51 replies to this topic

[Teamsterman]

scb, on Jul 18 2006, 08:43 AM, said:

-Teamsterman-

Re: your...

"And if your co-workers vote in the union at your barn, what then? Will you quit or join us?"

I can't help but believe that, in a responsible world - even a world that includes non-right-to-work PA and the Teamsters - no individual would be faced with that choice; i.e. - one wouldn't be forced to join a so-called "union" that is a "union" only on the basis of coercion...at least not to simply to work at his/her job.

I realize that goes against the grain of most Teamsters and most self-titled "proponents" of organized labor generally....but I can't help but believe that, sooner or later, unions are going to come to realize that trying to force people to join in "union" with them (i.e. - involuntary unionism) is counterproductive, and will only serve to be detrimental in the long run. In that vein, I can't help but note unions fear of secret ballot elections today; do they think they're fooling anybody of substance by claiming such are LESS democratic than so-called "card checks"?

Until unions can find a way to stand on their own, and NOT be dependent on props such as "closed shops" or "card check", or "living wage" statutes, or shake-down "neutrality agreements", etc, I can't help but believe that they're going to have a hard time organizing the vast majority of reasonably intelligent Americans who want their memberships in organizations to be voluntary, and their participation in the organizations they join based on democratic principles. Most Americans, while amiable to "unifying" around a cause, want nothing to do with such mis-named "unity" if it's established via mob-like methods.

-scb-

Well scb, I have to agree with you on the most part. I don't want to see anyone lose their job. But if you don't want to pay your dues, then you shouldn't take that union job. There's alot of jobs out there that are not union. We fought for those wages and benefits. Nobody should be able to take those jobs without paying their dues and joining our union. If they don't want to join, that's fine. But don't take that union job. No mob-like methods, just the way I feel.

[scb]

-Teamsterman-

When a union creates, supports, and directly offers the job (i.e. - actually is the employer) you may have a point. Until it does, however, jobs are in no way, shape, or form "union" jobs. And how many jobs are you aware of that UNIONS offer?

Sorry, but "jobs" aren't property; they can't be sold or otherwise transferred. Rather, they simply exist as positions offered by an employer that pay wages. In that sense, unions didn't "fight" for them at all; in fact, any "fighting" they did was probably determinental to the offering of those jobs to begin with (look at how many "organized" businesses have had to close and cease offering jobs simply BECAUSE they were organized, for example), because it made it more difficult and costly for employers to maintain them..

Now, you may not think of procedures that are basically nothing more than shake-downs as not being "mob like methods", but the fact is they are. As I see it, "unionism" should be just that; people acting in concert as a UNION....and not as coerced draftees functioning under the orders of overlords. And, beyond that, simply "fighting" for something doesn't transfer ownership (especially of owndership which never existed in the first place); rather, most would view that as just another "mob" method' of extorting something that wasn't deserved. After all, there are all sorts of thugs on the street who are prepared to "fight" in order to steal their victim's wallet; does their "fighting" somehow bestow legitimacy or a blanket of morality on their endeavors?

Nope, it seems to me that "jobs" ought to go to those the employer sees as most qualified to hold them....and that any interference with that selection criteria outside of those demanded by basic levels of legal equality is a form of mob activity. And, believe me, demanding "dues" of those who have either the desire or need to join an organization *IS* just the sort of "shake-down" activity we're talking about.

-scb-

[kmann]

It bothers me a little that some workers in a union shop aren't required or won't join the union. What bothers me the most is the union is required to represent those non-members to the utmost of its ability and will likely be sued if there is even the slightest appearance of "lack of representation".

[scb]

-kmann-

Don't think for a minute that unions are really being "forced" to represent such individuals. Believe me; if they pushed the political powers that be to not "require" them to represent unaffiliated workers, the legal "requirement of such representation would be gone in a New York minute. Do you really think that the "other side" wants the union to serve as the "representative" in such situations? Or those that chose NOT to be represented to begin with? Nope....it's only the "unions" themselves who are pushing the idea of needing to "represent" such individuals....'cause the LAST thing they want is a truly "open" shop, with the door open to multiple representational authorities (such as is prevalent in Europe) in which the worker, as an individual, can make up his OWN mind as who he wants - or doesn't want, as the case may be - to represent him. Nope...no way, no how; unions as they exist in America today aren't about to extend their support to such a "radically" democratic practice as that....one reason, I believe, that they've suffered the fate that they have.

Anyway, I think if you look into the thing, you'll find that what's potentially bothering you is something the [so-called] unions themselves are advocating; not something that's being unilaterally forced upon them.

-scb-

[agapo]

Not only that but we are also in the shitter with the OBRIEN SLATE you just wait

[scb]

-Vegas-

I think you should read my post a little more closely; I never denied that there's a legal "requirement" of representation by the union; rather, I was just pointing out that the ONLY parties interested in maintaining that "requirement" of representation are the unions themselves.

