Thank a Union Member: 75th Anniversary of the Flint Sit-Down Strike

[Greg White]

Cornwhaterver,
You got abit of a silver tongue,but its quite clear you dont know much aboot Unions.
I shant bother to point out your missunderstandings

with all due respect
Gw

 

[N2IXK]

I mentioned the catholic/contraceptive thing to show the latest evil of the HC law. When fully instuted this law will be used to 'go around' the Constitution and congress to remove freedom of choice from Americans.

I will start to give some creedence to the right-wing's complaints about the contraceptive coverage mandate violating the collective consciences of Catholics and other religious groups when they also start agitating for the rights of people with religious objections to war to withhold their income taxes because 50-odd % of them go to fund the military.

Until then, it just seems like more of the same old anti-woman, anti-sex crapola to me.

 

[Cornilsn]

Cornwhaterver,
You got abit of a silver tongue,but its quite clear you dont know much aboot Unions.
I shant bother to point out your missunderstandings

with all due respect
Gw

Cognative dissonance hurts, doesn't it? you won't bother to explain what you think I mis-understand, most likely because you just have some deep seated belief that I challenged, and you can't articulate why I'm wrong because you have no sustantial reason to say I'm wrong.

Its OK, I know plenty about how unions work, why they exist, the good and bad things they have done, thier current MO, and how they fit in the context of NOW, and have decided I won't support, in anyway, expansion of thier membership.

With all due respect.

I will start to give some creedence to the right-wing's complaints about the contraceptive coverage mandate violating the collective consciences of Catholics and other religious groups when they also start agitating for the rights of people with religious objections to war to withhold their income taxes because 50-odd % of them go to fund the military.

Until then, it just seems like more of the same old anti-woman, anti-sex crapola to me.

There are so many real reasons not to like the obama care bill (mainly that it doesn't really address the cost side of it), I can't understand why people latch onto this aspect of it. These guys are the part of the repubican party that make me sick.

 

[iwananew10K]

"These guys are part of the repubican party that make me sick"


in case that happens hopefully you didn`t have to forego payment of your insurance premium that month to make sure your kids were fed.
that would suck

 

[Greg White]

Cornguy,
nope wrong again,you aint worth the typing it would take.
Gw

 

[cmailco]

No, the company only has as much power as you hand over.

I never got one of those, "I only hand over this much power" forms when I signed on. Is that common in your neck of the woods?

Then you go on to make a counter argument in the rest of your response.

You don't have to work there. And damn right they tell you when you will come to work, and what you will wear. If there weren't rules I'm sure most people would choose not to wear safety glasses and ear plugs. Or would you like to allow someone to wear dangly clothes that begs to get caught in a leadscrew? Most workplaces rely on the output from other workers - gotta have predictability in when people will be at thier station.

I happen to feel a bit differently about this. Having managed a number of people, I'd say, just fire the stupid people, then you don't need so many "rules".

By the way our company has a few rules:

1) put in 8 hours
2) start the day before 9 am
3) call in before shift start if you're going to be late/out

Works, and everyone wears their safety glasses in the shop because we're all adults and know it's good for us to do so. Imagine that.

How can you defend your assertion that a company will step all over its workers without a union? MOST workplaces are non-unionized... yet the employer's behave.

Oh that one's easy. Just watch the news some time or pay attention to new laws, pushes for new laws and do a little digging into the effects of such laws.

Maybe you can tell me what "right to work" did to construction workers in Oklahoma a few years back?

Well, they use to make within some 50 cents of Indiana workers... they now make less than half as much, with less in benefits. The push for new laws... is it in the interest of the workers or the wealthy?

You only need look around and listen to working people to see the issue here.

And a workplace isn't a democracy. you agree to see your labor for $xx per hour, it ain't your time to decide what to do with. And a union wouldn't change that anyway.

Wonderful attitude that's been instrumental in building a system of disgruntled workers who could care less about the companies that employ them.

Stick to the whatever it is you do... you'll be a very ineffective manager with this attitude about people and the workplace.

