfully disagree. There are still plenty of construction workers, police officers, and others who are afforded a better lifestyle and more dignity because of their respective labor unions. Gavin, I am not a labor radical. I believe in a union/management environment where both parties can achieve a better lifestyle. That said, you will be hard pressed to convince me that workers at WalMart are better off without union representation. If you disagree, please state your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I was a manager in a plant represented by the U.A.W., and was a member of two unions when I was a younger man. Lots of things to talk about. This union/no union stuff has been going on for years, but in my view, many folks who critize the weak points of unions seldom realize how (crushingly, If I may add) different their own work life would be today if not for the struggle of people before who fought the battle for many things we take for granted today. I realize there are many issues - for me, the combination of civil service protection and union protection is a very toxic thing. But all in all, I look for the "union label" as far as I can when I purchase items or services. If that means I'll go down with the ship - well, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Wal-Mart employees are ***willing*** - not forced or coerced- to work at Wal-Mart. Despite your assertions to the contrary, Wal-Mart employees are not slaves. If they won't work for their wages, they can leave. 389677[/snapback] Not to change the topic, but has anyone ever told you that you are an a-hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Not to change the topic, but has anyone ever told you that you are an a-hole? 389692[/snapback] Lots of people have told me that. Of course, I'm super sensitive to such criticism. You have a point to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Not to change the topic, but has anyone ever told you that you are an a-hole? 389692[/snapback] Of course. Depending on who is delivering the review, it can be a badge of shame or honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Of course. Depending on who is delivering the review, it can be a badge of shame or honor. 389726[/snapback] As Rod Stewart said, "You Wear It Well." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 The AFL-CIO is way too interested in signing up illegal aliens than protecting their current members. Also, they are spemding tons of money in Washington. Try using some of that to improve the pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 The AFL-CIO is way too interested in signing up illegal aliens than protecting their current members. Also, they are spemding tons of money in Washington. Try using some of that to improve the pensions. 389753[/snapback] Do you think that the split is a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 As Rod Stewart said, "You Wear It Well." 389744[/snapback] Dude, we have already leapt WAY across the line of boring others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Here's a novel thought. Have the splinter unions set up shops to compete with AFL-CIO for members. Why should a union have a monopoly on the workplace? If they're so concerned about the poor WalMart workers, then give WalMart workers a choice of a union to sign up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought you were, maybe, making sense in suggesting that Unions should focus less on recruitment, and more on fixing what shreds of credibility they still have, if any. Do you think that Unions should be focused on organizing more workers? Like those at Wal-Mart (one of the biggest companies in the world) and Toyota (soon to be the largest auto-maker in the world)? And they should do this, instead of trying to change their relationship with companies like Ford, GM, and Chevy (the Bloated 3), each of which is in crisis? 389370[/snapback] I don't see what unionizing Wal-Mart has to do with the crisis that the big 3 are having with the UAW. They are totally different unions doing totally different types of work. The crisis of the big 3 is not much different than the crisis affecting Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and state budget crisis. The big 3 as well as these large social programs are all in crisis due to people living longer, medical advances, expensive medical technology, etc. In the case of the big 3, the UAW and the companies are both at fault. The UAW for trying to always improve benefits in each new contract and the companies for not foreseeing the crisis that this was going to cause and not drawing a line in the sand and fighting to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I don't see what unionizing Wal-Mart has to do with the crisis that the big 3 are having with the UAW. They are totally different unions doing totally different types of work. The crisis of the big 3 is not much different than the crisis affecting Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and state budget crisis. The big 3 as well as these large social programs are all in crisis due to people living longer, medical advances, expensive medical technology, etc. In the case of the big 3, the UAW and the companies are both at fault. The UAW for trying to always improve benefits in each new contract and the companies for not foreseeing the crisis that this was going to cause and not drawing a line in the sand and fighting to stop it. 389805[/snapback] Well said. But companies, auto or not, have not a whit of hesitation taking away retired salaried worker's benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Do you think that the split is a good idea? 389758[/snapback] My morning newspaper stated that with the possible split, the leaving entities get back seven million bucks' worth of dues.. If so, I wonder who's pockets that would end up in? Regardless, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" is still a functional concept.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Go figure some government worker's unions just affliated with the AFL-CIO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Well said. But companies, auto or not, have not a whit of hesitation taking away retired salaried worker's benefits. 389821[/snapback] Just ask the retirees at USS! That is the tragedy along with cutting vet's benny's. The young just don't care. It will never happen to me. My end goal will never be derailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Just ask the retirees at USS! That is the tragedy along with cutting vet's benny's. The young just don't care. It will never happen to me. My end goal will never be derailed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Every article I read says that young people are saving more for retirement than ever before, by leaps and bounds. Not that it probably matters. If you read the right books (with a capital B), it sounds like the end is drawing near in the next 10 or so years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Just ask the retirees at USS! That is the tragedy along with cutting vet's benny's. The young just don't care. It will never happen to me. My end goal will never be derailed. 390018[/snapback] What cut in veteran's benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Every article I read says that young people are saving more for retirement than ever before, by leaps and bounds. 390111[/snapback] So, so, true... That is why they don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 What cut in veteran's benefits? 390174[/snapback] It is only a matter of time... They are coming. Every conflict has created a group of vets that get jobbed. Time and lawmakers will eventually make sure it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 It is only a matter of time... They are coming. Every conflict has created a group of vets that get jobbed. Time and lawmakers will eventually make sure it happens. 390972[/snapback] I hate to be a pest, but what are these cuts you mention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 I hate to be a pest, but what are these cuts you mention? 390993[/snapback] You are a pest... I guess this is what I am trying to say: Veterans Groups Want More While it's false to say the veterans budget has been cut, and false to say that any veteran getting benefits has been cut off, it is true that funding is not growing as rapidly as demand for benefits, or as rapidly as veterans groups would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 it is true that funding is not growing as rapidly as demand for benefits, or as rapidly as veterans groups would like.[/i] 391039[/snapback] Ooh, the government not living up to their end of the bargain and a specific special interest group isn't happy that their slice of the pie doesn't measure up. Shocking. Perhaps that champion of veteran's benefits John Kerry will propose legislation to correct this wrong. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Ooh, the government not living up to their end of the bargain and a specific special interest group isn't happy that their slice of the pie doesn't measure up. Shocking. Perhaps that champion of veteran's benefits John Kerry will propose legislation to correct this wrong. [/sarcasm] 391479[/snapback] So true. As special interest go. And seeing how everything is catered to one special interest or another in our society... Would you rank Vets as the most important special interest group? I would. A lot of other crap, including my own job (caters to the towing industry, Inland Waterwary Trust Fund, etc...) could fall by the wayside before I would want Vets to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 So true. As special interest go. And seeing how everything is catered to one special interest or another in our society... Would you rank Vets as the most important special interest group? I would. A lot of other crap, including my own job (caters to the towing industry, Inland Waterwary Trust Fund, etc...) could fall by the wayside before I would want Vets to! 393012[/snapback] I agree - of course the military is one of the few Constitutional responsibilities that the Fed actually has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 Go figure some government worker's unions just affliated with the AFL-CIO. 390016[/snapback] EIL, this is because many federal workers are already unionized. At a national level, these unions seem content to allow their dues to be handed over to the nearest "liberal" dem running for office. I was never the biggest fan of Hoffa Jr. Imo, he is not a pimple on the a$$ of his father. He recently had a great quote. He stated that he was tired of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters being an ATM card for the democrat party. The following is link was published in 02/05 by a pretty smart person. It looks as if she saw this coming. She "told ya so." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts