Indiana is now the 23rd Right-to-Work state
Citizen's United
knock out unions
knock out competition
2
28 replies to this topic
#22
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted February 01 2012 - 05:17 PM
-unionbuster-
I don't see how RTW knocks out "competition" in any way, shape, or form. Quite the contrary; I think it would tend to open-up a rather COMPETITIVE labor environment. I would assume that now the unions will have to demonstrate the benefits of membership to potential members in order to collect dues and fees....and that, ultimately, they will have to be competitive with "go-getter" types who feel capable of negotiating on the basis of their own worth, and who could potentially lead a "de-cert" drive amongst those who are no longer dues-paying, voting union members. If that isn't "competition", I don't know what is.
The question is, are the unions in Indiana prepared to compete? They've had an awfully easy time of it over the last few decades, and I suspect they've grown soft. Traditionally, the LAST thing unions have been open to is "competition"; remember "de-regulation"? Whether they can actually function efficiently enough under a "voluntary" environment to maintain themselves remains to be seen.
-scb-
I don't see how RTW knocks out "competition" in any way, shape, or form. Quite the contrary; I think it would tend to open-up a rather COMPETITIVE labor environment. I would assume that now the unions will have to demonstrate the benefits of membership to potential members in order to collect dues and fees....and that, ultimately, they will have to be competitive with "go-getter" types who feel capable of negotiating on the basis of their own worth, and who could potentially lead a "de-cert" drive amongst those who are no longer dues-paying, voting union members. If that isn't "competition", I don't know what is.
The question is, are the unions in Indiana prepared to compete? They've had an awfully easy time of it over the last few decades, and I suspect they've grown soft. Traditionally, the LAST thing unions have been open to is "competition"; remember "de-regulation"? Whether they can actually function efficiently enough under a "voluntary" environment to maintain themselves remains to be seen.
-scb-
#23
-
- Members
-
- 366 posts
Member
- Location:USA
- Interests:The members
Posted February 02 2012 - 11:59 AM
*SIGH* If I really want to hear from an a s shole I would fart, but I have to point out the stupidity this "scb" as shole's post. He proclaims that Unions "will have to demonstrate the benefits" of membership. But even SCAB knows that a cursory search of the web will show a significant difference in Union wages, benefits and working conditions versus non-Union. How about the Economic Policy Institute that found a difference of 15 to 20 percent in wages alone. Or the Bureau of Labor Statistics that found that in '03 the average Union worker made $18.36 an hour while the non-Union worker made $14.81. Of course he will then ask why Unions fear "competition", when he knows as well as anyone that the goal of RTW legislation is simply to tip the scales more in favor of the company. And in their minds, they can begin to chip away at that higher Union scale and try to get it as low or lower than the non-Union wage, thereby making it "fair" 
The proverbial race to the bottom, the Right Wing Republican way.
The proverbial race to the bottom, the Right Wing Republican way.
#24
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted February 02 2012 - 01:20 PM
-yougottabekiddin-
"The Economic Policy Institute"...now THERE'S a non-biased source! [smile]
As for the wage differences, I'll readily concede that (on a national basis, and without comparison of cost-of-living standards), there is a difference betweenthe wages of union and non-union *WORKERS* (i.e. - those actually WORKING)...but the key word there is "workers". Take the wages of the CURRENT Teamsters working...all million and a quarter of them or so. Then add the ZERO wages of the million or so that have lost their jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE TEAMSTERS! Now, compare the TOTAL wages of ALL those "Teamsters" - working and not - with the wages of two and a quarter million NON-Teamsters who are WORKING!. See a problem there?
The point being, of course, is that "wages" are better than "NO wages"! And that's a corollary of HAVING a job and NOT having a job. And what has been the single most significant characteristic of union membership over the last few decades? Well, THE UNIONS HAVE COST THEIR MEMBERS THEIR JOBS!!!
