The Trump implosion thread!

Quote: Mission146

I guess. I'm not sure. I think it's hard to even assume that you're not being recorded anytime you're outside of the house, and even inside of the house, you're just kind of taking it for granted that drones aren't window-peeping at you. I also find it difficult to believe that the owner(s) of the plant itself would not want to handle any such intimidation immediately and harshly, especially since the argument seems to be that unionization of the employees is not to the benefit of ownership, either. So, to the extent that any such thing does/could happen, I'd say responsibility lies with management/ownership to prevent that.

Oh, please. You must be the type that did not know when they were being subtly threatened.

Quote:

So, I don't know. I probably don't have enough experience to comment as to the importance of the card or secret ballots. Maybe you could just skip the cards and go straight to the voting part with the secret ballot. Like, let a different union come in every six months and make its pitch, or whatever.

"Let" them come in? Why?

Let me guess, you believe it when the "fight for 15" crowd says "they want a union" and the union is backing their movement?

Quote: AZDuffman

Oh, please. You must be the type that did not know when they were being subtly threatened.

"Let" them come in? Why?

Let me guess, you believe it when the "fight for 15" crowd says "they want a union" and the union is backing their movement?

I don’t know; I don’t recall being subtly threatened very often. I’d rather just have an unsubtle throw down if someone is going to do that. Lots of supposed tough guys have a tendency of backing down when you get your fists up and tell them to throw the first punch.

Why let them come in? The answer is clearly so that they can attempt to convince the workers that they would be better off with the union’s representation than they are representing themselves and then have a vote as to same. That way, none of these backstage politics or threats that you’re talking about have to interfere with the affairs of the workplace. You just conduct all of this union business above the table.

I don’t know or pretend to know what the fight for 15 crowd wants or who is or is not backing it.

And, again, I haven’t really worked at a non-unionized place where unionizing ever really came up.

Quote: Mission146

I don’t know; I don’t recall being subtly threatened very often. I’d rather just have an unsubtle throw down if someone is going to do that. Lots of supposed tough guys have a tendency of backing down when you get your fists up and tell them to throw the first punch.

Why let them come in? The answer is clearly so that they can attempt to convince the workers that they would be better off with the union’s representation than they are representing themselves and then have a vote as to same. That way, none of these backstage politics or threats that you’re talking about have to interfere with the affairs of the workplace. You just conduct all of this union business above the table.

I don’t know or pretend to know what the fight for 15 crowd wants or who is or is not backing it.

Still makes no sense. You talk like having a Union is a default position.

If a Union wants to organize why should the company have to pay for it on their time on their facilities.

You haven’t seen the fight for 15 groups?

Quote: AZDuffman

Still makes no sense. You talk like having a Union is a default position.

If a Union wants to organize why should the company have to pay for it on their time on their facilities.

You haven’t seen the fight for 15 groups?

I don't think having a Union is a default position, or there would already be Unions everywhere.

I didn't say anything about the company paying for the time, or even that this event would be conducted on the company's facilities, other than you could let the workers openly pass out notifications that there will be an event at x place on y date at which the workers will be putting to secret ballot whether or not to unionize. At that point, you would need more than 50% to show up and vote, 'Yes,' with anyone who doesn't appear at the event being assumed to be a, 'No,' vote. Those who listen to the presentation and are also not interested could also vote, 'No.' If fewer than 50% of the employees even appear at the event, then it is an automatic no.

It just sounds like a lot of shady dealings that could be avoided by letting it be openly known that the Union would like to come and make their case that the workers would be better off with the Union representing them.

I have not seen the Fight for 15 groups. I am vaguely aware of what the movement is and know that there have been some strikes related to the movement. Absent State/Federal minimum wage laws that are in place, what people are compensated is between the people and their employers...or the Unions (if any) and the employers.

This isn't something I've ever had to spend a lot of time thinking about. The one place where we had a Union, the Union's presence was bogus and I think did more for the employer ($$$) than it did for us. I saw no added benefit whatsoever to what they had, 'Negotiated,' for us and determined it was financially worse to have them there than it would be to just be making minimum wage...because of the Union dues. I also could not figure out why the USW would have any reason to care about cashiers and baggers in a franchised grocery store.

Walmart DC was the only other workplace to ever bring Unions up, and again, they kind of tried to drill it into us during orientation that Unions are terrible and that we should never want to be in a Union. It was also strongly implied that, henceforward, 'Union,' is basically a profane term and anyone found to be talking about Unions would likely find themselves being terminated under some other pretense. Makes no difference to me. While I understand that the stores themselves suck, I thought the DC job paid pretty well and would have seen no need to unionize.