And, most larger companies ARE employee owned to some extent. (if they are publicly traded) I have been given a significant amount of company stock over my employment... and so are the hourly workers too.

Comparing a worker-owned co-op to a publicly traded company is apples to oranges.

In a "worker-owned" co-op, the employees, you know... the people out there on the floor building the product... make the decisions. They function as a board of trustees and decisions are made in the good old fashioned democratic way -with a vote.

In a publicly traded company, the fund managers, CEO's and board members make the decisions and sometimes those aren't in the worker's best interest... big surprise there. The bottom line is PROFIT and PEOPLE are secondary, which shouldn't be a surprise either since we all know the word "outsourcing" well enough...

 

[bucktruck]

...You don't have to work there...

Have you taken a look at unemployment rates lately?

Seriously, the argument that workers should just leave if they are unhappy just pisses me off. Most people are afraid to even ask for a raise in today's employment environment, let alone up and quit.

 

[Cornilsn]

I never got one of those, "I only hand over this much power" forms when I signed on. Is that common in your neck of the woods?

I simply choose not to work for places that make me a slave to them. I’ve left a job like that.

Then you go on to make a counter argument in the rest of your response.



I happen to feel a bit differently about this. Having managed a number of people, I'd say, just fire the stupid people, then you don't need so many "rules".

Unfortunately laws prevent this, but I can get on board with that!

By the way our company has a few rules:

1) put in 8 hours
2) start the day before 9 am
3) call in before shift start if you're going to be late/out

Works, and everyone wears their safety glasses in the shop because we're all adults and know it's good for us to do so. Imagine that.

I’ve worked in places that allowed flex time, and it does work very well in some cases. But how can you allow that, when I need the output from machine A to feed machine B? I know lean/TOC/JIt isn’t popular here, but we keep very little inventory and have found level load/output from each cell/machine/operation helps A LOT in keeping product moving predictably. Either way, this will work where it does, but it isn’t going to work everywhere. AND, it isn’t even a union vs non-union thing anyway.

Oh that one's easy. Just watch the news some time or pay attention to new laws, pushes for new laws and do a little digging into the effects of such laws.
Maybe you can tell me what "right to work" did to construction workers in Oklahoma a few years back?

Well, they use to make within some 50 cents of Indiana workers... they now make less than half as much, with less in benefits. The push for new laws... is it in the interest of the workers or the wealthy?

Right to work had little effect, positive or negative. Any ‘studies’ that make claims about the effects of going RTW are so very dependant on the methodology and assumptions made by the people conducting it, that it is pretty much useless. Fact is, the statistics say there is a minimal difference, (one way or another) so to make the conclusion you did below is flat wrong.
http://www.johnwcooper.com/right-to-work-laws/right-to-work-laws.pdf

Wonderful attitude that's been instrumental in building a system of disgruntled workers who could care less about the companies that employ them.

Stick to the whatever it is you do... you'll be a very ineffective manager with this attitude about people and the workplace.
[/quote]
You clearly don’t understand my attitude. Do I listen to what my employees say? Do I gather their feedback, keep a finger on the pulse of things to know where attention is needed? Of course. I don’t have a ‘my way or the highway’ approach, I have a ‘Get it done, if you can’t, it is your responsibility to tell me what the roadblocks are so I can remove them or find a way around, if you can’t work around them’ mentality. We have an extremely close and communicative environment with the floor workers here. Their input is sought out and considered in everything I do. And I think, actually, I am CERTAINT, a union would prevent that. I suppose without knowing what decisions you think hourly employees should be making, I can’t say much more.

Comparing a worker-owned co-op to a publicly traded company is apples to oranges.

In a "worker-owned" co-op, the employees, you know... the people out there on the floor building the product... make the decisions. They function as a board of trustees and decisions are made in the good old fashioned democratic way -with a vote.

In a publicly traded company, the fund managers, CEO's and board members make the decisions and sometimes those aren't in the worker's best interest... big surprise there. The bottom line is PROFIT and PEOPLE are secondary, which shouldn't be a surprise either since we all know the word "outsourcing" well enough...

