Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron61
Jamo,
Your post was in English and I did not start the thread to begin another argument. Things have changed since I was working. When I was still at work the company approached me about when I retired becoming an instructor and I asked them if the Union would be involved in any way. The answer was No. I would not have to pay any dues or answer in any way to the union, closed or open shop, this was not something the union could meddle in. I would be replacing some instructors they had then that were union people. All I was asking for was a clear explanation of just what they are doing and you gave it in your post. Sorry that I am not versed in labor law enough to know all of the ins and outs. 
Edit To Add: Thus, you drew a conclusion based upon a media article which was assolutely wrong and then started a thread which makes it appear that GM is going non-union, which it is not.
Thus, you drew a conclusion based upon a media article which was assolutely wrong and then started a thread which makes it appear that GM is going non-union, which it is not.
I hope this helps in your upcoming Labor Law Newsletter publication series
I just posted what the news article said, I didn't write it and I never understood exactly what they were doing. I am not nor do I ever intend to try and understand the Labor Laws nor do I intend to write any publications. Misunderstood it, yes. That was why I asked you for a clarification of just how it would work. Crap, I can't even post a link to a news headline on here any more without it causing me to get into trouble. I wouldn't dare to express any idea of what I thought they might mean. 
Ron  |
Ron, you keep having to assplain yourself in one thread after another...calm down buddy and just read a little slower.
Here's what your first post said: "Just read this on the news and it would seem that GM is ready to get rid of all Union workers."
That is the "conclusion" I was refering to that was wrongly reached after you read the article. The article said nothing like that...not even remotely. My post merely explains why.
And no...not a damn thing has changed since you were working. The Taft-Hartley Act has been around since FDR's time...even you aren't that old.
You were evidently being moved OUT OF THE BARGAINING UNIT in becoming an instructor at the time of retirement. From your description, it sounds like you were going to be in a supervisoral position over other instructors. Supervisors are excluded from bargaining units under the law (and have been since the middle of the last century). Unions only have bargaining rights for bargaining units. So again, instead of drawing the wrong conclusion that things "must have changed" since you were working, it might be that you didn't understand...usually a good time to retire in any event. No worries...we're all catching up to you quickly.
No problem on my end...just correcting misconceptions before they turn into long threads about nuthin. GM's got enough trouble without being accused of violating labor laws by the Shasta Sage.