All other ten (or so) places I have worked have not had Unions and I have never heard them be brought up---except maybe as a joke on rare occasions. Like, if management did something that someone didn't like they might say, "Man, we should really unionize." I maybe heard that joke once or twice, ever.

It's not even that it was taboo at the other employers, just that nobody ever brought it up. In my experience, the vast majority of us were fundamentally satisfied with the jobs and how much we were making to do the jobs, or we would not have taken them.

The only two places that essentially lied about paycheck-related stuff are Walmart and the telemarketing place. Walmart lied in the sense that you almost never hit the hours that you were scheduled, much less did you get anywhere close to forty, even though they said you would get close to forty, on average. Usually your schedule of 12-12-12 would end up playing out like 10-15-5. It's not like you even had weeks where you would go more than 36 to bring you up to an average of 36 because Walmart HATED overtime. If you hit more than forty hours in a week without written authorization, (not getting signed) by even one minute, you pretty much just signed your own termination letter.

The 10-10-10-10 people would get closer to ten hour days consistently, but sometimes were done early and that never got made up for. They wouldn't go over because anything that hadn't been completed would just get kicked over to the next shift...so ten hours was kind of the maximum you would get in a day, even though that's what you were scheduled for. There might be an exception to that if you had days earlier in the week where you got done a few hours early.

The telemarketing place didn't exactly lie, but they made it sound like you'd always get forty hours per week. That was pretty much true except for the last week of the month/first week of the following month (same six day period) because you'd get cut loose early if calling hours were starting to run low for the month and you weren't one of the better sellers. I was one of the better sellers, so I never had to worry about that. The main problem for the people who did get cut loose early was that $2/hour of what you made was incumbent on an attendance bonus that required you to work forty hours per week. So, if you did not work the forty, you lost those hours AND $2/hour of what you had worked.

That only happened three or four times, though. Other months we were cross-training people and doing open overtime just so that we could USE all of our calling hours, otherwise the company is leaving money on the table.

The owner of the one hotel basically lied in what my raise was going to be provided certain conditions were met and I had to go back and forth with him several times over that kind of bullcrap. He always paid whatever my current contract was, though. He tried to rip me off on future contracts, which is one of the things that led to me quitting and coming back (gave the offer I was supposed to get or at least something better) or dropping to part-time hourly, taking a second job, but then going back to full-time (again, he improved the offer or gave me the offer I should have received immediately) on more than one occasion.

Anywhere else, they'd just tell you what the hourly or salary was and what the bonuses/commissions were, as well as the number of hours you would get, and it almost always ended up being true. I don't know why any of those would want to unionize and it never came up...they made exactly what they were told they would make.*

*Except, the furniture sales job exaggerated the commissions by using national numbers for the company...of course neglecting to mention that they themselves were one of the worst-performing locations in the country. They also didn't mention that returns/cancels come off of your commissions (but are still counted in commissions based on sales numbers) even though returns/cancels were a result of all of the manufacturers manufacturing in China and the expected product arrival dates being---at best---completely unreliable--and an outright lie, at worst. Even then, there was an hourly that you were absolutely guaranteed.

Quote: AZDuffman

Pretty simple. Couple of large guys come up to you and say, "You are going to sign with the union, right? Union protects you. Otherwise things can happen. Most people do not like scabs!" (Yes, I know that is not the true definition of "scab.")

IOW, simple intimidation can be done to make people sign cards. A secret ballot nobody knows.

I have seen stories about people harassed at home and anywhere they go to get the car signed. Remember, you are talking big money for the union that organizes. Which means big money for Democrats at election time, and potential big money if someone has the union corrupted (as the UAW currently is big time.)

The organizing effort [card signing] that I participated in was the opposite of what you say here. It is the company who long had total say over the workers that had the big thugs, and all the influence over the workers.
A reason to have "the vote" within two months of the majority of cards being signed was so that the work force doesn't get replaced before the vote, threats by employers to change minds, and the project to just run out of time and the employer to leave the state.
People understand when they are shown the numbers where their wages stand compared to unions. Either way union or non union if you are packing a lunch pail you are not going to get rich. If the employer fairly compensates their workers, unions wouldn't have a chance of organizing, nobody wants to pay a percentage of their income to be represented, it always feels like another tax. In some cases unions don't even try to organize because the wage package is already fair, and going union would bring no benefit to workers. Many municipalities are non union, because the wage package of county's and states is already above what a union worker would make at those jobs. Take oil field workers for example. You never see them unionized. If oil rig workers 'went union' they'd have to take a big cut in pay to be equal to laborers or steel workers or whatever class their work falls in.