I know the difference, they aren’t the same. I have my misgivings about being a publically traded company, because it does lead to some decisions I don’t agree with. But there is nothing stoping companies from starting up that are employee owned. And, If a competitive company can be run that way, awesome. I’d probably love working for one. However, I don’t think I can sign up for forcing all companies to be converted to being employee owned.

Also, I don't agree with this sentiment that the hourly guys always know what's best for the company as a whole. I know if a particular wide spread opinion held by the hourly guys at our plant, that would have us shut down before long. What decisions do you think they should be making?

 

[Cornilsn]

Have you taken a look at unemployment rates lately?

Seriously, the argument that workers should just leave if they are unhappy just pisses me off. Most people are afraid to even ask for a raise in today's employment environment, let alone up and quit.

then they have traded thier dignity and power away for a paycheck. That's thier own fault they walked into the debt trap and have thier hoof on the trigger.
I happen to thrive in an environment other people say "sucks" because it is high pressure. I'd be bored in a place that was low-pressure. I'm also compensated to work in that environment, because of the high-demands. Everyone I work with is top notch, and we make slackers miserable. Why should we cater to the lowest-common-denominator? Why should our culture, which has seen continual growth, recession or no, be destroyed for a few people who don't fit? they should quit and go somewhere that suits them more, everyone would be happy.

Fear and unwillingness to risk are the most pathetic excuse for not making a change to improve your life.

 

[tjd10684]

then they have traded thier dignity and power away for a paycheck. That's thier own fault they walked into the debt trap and have thier hoof on the trigger.
I happen to thrive in an environment other people say "sucks" because it is high pressure. I'd be bored in a place that was low-pressure. I'm also compensated to work in that environment, because of the high-demands. Everyone I work with is top notch, and we make slackers miserable. Why should we cater to the lowest-common-denominator? Why should our culture, which has seen continual growth, recession or no, be destroyed for a few people who don't fit? they should quit and go somewhere that suits them more, everyone would be happy.

Fear and unwillingness to risk are the most pathetic excuse for not making a change to improve your life.

So what if someone went out and got that next level of education taking a risk with their life savings to get that better job. they worked their way through school at crappy job a and it turns out their is no place to go. By doing a risky change to improve their life they have fallen into a debt trap. So you propose that instead of continuing to feed their family and keep a roof over their head they should quit their crappy job for pride? Something that stupid is no longer pride its hubris.

It seams to me that your ideas are set in a black and white world but here in the real world issues like this are almost always a shade of gray

 

[Cornilsn]

So what if someone went out and got that next level of education taking a risk with their life savings to get that better job. they worked their way through school at crappy job a and it turns out their is no place to go. By doing a risky change to improve their life they have fallen into a debt trap. So you propose that instead of continuing to feed their family and keep a roof over their head they should quit their crappy job for pride? Something that stupid is no longer pride its hubris.

It seams to me that your ideas are set in a black and white world but here in the real world issues like this are almost always a shade of gray

Look, I get it... life is tough. risks don't always pan out. I don't wish that situation on someone. I get that pride doesn't put food on the table.

I'm suggesting that they work thier crappy job to the expectations of the position until such a time as they can find some place that better suits them. Or, they could go to thier supervisor, and explain in a non-whiny, non-confrontational way what improvements and changes they would like to see. I'm also suggesting that people take control of thier lives and do what they need to do, to improve them, and not wait for someone else to do it for them.

 

[tjd10684]

Look, I get it... life is tough. risks don't always pan out. I don't wish that situation on someone. I get that pride doesn't put food on the table.

I'm suggesting that they work thier crappy job to the expectations of the position until such a time as they can find some place that better suits them. Or, they could go to thier supervisor, and explain in a non-whiny, non-confrontational way what improvements and changes they would like to see. I'm also suggesting that people take control of thier lives and do what they need to do, to improve them, and not wait for someone else to do it for them.

That is a much more temped real world answer. I knew you were capable of it. Now if we can just get you to do that on your first posts rather than having to go through this dance each time everyones blood pressure might drop a point or two.