The rest of your arguments sound a bit disingenious to me....something like the equivalent of my saying [to YOU, "Vegas Jim"], "Heh, I'm scb, and I'm 'representing' you now...and you have to pay me for the privilege of the "services" I render". Now it occurs to me that, if approached with that imperative, you'd probably have the same attitude that so many of these "represented" workers have today; i.e. - that ol' "scb" doesn't "represent" YOU or YOUR interests at all...and that you have no particular desire to pay for a "service" that you neither need nor want.

As for your commentary regarding split representation, I think we suffer from two radically different outlooks there as well; you still view Taft-Hartley as a restriction on labor, while I view it as an archaic prop that exists today essentially only to buttress otherwise unsupported "traditional", "organized" labor up. By that I mean that I don't think business would be all that concerned about "jurisdictional strikes" if it were free to deal with such "strikes" naturally as their resources allowed; i.e. - without imposition of artificial limitations on replacement workers, etc.. And, truthfully, you lost me completely with your question as to why unions fight RTW legislation; hell, I think it's pretty obvious that they fight it because they've learned that they can't thrive today in a truly voluntary environment. And that seems to be the same reason they're pressing for "card checks" instead of secret ballot elections; i.e. - unions today apparently have absolutely *no* confidence in their ability to organize prospective members *voluntarily* on the basis of what their merits or what they have to offer.....and, instead, are counting on coercive environments in which they can intimidate workers to become part of "the union". Heck, if truth be told, they're not even confident they can "organize" that way anymore; in fact, it seems to me that most of 'em are just hanging around so their bureaucracies can suck a bit longer off the teat of the remnants of the industries they've already organized before they, too, are brought to ruin. Think for a minute; how many newly-employed, knowledgeable WORKING auto, or steel, or airline worker want today to be "represented" by the unions that have historically "organized" those industries? And how do you think they'd feel about such "representation" being imposed upon them...and they're having to pay for it?? [ you might want to take a look at websites like "AMFANUTS" for a hint] And why, for example (you knew I *HAD* to bring this up!), aren't FedEx workers standing in droves at the doors of the Teamster locals, wringing their hands in anguish because of the length of the line leading to the membership signing desk?

Anyway, Vegas, can you tell me with a straight face that it would be OTHER powers-that-be that would stand in the way of unions not being required to "represent" non-members in the workplace? And are you prepared to look me directly in the eye and tell me it's not the unions themselves who are insisting that they be "required" to represent those that choose not to join them?

Sorry guy, but I'm not that newly fallen off the turnip truck. I think you know as well as I that, if you get could get then major union confederations together to urge Congress to change the law in that area (i.e. - relieve them of the "imposition"), it would be done in a Washington minute...and well before you could say "recess".

Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be the HEALTHIEST thing for unions today to do. From my perspective, unions themselves are killing the union movement. They don't build job security; rather, they destroy jobs. They don't enhance wages; rather, they lead people to not having any wages at all. They don't enhance the standing and prestige of labor and the worker; rather, they taint the reputations of those associated as spoiled slackards at best, and outright thugs at worst. They *NEED* to wean themselves away from their dependency on coercion.

Needless to say, things don't have to be the way they are. Unions *COULD* advance job security, *COULD* stand for the "best" that labor had to offer, *COULD* be entities that actually BUILD and SUPPORT economic activity. I short, they could find ways to be truly *attractive* to workers....not just in theory, but in fact as well. But they don't...and I suspect that, unless and until they find a way to change that outlook, they'll have an ever-diminishing impact on modern society.

-scb-

[RG]

It is IRONIC that UPSSUP attacks the TEamsters on the APWA page. It is really quite easy to understand when you read what I saw on another board. PROOF that UPS and APWA are in bed together.

It says quite convincingly that UPSers are being scammed by an unholy alliance..



IT is obvious that NOSPINZONE is either Skillman or his puppet. The base truth of the writings nearly mirrors the "out right lies" that Skillman and Eason put out. I have set through a meeting with Skillman and Eason and I have talked to them. I am telling everyone the truth here. THESE TWO ARE SCAMMERS AND SCHEMERS in the worst possible way. They are worse than a Judas as they not only are trying to enrich themselves on our concerns over our nations economy on our pensions, but they confess to play footsie with UPS while doing it. HERE IS THE TRUTH.

I care about my UPS Teamster brethren and someone needs to tell folks what the people who really know Skillman and Eason know about them and want you to know.


(THIS IS FROM THE MOUTHS OF SKILLMAN AND EASON from APWA>

(Stated at a meeting they tried to hold in Tn. Attendance total including the two=

Skillman and Eason say:

1. The UPS company helped them pick APWA's attorney, Francis Coleman, but they have signed a "NO CONFLICT AGREEMENT". THey said they were aware that he is the writer of a book on how to keep unions out and advertises his court cases on taking benefits from workers. Also, Eason said that UPS helped them by doing research for them to start their "Union?"".

2. The told us that there is no need for a Strike Fund (that APWA DOES NOT HAVE), because they can TRUST UPS to give them a fair contract.

