Well, now that I know you're referring to railroads ["UP" must refer to Union Pacifc...I have no clue what the other initials stand for], I would tend to agree since the RLA (Railway Labor Act) [not the "FRA" as you call it] does not include a provision akin to Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which applies to vast majority of private industries. Without my handy-dandy Cracker Jack decoding device, your statement made a general reference to any CBA with a closed shop provision in Arizona. ;)

AAAAAAw $heetola. I was following this till the lawyers got involved.:p

M

Edley,

I see you're one of those marketing types who think it's perfectly all right to sell a $10 bill for $5. :D

The Accountant

Ah, man I was hanging in there for a minute, till all dem letters showed up, WTH, is at least one I get.

Sorry for being cryptic,typing UP instead of Usually Pathetic has become habit.Also:

UTU-United Transportation Union
BLE-Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

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. :p

Ron :confused:

For Mike,

Here Mike, you can use this Vomit smiley when you need one. :LOL:

http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...smiley-026.gif

Ron ;)

Ron,

I wondered if some of the industries, such as the telephone companies like you worked at, didn't sell out to another company (sometimes newly formed just for the purpose) that were decidedly not union. In this case, the former contract between the former company and union would be null and void ...unless the union could forge a new agreement. This would certainly be an example where the new lower paid workers were not union. :confused:

There are a variety of ways to break a union and that is one of the most popular since all the company agreements on earned benefits more-or-less go out the window also. It is considered a dirty trick by employees that have given up wage concessions, for years, to "let the company be their savings bank". Usually, to add insult to injury, the sleazy former company officials get quite a golden parachute for making such a sweet and profitable corporate deal. It's all legal but most Americans would consider it unethical unless they have a particular distaste for unions. Corporate press releases often have heavy spin that the deal was made "to save the company" and a growing segment of the working population accepts that at face value without thinking it through. Follow the money. The working class is again divided and conquered. :CRY:

Unions aren't good ...or bad. They are simply a counterpart to "organized management" which is another word for Mom-and-Pop stores banding together and forming large corporations. Unions are simply organized labor whereas corporations are organized management. The irresistable force against the immovable object. OK, a little movement always seeking balance.

Corporations aren't* bad either, since part of the reason (the original actually) for their forming is to allow the investment heft that large scale business operations require. Along with investment heft came the potential power to dominate costs. Dominate both labor and raw materials. The immovable object against the irresistable force. Again, balance is key here.

Guys I work with often berate "the company" as though it were some major faceless plot against them. They try to screw the company, by delaying trains, to "teach" management a lesson. We work by the mile, for Christs' sake. The smoother the operation, the sooner we get home ...the more our earnings for time spent. Guess who's mostly left holding the bag in these cases? These slackers catagorically think that big companies are "evil". The idea is sometimes foolishly fostered by unions trying to generate support for policy change. :rolleyes:

Conversely, many people in management think that unions are catagorically "evil". The idea is sometimes foolishly fostered (very publicly) by management trying to generate support for policy change. Management (stockholders) feel that the workers, as a whole, are too greedy by trying to keep too much of the wealth that their efforts generate. And they are willing to sacrifice overall operational corporate health to achieve the dubious victory of endlessly suppressing costs including wages. The wages of people that buy the end product, mind you. :rolleyes:

The end result is that the general public begans to take a dim view of both union and corporate entities. Sure, there are unworthy individuals in both management and the laborforce. Slackers. Crooks. There is always that 10 percent. The truth is that neither corporations nor unions are evil catagorically. They are necessary business structures to not only build a modern country, but make it economically worth fighting to save when all is said and done. Daffynition War: A way to replace upper management of a country in case it's not worth saving. Rome fell ...but the people went on with new management. We call them Italians now. :LOL:

*WWI and WWII were actually won by US corporations, not by soldiers. Sure, our guys fought just as hard as the Japanese or Germans. But we basically won because we out-manufactured the opposition. We built new stuff faster than the enemy could blow it up. The enemy lost mostly because they ran out of supplies. Countless times, it almost went the other way. WWIII, when it happens, might not be so kind to us. Sure, our soldiers will again be as good as theirs ...and will die for their country. Unless all our factories are overseas. Nobody wins a war by simply dying for their country. They win by making the other guy die for his (Patton). A good steady supply of Death Tools really helps kill the other guy. Terrorism is a mere nuisance compared to this looming fatal jobs-over-seas problem. Our next president, our next congress can make a lot of difference. :eek:


...

Wes,

While I was still working and before I was eligible for retirement, the companies started buying people out to downsize. They came to me to see if I would come back to work as a lead Instructor after retirement. I asked them if the union would have anything to do with it as I was more than fed up with unions at the time and would not have anything to do with them. The CWA was totally worthless as all they cared about was the top people making more money and going on strike against computers is the best thing that can happen. Get the dam fools out of there and the troubles went down by 90%. They told me that the union would have nothing to do with the few people they hired back and we would get our retirement plus they would pay us more than we normally made since there would be less of us, 1 for every 10 that they had under union contract. Also as a lead instructor, I would have from 5 to 10 instructors working for me and I would get paid for each day any of them worked as well as my own pay. That was why I was trying to see how they were going to work this deal and get around the union. By the way, the CWA did sue and lost on the case which I was talking about as there was some technicality that I don't even know about that let the company do this. Unions had their time long ago but I am not any fan of a union in this field at all.