 

[cmailco]

I simply choose not to work for places that make me a slave to them. I’ve left a job like that.

You're fortunate to have the choice.

I believe the unemployment rate for people under 25 is still over 20%, so choices can be slim, especially in some sectors of work.

Unfortunately laws prevent this, but I can get on board with that!

You read that a bit too literally in hopes of making your point. Most "stupid" people, like the ones you mentioned, hang themselves in short order, especially those working in a shop environment.

I’ve worked in places that allowed flex time, and it does work very well in some cases. But how can you allow that, when I need the output from machine A to feed machine B? I know lean/TOC/JIt isn’t popular here, but we keep very little inventory and have found level load/output from each cell/machine/operation helps A LOT in keeping product moving predictably. Either way, this will work where it does, but it isn’t going to work everywhere. AND, it isn’t even a union vs non-union thing anyway.

Never implied that it works everywhere.

Union or not, a little latitude is permissible here. We're not exactly writing dissertations.

Right to work had little effect, positive or negative. Any ‘studies’ that make claims about the effects of going RTW are so very dependant on the methodology and assumptions made by the people conducting it, that it is pretty much useless. Fact is, the statistics say there is a minimal difference, (one way or another) so to make the conclusion you did below is flat wrong.

It's not wrong because you say it is. Onus of proof is on you, actually. If not for right-to-work, then prove why construction workers lost over 50% of their wages (more of their benefits) when right-to-work-for-less was passed.

You clearly don’t understand my attitude. Do I listen to what my employees say? Do I gather their feedback, keep a finger on the pulse of things to know where attention is needed? Of course. I don’t have a ‘my way or the highway’ approach, I have a ‘Get it done, if you can’t, it is your responsibility to tell me what the roadblocks are so I can remove them or find a way around, if you can’t work around them’ mentality. We have an extremely close and communicative environment with the floor workers here. Their input is sought out and considered in everything I do. And I think, actually, I am CERTAINT, a union would prevent that.

I worked in an R&D management position for better than 10 years and having a union never hindered this, so what experience do you have to back this assertion?

You're obviously young, hence my curiosity.

Also, I don't agree with this sentiment that the hourly guys always know what's best for the company as a whole. I know if a particular wide spread opinion held by the hourly guys at our plant, that would have us shut down before long. What decisions do you think they should be making?

Since when do only the hourly employees make decisions in a co-op? The point is, everyone is on an equal playing ground, everyone's vote counts as "1", regardless their station within the company.

 

[andywire]

Hmm, the decline in the middle class in America seems to have followed in the steps of the decline in union representation... Funny how that happened. Only thing I know, I never heard of any union shops filling their ranks with illegal migrant laborers.

 

[Cornilsn]

You're fortunate to have the choice.

I believe the unemployment rate for people under 25 is still over 20%, so choices can be slim, especially in some sectors of work.

Yes, unemployment in my age group is high, but I think looking at unemployment in my career, its a little better. Which again shows I was indeed fortunate. I did stick it out in that position for 4 months longer than I wanted to waiting for the right thing to come along... but that was a compromise I had to make to keep me under a roof and in the points race that season.

You read that a bit too literally in hopes of making your point. Most "stupid" people, like the ones you mentioned, hang themselves in short order, especially those working in a shop environment.

Fair enough. And they do hang themselves, but some of them will literally hang, delimb, or disable themselves or others before they figuratively hang themselves... hence the non-negociable dress codes and PPe requirements.

Never implied that it works everywhere.

Union or not, a little latitude is permissible here. We're not exactly writing dissertations.

Flex time isn't a union/nonunion thing. You didn't imply it, but my initial response was to Kpotter who didn't have enough room in his run-on nonsense to make that distinction... he seems to think schedules, dress codes and rules are unfair, and that unions somehow would get him out of that.

It's not wrong because you say it is. Onus of proof is on you, actually. If not for right-to-work, then prove why construction workers lost over 50% of their wages (more of their benefits) when right-to-work-for-less was passed.