3. They told us they are not like our Teamsters Locals. They will tell anything we ask. They recently put that in one of their newsletters also. OKAY, so why when we asked them how many members they have, and how much money they have, and why are they begging for $12.50 a piece from members for 'PUBLICITY" did they and have they continued to refuse to answer the questions.

And more lies FROM them, and facts ABOUT them:

1. Their main representative in Ohio is Ron Roberts. He includes the National Right to Work committees slogan on his own personal letterhead. The APWA has a RIGHT TO WORK instruction on their web page telling HOW TO GET OUT OF THE UNION! APWA says they do not care if people belong, and they should not have to belong. HOW STRONG IS THAT?? WHAT KIND OF UNION IS THAT? IT SOUNDS LIKE THE UNION THAT UPS WANTS!!

2. Teamsters from their own home local will tell you, the 3200 members there all recognize the scam. Only about 25 workers, mostly scabs, have anything to do with them. They don't even try to have meetings there. IT is better than a pyramid, only two get the money. And all the while, UPS gets the by product of APWA doing their underhandedness and lying.

3. Why does Skillman treat Eason like a lap dog? He lets him print the newsletters, ""CORRECTION""" he lets him SIGN the newsletters, that are written by someone else. We have seen old greivance write ups and Eason couldn't write that well. The letters look more like a SKILLMAN speech because they are full of lies and exaggerations like SKILLMAN talks. Here where they live, we say, "If their mouth is moving, they are lying" and that is the TRUTH about Skillman and Eason.

4. Eason used to profess be a Christian type gentleman and respected that. But now, Skillman has used him and enveloped him in the lies to help bilk the money out of those that do not know them and their scam. Judas Begat Judas. Raliegh fellow workers say that Eason has joined the "money changers in the temple" and abandoned his Christianity for a share of the Pyramid Pie. They don't have to make much off the scheme. It is all profit, all cash, and all from trusting workers. These two make used car salesmen look like saints.

[FAB3RD]

How many members does the APWA have anyway? Does the power of 1.4 million members carry more power at contract time than the minuscule membership of APWA?

[BlackCloud]

I think they have five or six members now. Some of them post on here. They will likely negotiate the next contract. Well, I think that was mentioned on here a while back, anyhow.

[scb]

-Vegas-

A quite long and involved defense of what I see to be the indefensible...but you still didn't convinced me that you - and I mean *YOU*, personally, actually believe what you're saying ; i.e. - that unions (and particularly Teamsters) are not the ones maintaining the "obligation to represent". As for unions wanting to do away with Taft-Hartley...see a lot of that, do ya'? At least with nothing else in their mind to replace it? Really? [smile]

However, the crowning achievement of your argument had to be your point # 3; i.e. - your statement of....

"Your analogy of you representing me is absent one crucial detail: You haven't been elected to represent me in any manner analogous to a union representation election. As such, your analogy is erroneous."

...in that you spent so much of the rest of your post explaining just how unions can't depend on true secret ballot "elections" to get "representational" powers at all, but rather have to depend on "card checks", in which the decision process of the worker unions claim to represent is anything but "unfettered" (had to use the term myself...grin!). See an element of irony there?

I stand by my original post[s]. And I continue to feel that you, yourself, don't for a moment actually believe what you've been saying, any more than if you were declaring that "white is black, and black is white", which - in a manner of speaking - you essentially are.

Sorry, Vegas, but I have to reiterate my position that, if unions didn't want the "obligation" of "representing" those that don't want to be so "represented", they could get themselves relieved of that "burden" in [at least in political terms] no time flat. And I'll stand by my characterization of the "card check" process as being more subject to intimidation and less democratic than secret ballot elections as well....as well as continue to maintain that it is precisely BECAUSE "card checks" ARE more subject to intimidation and less democratic, that unions prefer them over truly confidential elections.

In that area, I think I still have the capacity to differentiate between "black" and "white". And, truthfully, I think you do as well...but are [understandably] reluctant to admit to that capacity.

-scb-

[mightymouse]

It weakens unions to have those who choose not to pay dues receive the benefits of a contract. Resources are used for legal expenses, time spent, research, even the printing of contracts, travel, etc.

If you are in a right to work state then do the proper thing and either pay dues or dont hide behind and use the language, benefits, grievance procedure, etc that a contract brings.

apwa is campaigning that no one will have to pay dues and yet they ask, beg, whatever it is, for the spouses of their own so called membership to pay a "one" time helping fee of $150.

Imagine that, when has the Teamsters, or any other union, needed or asked for spouses to pay money to a union in which they are not members.

How are they going to represent members, support a strike fund, fund negotiations, pay for union halls, etc when no one has to pay dues.

Talk about elections, voting, democratic process. Skillman & Eason has hand picked officers, actually anyone who will give them $, then made up some kind of constitution language, without 95% of ups teamsters even knowing who they are. They dont even have enough members from their own home local to reach their so called 200 per state qouta, think about it, why arent their own coworkers pitching in?

I prefer to have roads paved, the security of law enforcement, running water, for which I pay taxes. If Skillman & Eason could I guess they would get out of paying taxes also.

[BlackCloud]

I love it when Vegas Jim and scb argues with himself.