Now, what are the "wages" of those NON-working "union" people? And just how much "better" are they than those of their WORKING NON-Teamster brethren? I'd submit that those who have NOT associated themselves with a union over the last few decades (generally) are a lot better off. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that union (Teamster) membership benefited Teamster truckers over the last few decades?. I've included a link to a list of once-upon-a-time "Teamster" trucking companies. Tell me how the workers CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY THEM are faring relative to their WORKING non-union counterparts . With that in mind (and you'll HATE the source...but then again you DID throw "The Economic Policy Institute" at me!), here's the link to the list compiled at.....
http://www.1-888-no-...ofbusiness.html
...which doesn't include the number of jobs the Teamsters have pissed away at YRCW yet, and tell me how BENEFICIAL union membership has been to those once-employed. (you can point out any inaccuracies in the list to me, if you want)
Yeah, these guys really "benefited" from union membership, didn't they? And they added SO MUCH in terms of pension benefits to those (relatively few!) Teamster truckers who are still working as well, right? And, unfortunately, OTHER unions have pissed away their members jobs in similar amounts; look at the membership rolls - and the JOBS they represent! - of the UAW, the USW, the IAM, the UFCW, the ILWU, the CWA, etc., etc. today compared with what existed a few decades ago. Afterwards, can you SERIOUSLY maintain that union membership has "benefited" the MILLIONS whose jobs have been pissed away? REALLY!?!
That said, I maintain that something is BETTER than nothing, and when you're comparing apples and oranges, you'd better be comparing APPLES AND ORANGES. And the fact is that when you're doing a straight comparison of union wages vs. non-union wages, you're NOT. Basically all you guys have had to offer for the majority of your members over the last 30 years or so is a big bunch of "nothing". Tough noogies, I realize; but that's the way it IS. At least RTW work offers the possibility of people gaining and MAINTAINING employment!
That said, perhaps you're one of those who believe that unionism exists to benefit the privileged few, while the bulk of the membership gets the shaft...that it's worthwhile for them to be sacrificed in order that a tiny remainder can continue to hang-on to overpaid jobs. I suggest that because, make no mistake about it, that's EXACTLY the scenario "unionism" has created for the American worker over the last few decades.
-scb-
"The Economic Policy Institute"...now THERE'S a non-biased source! [smile]
As for the wage differences, I'll readily concede that (on a national basis, and without comparison of cost-of-living standards), there is a difference betweenthe wages of union and non-union *WORKERS* (i.e. - those actually WORKING)...but the key word there is "workers". Take the wages of the CURRENT Teamsters working...all million and a quarter of them or so. Then add the ZERO wages of the million or so that have lost their jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE TEAMSTERS! Now, compare the TOTAL wages of ALL those "Teamsters" - working and not - with the wages of two and a quarter million NON-Teamsters who are WORKING!. See a problem there?
The point being, of course, is that "wages" are better than "NO wages"! And that's a corollary of HAVING a job and NOT having a job. And what has been the single most significant characteristic of union membership over the last few decades? Well, THE UNIONS HAVE COST THEIR MEMBERS THEIR JOBS!!!
Now, what are the "wages" of those NON-working "union" people? And just how much "better" are they than those of their WORKING NON-Teamster brethren? I'd submit that those who have NOT associated themselves with a union over the last few decades (generally) are a lot better off. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that union (Teamster) membership benefited Teamster truckers over the last few decades?. I've included a link to a list of once-upon-a-time "Teamster" trucking companies. Tell me how the workers CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY THEM are faring relative to their WORKING non-union counterparts . With that in mind (and you'll HATE the source...but then again you DID throw "The Economic Policy Institute" at me!), here's the link to the list compiled at.....
http://www.1-888-no-...ofbusiness.html
...which doesn't include the number of jobs the Teamsters have pissed away at YRCW yet, and tell me how BENEFICIAL union membership has been to those once-employed. (you can point out any inaccuracies in the list to me, if you want)
Yeah, these guys really "benefited" from union membership, didn't they? And they added SO MUCH in terms of pension benefits to those (relatively few!) Teamster truckers who are still working as well, right? And, unfortunately, OTHER unions have pissed away their members jobs in similar amounts; look at the membership rolls - and the JOBS they represent! - of the UAW, the USW, the IAM, the UFCW, the ILWU, the CWA, etc., etc. today compared with what existed a few decades ago. Afterwards, can you SERIOUSLY maintain that union membership has "benefited" the MILLIONS whose jobs have been pissed away? REALLY!?!