Nope, not because I say it is... it's wrong because making a blanket statement based on the conclusions of a study that had a very, very narrow inference space is inherently wrong.
I think you need to prove that all construction workers lost 50% of thier pay and thier benefits first. Or was this just one place? If it was just one place, it is hardly indicative of RTW states. (hence why methodology of these reports is key to interpreting reality)

I worked in an R&D management position for better than 10 years and having a union never hindered this, so what experience do you have to back this assertion?

You're obviously young, hence my curiosity.

I worked at a plywood plant that was unionized. The shop stewards were tyrants, worse than the bosses. One example, I was feeding core into a machine that automatically lays up the core on the sheets (well, it was supposed to, but seemed to be better at wadding the core up and jamming.) The engineer came by to talk to me about what I saw happening to try and fix it. As a 2nd year engineering student at the time, I would have been happy to talk with him for a second as I worked. Well, shop steward saw it and swooped in, chased the engineer off. Well, I saw a few more examples of this with other operators. Other operators would stick with the "not my job, beat it" attitude. No collaboration, whatsoever. That's my basis. Yeah, maybe that particular union sucked, but the only people who seemed to like it were the culls, but there didn't seem to be a way to boot them. That's wrong - if I'm going to be forced to PAY for representation, I damned well better have some kind of recourse. (for the record, I did attend thier meetings. they seemed annoyed that someone actually showed up.)

[
Since when do only the hourly employees make decisions in a co-op? The point is, everyone is on an equal playing ground, everyone's vote counts as "1", regardless their station within the company.

ok, fair enough.
I suppose any company is free to structure themselves that way, but its not something that should be mandated, nor that it is inherently superior as Kpotter seems to think.

That is a much more temped real world answer. I knew you were capable of it. Now if we can just get you to do that on your first posts rather than having to go through this dance each time everyones blood pressure might drop a point or two.

Well, I'd be happy to keep it level headed, but the aurgument seemed to already be in the pigpen, and the only way to be heard was to roll around in the shit too!

 

[Cornilsn]

Hmm, the decline in the middle class in America seems to have followed in the steps of the decline in union representation... Funny how that happened. Only thing I know, I never heard of any union shops filling their ranks with illegal migrant laborers.

first, the middle class hasn't declined. middle class is middle class - less people may be IN the middle class, and the distribution of the population has become a bit more bi-modal... splitting hairs, so I'll accept your premise for now. Class, to me, seems to be a 'window' of incomes/wealth/buying power that moves up and down with inflation.

Correllation is not the same as cause and effect. Perhaps the decline in unionization and the decline of the middle class are symptoms of the same thing. Infact, one chart I saw on a progressivist website, plotted union membership against the middle-classe's share of wealth. First, share of wealth as a class is a bad metric. change the size of the pie, and it looks like the middle class lost even though they may have made marginal gains on a inflation adjusted scale. Second, it appeared that declines in the share LED declines in union membership. IE, maybe the conclusion you draw is 180 off... lowering % of share of wealth might actually be one of the causes of reduced membership... which changes the conversation... maybe more people are working in these "upper class" jobs, so they no longer qualify to be unionized, and it double-whammies the trendline of a % share of wealth chart (since some wealth moved into another catagory!)

 

[machinehead61]

If the Constitution means anything to union members, why is it the efforts to usurp this document is being funded by union money?

No union wanted this vote....

WTO Withdrawal (House Joint Resolution 90) June 21, 2000 roll call 310
Rejected 56-363
Republicans 33-182
Democrats 21-181


House Manufacturing Caucus


Manzullo Introduces Bill to Increase Tax Incentives for Manufacturers, Put Americans Back to Work...

Manzullo, co-Chair and Founder of the House Manufacturing Caucus, helped author the domestic manufacturing tax deduction in 2004 during debate over how to replace the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) program that provided tax incentives to U.S. exporters. The World Trade Organization had ruled FSC/ETI an illegal subsidy and forced Congress to eliminate it.