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. :LOL:

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. :p

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. ;)

Wes...if the parallel enterprise isn't set up just right, it will indeed violate the law as a "runaway shop."

Obviously, we disagree about unions and their fellow travelers, but I'll leave that for another day other than to simply state that they do indeed suck the lifeblood out of our economy. ;)

:eek:

Jamo,

You are right. I didn't post what I meant to and need to start thinking a little more before I say anything. Actually it does look as if I jumped to the conclusion that GM was doing away with union workers and the unions and that was not the case. And in my case, I would have been moved into a senior supervisors role overseeing the companies various computer schools in Calif. and possibly Ohio. And that is what would have taken me out of the union as a supervisor wasn't under union control. Boy, at times I am sure my mind has completely gone away. Thanks for straighting out the mess I almost started.

Ron :)

What? I dont get the comment.

It's an old one but I didn't see it on any postings and couldn't resist...........
What does the UAW stand for?? U Ain't Workin !

Seriously, unions are on their way out sometime soon. People need to work and if the companies are closing or moving due to operating costs how can the union protect your job?

I wonder why the original equipment manufacturers (OEM's) prefer to use suppliers that are non-union. Number one reason is cost, second no disruption in part flow due to strikes!

My $.02 worth. :3DSMILE:

I really think that in past times and maybe in some instances now, the unions were a good thing. Such as making the owners make coal mines safer and things like that. But now they have Govt. Agencies that are supposed to do that and all the union wants to do is set back and collect more dues. And as I stated earlier, Jamo I have thought about this, the CWA Union which represented the communication workers was out of date and worthless in the early 60s. I can remember when they would threaten to go on strike the company would encourage it as they saved a ton of money, two or three of us could sit in the tech center in Sacramento and monitor every computer in the state and if there was a problem we would call the supervisor in that area and send him to that machine. Then we would talk him through what to do. After a couple of weeks of not getting paid the union settled for less than the offer they had when they walked out. And the number of problems with the machines dropped by over 80% once we got the people out of them. I believe the CWA finally had to merge with the Teamsters just to stay in business, and the Teamsters sure as the devil don't know anything about this stuff. Now it is even less as they have 1 person where there were three of covering a big area, and usually that person isn't really trained at all. I don't say this is true for all businesses, but it seems the unions by their continual wanting more money are less concerned with the people they are suppose to represent than they are with being able to raise their dues. And I do blame the unions for many of the companies either going under or moving out of the country.

Ron :JEKYLHYDE

Even if all the "i's" and all the "t's" are crossed, when some businesses transfer their operations purely to avoid labor contracts ..."runaway shops" are at least an ethics violation, if not illegal under NLRA.

I don't suppose you would care to admit that the working class, the working Mom-and-Pop sole proprietors, rather than being blood-sucking burdens, are the lifeblood of the economy? :LOL:

Unions formed because there grew a natural need to protect working class rights. The need still exists, more than ever, and won't disappear anytime soon. The workers produce wealth and pay monetary dues, piles of them. Whenever there is a pile of money laying around, the scam artists come out. Sometimes union leaders, sometimes corporate leaders; comes with the territory. But the basic principle need of organized labor is squeaky clean.

Conversely, ever mindful of evil, we might say:
Obviously, we disagree about corporations and their fellow travelers, but I'll leave that for another day other than to simply state that they do indeed suck the lifeblood out of our economy. ;) :)


...

Wes ;)

Actually, I would "admit" the mom and pop sole proprietors are at the foundation, and I represent a good number of them. They are called farmers.

And unions have all but destroyed the family farm here in California, which creates the corporate giants you despise. :)

Jamo,

Well that is a refreshing new angle, for me, on whence comes your perspective. My bad for not giving you more credit in the first place. I kind of wrongly assumed that your main drive was possibly some Enron/bottom-corporate-line type agenda, little guy be damned. I guess I knew that you farmed and/or had orchards at one time. Without knowing the details, I take it your labor costs jumped, in what you would consider an unreasonable (unbearable?) fashion, due to organized labor efforts. And that somehow, a corporate giant can survive where a Mom-and-Pop family can't. We have a similar struggle for the family farm survival in our state.

Still, I live in an odd state. In North Dakota, corporate farming is not allowed (or at least held to a very limited role). All to promote the family farm. Now it is my belief that small business is much more productive and efficient per manhour than corporate juggernauts. So this is fine with me even if it is a little communist ...er anti-capitalist.

The state also has it's own Mill and Elevator, commies that we are ( North Dakota Mill and Elevator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). :LOL:
And state bank ( http://www.banknd.nd.gov/ ). Seems that out-of-state giants took advantage of our local farmers at one time. The pitchforks, torches and lawbooks came out. :eek:

I don't despise corporate giants, they definately have their place. Like I said earlier in the thread, they basically won a couple of wars for us. But I think that the balance of power is listing heavily in favor of corporate power and could be cinched up a bit. Corporate decisions carry no burden of personal integrity and the individual damage to citizens in the name of the bottom line shows it. It's not like any of us common folk can vote policy in the boardrooms. Which is why I like the idea of government power limiting business, particularly juggernauts. At least I can vote until some delegate F's it up. :rolleyes:


...