That said, I maintain that something is BETTER than nothing, and when you're comparing apples and oranges, you'd better be comparing APPLES AND ORANGES. And the fact is that when you're doing a straight comparison of union wages vs. non-union wages, you're NOT. Basically all you guys have had to offer for the majority of your members over the last 30 years or so is a big bunch of "nothing". Tough noogies, I realize; but that's the way it IS. At least RTW work offers the possibility of people gaining and MAINTAINING employment!
That said, perhaps you're one of those who believe that unionism exists to benefit the privileged few, while the bulk of the membership gets the shaft...that it's worthwhile for them to be sacrificed in order that a tiny remainder can continue to hang-on to overpaid jobs. I suggest that because, make no mistake about it, that's EXACTLY the scenario "unionism" has created for the American worker over the last few decades.
-scb-
#25
-
- Members
-
- 366 posts
Member
- Location:USA
- Interests:The members
Posted February 02 2012 - 01:45 PM
Lol you are truly insane...I love your "Dont improve your working conditions or they will get rid of your job" mentality. You have (correctly) identified the chief problem in our economy. If the workers demand to be treated fairly, the company will just outsource their job to a place where they can get away with abusing the workers lol! And you SUPPORT that logic?! I am shocked that you so openly admit your contempt of anyone who wishes to improve their wages and working conditions! Back to my original statement...you are truly insane. And I'm not gonna argue with a crazy person lol.
#26
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted February 02 2012 - 02:06 PM
-yougottabekiddin-
It doesn't matter whether I - or you - "support that logic" or not. If workers aren't competitive on a WORLD stage, companies WILL outsource their jobs...whether you want them to or not. And, in the end, there's not a damn thing you, or I, or even the governments can do about it.
You see, the one thing that's almost impossible to corral via "force" is human initiative. Another is capital. People with initiative will go - and perform - where their initiative is APPRECIATED. And they'll take their capital (which translates into jobs) where IT is appreciated and valued as well, Trying to dam-up initiative and capital is tantamount to trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom; in the long run, it just can't be done.
Yep, on the face of it, that appears to be a sorry outlook. There IS a bright side, however. Labor, for example can ATTRACT initiative and capital. It can adjust to make itself more competitive so that "initiative" and "capital" don't feel the need to go abroad and/or outsource their jobs. But here the onus is on "labor".
That said, I don't have "contempt of anyone who wishes to improve their wages and working conditions"; just the opposite, in fact. I have "contempt" for those, such as yourself, who apparently are engaged in markedly LIMITING workers wages and DOWNGRADING their working conditions with the conception that, somehow, over the long run, you can FORCE employers in this day and age to bend involuntarily to your will; i.e. - to COERCING them into working for YOU. Sorry, things just don't happen that way.
You'd think after all the jobs unions have pissed away overseas and elsewhere over the years, people would start putting two and two together. But apparently, they don't. And when we talk about "economic inequality" in this country today, I suspect that topic is the issue at hand. There seems to be a "class" of people who have adjusted to economic reality and have prospered thereby...and then there seems to be another "class" that is still floundering around with the same ol' methods, making themselves more and more less economically valuable (and viable!) with every step they take. Quite sad, actually.
Anyway, don't talk to me about "contempt" when people such as yourself have virtually pissed away the economic futures of literally millions of your fellow Americans. Those types of verbal assignments don't sit very well with me.
-scb-
P.S.. - You'll forgive me if I doubt that you're bowing-out because you're "not going to argue with the crazy person". You see, I suspect that it's more likely that you don't feel equipped to argue facts with a logically oriented person who makes a lot of sense. However, don't feel bad; you're far from the first here on T-Net who's shied away from responsible debate. In fact, Teamsters generally are KNOWN for their desire to keep their "heads in the sand".
It doesn't matter whether I - or you - "support that logic" or not. If workers aren't competitive on a WORLD stage, companies WILL outsource their jobs...whether you want them to or not. And, in the end, there's not a damn thing you, or I, or even the governments can do about it.
You see, the one thing that's almost impossible to corral via "force" is human initiative. Another is capital. People with initiative will go - and perform - where their initiative is APPRECIATED. And they'll take their capital (which translates into jobs) where IT is appreciated and valued as well, Trying to dam-up initiative and capital is tantamount to trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom; in the long run, it just can't be done.