Anytime you want to point out to us where the U.S. Constitution states that the WTO shall have authority to "force Congress to eliminate" an internal taxation policy - please enlighten us all.

Steve

 

[tdmidget]

And, most larger companies ARE employee owned to some extent. (if they are publicly traded) I have been given a significant amount of company stock over my employment... and so are the hourly workers too. Now, it isn't Bob's Red Mill by any stretch, but any company that wishes to structure itself that way is free to do so.

Yeah Enron for instance was "employee owned". And now the employees are fucked.

 

[bucktruck]

then they have traded thier dignity and power away for a paycheck. That's thier own fault they walked into the debt trap and have thier hoof on the trigger.

What an elitist statement. Do you really believe that everyone in this country is born with the same access to education, job opportunities, and financial opportunity? Let's also not forget access to cronyism and nepotism.

I happen to thrive in an environment other people say "sucks" because it is high pressure. I'd be bored in a place that was low-pressure. I'm also compensated to work in that environment, because of the high-demands. Everyone I work with is top notch, and we make slackers miserable. Why should we cater to the lowest-common-denominator? Why should our culture, which has seen continual growth, recession or no, be destroyed for a few people who don't fit? they should quit and go somewhere that suits them more, everyone would be happy.

Fear and unwillingness to risk are the most pathetic excuse for not making a change to improve your life.

Seriously, good for you. I am in a similar situation. I have worked very hard and have been very fortunate to get to my station in life, as I assume you have as well. However, not everyone has been dealt the same cards or has had the same opportunities.

BTW, you sound like a very intelligent individual. Care to divulge your age?

Regards,
BT

 

[Cornilsn]

What an elitist statement. Do you really believe that everyone in this country is born with the same access to education, job opportunities, and financial opportunity? Let's also not forget access to cronyism and nepotism.



Seriously, good for you. I am in a similar situation. I have worked very hard and have been very fortunate to get to my station in life, as I assume you have as well. However, not everyone has been dealt the same cards or has had the same opportunities.

BTW, you sound like a very intelligent individual. Care to divulge your age?

Regards,
BT

24.

I recognize that not everyone has had access to the things I have been able to utilize to get where I am. I have known people with access to more waste the oppurtunity, and have known those with access to far less get further than I have.

I would love for one's station in the world to be determined only by merit, for the field to be perfectly level. But, how can one level the playing field without diluting it and reducing everyone to some level of forced mediocracy? And I don't like 'fair.' What is fair? how do you define fair? I had great parents, and a number of job oppurtunities and scholarships in Highschool to cover College. My parents didn't pay a whole lot toward my education but I think they would have if i needed it. Was that fair? Maybe, maybe not. Was it fair that some of my friends had thier parents pay entirely for college, freeing them up to be involved in research that has given them a leg up to some really cool shit? Should my friends be knocked down to 'make it fair?' What if my grandpa had spent his youth wondering if it was fair that his family literally lost everything in the depression? He probably wouldn't have become chief engineer at Manitowoc with an 8th grade education, nor would he have gone on to start a heavy equipment manufacturing company of his own, that sold units world wide.
So the answer i live by is 'No, don't knock others down.Who cares what advantages someone else got. I have what I have to work with, eyes forward, know the end game, reach the next milestone in the path to that end game.'
but thats easy for me, coming from a place of...I guess comfort for lack of a better word. I'd like to think that, if I was in a place where I was struggling, I'd have the same mindset, but be a few steps behind. while I can see HOW someone in a bad situation would be bitter/angry etc, I still think its a corrupt world view. I, in my heart of hearts, beleive that the only person responsible for the current situation one finds themself in, is themself. Assigning blame, expecting people to change the world back to a model that no longer works... its a waste of energy.

As I re-read my words ("...then they have traded thier dignity and power away...") it definitly was as inflamatory as I intended it to be at the time. As I just got done saying above, I stand by the core element of that statement. You are responsible for you own destiny. No union, no company, no asshole boss, no law, no government, no tarrif, no BODY, BUT YOU, really controls your destiny any more than you allow them to. And i think THAT, is as fair as you can hope for life to be.