Take it from someone who has organized, workers will not jump for ten percent. They are to fearful of losing their jobs, simple as that. Employers have jointly figured out how to dis influence workers long ago. My union has told people, hey, your package is good there is no sense in going through the process. Only to have the muni's figure that out, and them come to the table. The only selling point a union has is when the package is largely different. Also my union has training programs year round and not only has mentor programs but encourages members to gain skills. Last I worked, I needed 14 certificates and most have to be maintained. A lot of that training is done my the union, so the union has a product to offer employers. It's not just communism writ large.

On the BA thing. Boeing already is union in the PNW, and Chicago and just wanted to jump states so they could have a non union assembly plant to use as leverage in labor contracts against workers that are already organized. Why should unions have to organize the same jobs in every state? The agreements have already been negotiated long and hard. How can you support BA management when they have run the company into the ground? They have bankrupted the company with poor management and taking billions of loans just for share buybacks and golden parachutes for bad management. Then they decide to knowingly build this 737 with crash problems built in. Boeing has set American plane manufacturing back in America single handedly, possibly forever with bad management. You can't even compare that with what union labor or non union labor would cost shareholders. BS.

Treat your workers like cogs in a machine for your maximum profit, and you’re actually more like the Chinese communist. You’re just working for the good of a few people instead of the State.

Unions became necessary, because capitalism without regards to humanity is worth shit.

Quote: rxwine

Treat your workers like cogs in a machine for your maximum profit, and you’re actually more like the Chinese communist. You’re just working for the good of a few people instead of the State.

Unions became necessary, because capitalism without regards to humanity is worth shit.

While I don't like the Government doing too much as relates employment, particularly not the Federal Government, I'd argue that what you mentioned is what made the concepts of minimum wage and safety regulations necessary.

Quote: petroglyph

The organizing effort [card signing] that I participated in was the opposite of what you say here. It is the company who long had total say over the workers that had the big thugs, and all the influence over the workers.

I don't know anything about thugs, but Walmart certainly made it pretty clear that people would be finding the door quickly if they were found to be discussing unions or trying to organize a union. They even basically said any Union reps running around (as in, in the parking lot or something) were not to be acknowledged in anyway whatsoever. Just go about your business, do not speak to them, do not accept any of their materials.

For my part, I never encountered or saw any such reps anyway.

Quote:

A reason to have "the vote" within two months of the majority of cards being signed was so that the work force doesn't get replaced before the vote, threats by employers to change minds, and the project to just run out of time and the employer to leave the state.
People understand when they are shown the numbers where their wages stand compared to unions. Either way union or non union if you are packing a lunch pail you are not going to get rich. If the employer fairly compensates their workers, unions wouldn't have a chance of organizing, nobody wants to pay a percentage of their income to be represented, it always feels like another tax. In some cases unions don't even try to organize because the wage package is already fair, and going union would bring no benefit to workers. Many municipalities are non union, because the wage package of county's and states is already above what a union worker would make at those jobs. Take oil field workers for example. You never see them unionized. If oil rig workers 'went union' they'd have to take a big cut in pay to be equal to laborers or steel workers or whatever class their work falls in.

I have no reason to disagree with any of this. I guess the only thing that I would add is that anyone I have ever met seems to only get ticked off when they feel that they have been lied to (before being hired) about how much money they would be making or how many hours they would be getting. Most employers, at least in my experience, tend not to lie about such things. Even if the pay sucks for a given job, the employees took the job knowing what they pay is and, therefore, do not have a problem with how much they are making. Whether or not they are actively seeking a different job is a whole different issue altogether.

I also tend to agree that, in order for a union to successfully come into the picture, the workers at a place would have to feel as though they were being ripped off in the first place. As long as their jobs are what they were told they would be, they are making what they were told they would make, the hours are what they were told they would be and all the safety stuff is in order...I don't know why else an employee would ever feel that way.

***The remainder of the post was not quoted as I have no standing to comment on any of it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Fewer deaths with Democrat leadership? How exactly? Cuomo proves that would not be the case.

Yep!