Yep, on the face of it, that appears to be a sorry outlook. There IS a bright side, however. Labor, for example can ATTRACT initiative and capital. It can adjust to make itself more competitive so that "initiative" and "capital" don't feel the need to go abroad and/or outsource their jobs. But here the onus is on "labor".
That said, I don't have "contempt of anyone who wishes to improve their wages and working conditions"; just the opposite, in fact. I have "contempt" for those, such as yourself, who apparently are engaged in markedly LIMITING workers wages and DOWNGRADING their working conditions with the conception that, somehow, over the long run, you can FORCE employers in this day and age to bend involuntarily to your will; i.e. - to COERCING them into working for YOU. Sorry, things just don't happen that way.
You'd think after all the jobs unions have pissed away overseas and elsewhere over the years, people would start putting two and two together. But apparently, they don't. And when we talk about "economic inequality" in this country today, I suspect that topic is the issue at hand. There seems to be a "class" of people who have adjusted to economic reality and have prospered thereby...and then there seems to be another "class" that is still floundering around with the same ol' methods, making themselves more and more less economically valuable (and viable!) with every step they take. Quite sad, actually.
Anyway, don't talk to me about "contempt" when people such as yourself have virtually pissed away the economic futures of literally millions of your fellow Americans. Those types of verbal assignments don't sit very well with me.
-scb-
P.S.. - You'll forgive me if I doubt that you're bowing-out because you're "not going to argue with the crazy person". You see, I suspect that it's more likely that you don't feel equipped to argue facts with a logically oriented person who makes a lot of sense. However, don't feel bad; you're far from the first here on T-Net who's shied away from responsible debate. In fact, Teamsters generally are KNOWN for their desire to keep their "heads in the sand".
#27
-
- Members
-
- 88 posts
Semi-Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:chicago
- Local Union Number:734
Posted February 10 2012 - 12:59 PM
Teamsters89, on December 29 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:
Next week the state legislature in Indiana goes back into session. Mitch Daniels has already stated he will support and sign any so-called Right-to-Work bill delivered to his desk. Therefore, we can fully expect this to be at the top of the legislative agenda for the enemies of working people.
Please take the time to view the following video of an Indiana Jeffboat worker as he gives a short, but detailed, summary of the negative ramifications of Right-to-Work (For Less) and the implications it has for the social, economic and occupational well-being of Hoosiers and their families.
In addition, please visit our website at www.teamsters89.com to send a prepared email to Indiana legislators.
Let's get the word out and stop this assault on Indiana's working families!
Thank you!
Please take the time to view the following video of an Indiana Jeffboat worker as he gives a short, but detailed, summary of the negative ramifications of Right-to-Work (For Less) and the implications it has for the social, economic and occupational well-being of Hoosiers and their families.
In addition, please visit our website at www.teamsters89.com to send a prepared email to Indiana legislators.
Let's get the word out and stop this assault on Indiana's working families!
Thank you!
Really? So RTW=less pay? I work for Hostess Brands. We came out of bk three years ago and gave up upwards of $60,00,000 from ALL unions. Guess what? We are back in bk again. So how much will our precious IBT tell us to swallow THIS time? And we have bakeries in our area paying the same money and benefits WITHOUT a union.
Liberalism has put this nation on life support. Thinking for yourself is antithetical to liberalism. Blind allegiance is the utmost rule in liberalism...............and unionism.
#28
-
- Members
-
- 1,396 posts
Journeyman Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Mendocino Coast
- Interests:Human, Civil & Worker Rights, Community Service, Gardening, Hiking, Reading, Writing & Miracles.
- Local Union Number:70
Posted February 11 2012 - 07:44 PM
"We are what our thoughts have made us; so take care about what you think. Words are secondary. Thoughts live; they travel far."
Swami Vivekananda
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought."
The Buddha
05-08-2012
Swami Vivekananda
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought."
The Buddha
05-08-2012
#29
-
- Members
- 10 posts
New Member
Posted March 26 2012 - 05:37 AM
Hey at least Mitch Daniels wont be Indy's gov forever. Maybe it won't be this guy neither, but a future Dem just might be able to reverse this right-to-work nonsense.
http://www.huffingto..._n_1378207.html
http://www.huffingto..._n_1378207.html
