Wal-Mart mobilizes against Democrats

[Guest nj.piney]

in new jersey union membership is mandatory if the company is unionized . after 60 days the union starts witholding dues from your pay. no choice involved.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

in new jersey union membership is mandatory if the company is unionized . after 60 days the union starts witholding dues from your pay. no choice involved.

if they work for a union company then they already made the choice. unions get what they do for their members through collective bargaining. why should someone reap the benefits of a union job if they won't agree to take the responsibilities of union membership? that would be like complaining that you don't get the benefits that the NRA offers to it's members even though you aren't an NRA member, but you do own a gun.

when the organizers come, they can't just say "you are now organized" and let that be it. the decision has to be put to a vote. if the vote is for unionization, then there you go, the decision has been made. after that if you decide to join the company knowing that it is unionized, then that is where the decision is made.

[Guest c_o_jones]

I'll not lose sleep, because that money is going to go to my supper table.

And fuel for Obama's jet.

[Guest Lefty]

My father is a Local 1 Ironworker, and while he hates the politics of the union, it has been a good thing for him and this country. We have the right to peaceful assembly, no? Making sure our money isn't stolen and our rights trampled by tyrannical rulers through democratic collective force is why America was founded.

[Guest m14man]

I'm a railroader who works in train and engine service. Norfolk-Southern requires me to join one of two unions available to me. They don't do it because they believe in the union way. They do it because it makes it easier to handle everyone.

NS is one of the most profitable companies on the face of the Earth. They're the American dream come true. Neither of the two major unions has ruined them, principally because we fall under Taft-Hartley and are not allowed to have a meaningful strike. What my union does do, however, is provide me with a tremendous resource for dealing with a corporation that is among the last of the robber-barons. I wouldn't want to work a foot of rail without a union and without FELA.

Not all unions or industries are the same. You'd do well to learn a bit more before throwing stones. Some of us are some of the most productive employees in the world, and we're working for successful companies that are glad to have us. The railroad calls me five times a day on all my off days. They want me to work. They love me, see?

i am an engineer on csx another rail road and i can guarantee you that if you worked were i did you would be thinkful for a union. i have to cary job insurance cause were i work our mangers hid in the bush and try to fire you everyday i go to work. plus they call me as soon as i get home and i work 13 days on call 24 hours a day, then when i get to my off days they call us tying to get us to work. no holidays off and they just blacked out 2 months of not allowing us to take our personal days or vacation days and canceled everyones vacation. i have no sick time and if i call in sick more than four weekend days in 6 months then i have a attendence problem never mind that we work 60+ hours a week. unions have there places, they arent perfect but hour company doesnt care if you see your family and will cut everyjob they can so they dont pay insurance, even tho they made a profit of several billion dollars.our divisional manger has harassed and threatend to fire people and cut of two man jobs to one man then rides that mans butt cause now the work doesnt get done just so he can keep his 3 million bonus. with no unions they would take everything we have and fire you anytime they want, and they have the government in there pocket they do what they want.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

i am an engineer on csx another rail road and i can guarantee you that if you worked were i did you would be thinkful for a union. i have to cary job insurance cause were i work our mangers hid in the bush and try to fire you everyday i go to work. plus they call me as soon as i get home and i work 13 days on call 24 hours a day, then when i get to my off days they call us tying to get us to work. no holidays off and they just blacked out 2 months of not allowing us to take our personal days or vacation days and canceled everyones vacation. i have no sick time and if i call in sick more than four weekend days in 6 months then i have a attendence problem never mind that we work 60+ hours a week. unions have there places, they arent perfect but hour company doesnt care if you see your family and will cut everyjob they can so they dont pay insurance, even tho they made a profit of several billion dollars.our divisional manger has harassed and threatend to fire people and cut of two man jobs to one man then rides that mans butt cause now the work doesnt get done just so he can keep his 3 million bonus. with no unions they would take everything we have and fire you anytime they want, and they have the government in there pocket they do what they want.

You're preachin' to the choir, brother. I don't have much bad time, but I've got $250.00 a day of whammy with all three insurance companies. I learned my lesson two years ago when I got thirty days as a brakeman on the third unit of a train that violated restricted speed. I've seen more weasels in the weeds than I care to think about.

I'm a cut back engineer working as a brakeman. NS calls me all the time wanting me to work as an engineer, but they don't want to put me back on the board 'cause they're afraid they'll have to pay the guarantee. They'll let millions in tonnage sit and not move because they might have to pay out a thousand dollars a half in guarantee money. It's no different over here on the NS than it is where you're at. They're all the same.

[Mike.357]

m14, if your job is so bad and you are treated so harshly why do you stay?

I am just saying...

Gotta be something in it for you.

[Rightwinger]

Same stuff different day.

We could go on and on about economics, venture capitol, profit and loss, etc but the bottom line is all 98% of union members see is a "suit" who does nothing but make big dollars just to harass that poor salt of the earth worker. They don't see the 60+ hour weeks some of those suits (I can't afford one, glad they don't make me wear one) put in to set up and manage that business so the union can come in on Monday morning and run thier 8 hours and look for more if they feel like they need a kiss or tell the boss nope, I done my 8 when they don't. Its called work for a reason.

I love when we post the numbers how only the big numbers stick in the employees heads, not all of them. "This contract made 12 million dollars and I can only make X dollars an hour and xx cents a mile! That's crazy"

But at the very same time we told them the contract made 12 million, it spent 11.3 in wages, benefits, equipment, fuel, uniforms, coffee for the break room, picnics for the families..... You get a better rate of return in a savings account some places. The investors that put up their money to start and continue the growth of the company don't like that. They go away when you pull profits under 8%. But that doesn't matter, THE COMPANY MADE 12 MILLION DOLLARS, I SHOULD GET 80 OR 90K A YEAR DOING WHAT I DO FOR 8 HOURS A DAY.

I'm sure this is polarized enough now that I'm done trying to use numbers and logic to make a point. Everybodys right, the other side is wrong. To tired to continue and would say something I shouldn't anyway. By the way, this "suit" did 19 hours from yesterday afternoon to today at noon to set up his facility for success. Can't wait for that overtime check this week.....oh crap.....the salary fairy just whacked me again!

[Guest Len]

Glad to see some pro-labor opinions on this site, finally. The unions made the middle class -the greatest generation of wealth this nation has ever seen. The height of the union movement in this country corresponds to perhaps the best of economic times in this country -the post WW II era. Unions have given us, among MANY other things, a level playing field between workers and management, a minimum wage, a 5 day work week, health insurance, OSHA, paid vacations, job security for those who are sick or who go off to war, etc, etc, etc. The smaller the difference between the wealth of the workers and the wealth of the executives is the key to economic prosperity. Over recent years, this ratio has gotten worse and worse, and the middle and lower classes are paying the price. So short-sighted...

In addition, the right to assemble -to collectively bargain- is enshrined in the constitution. Its as American as the flag.

Those who disavow the value and positive impact the labor movement has made in the 20th century in the USA either are ignorant of history, distort history or ignore history. Are there bad union leaders, bad union decisions, short-sighted union contracts, etc? Of course. The labor movement is not perfect. But the cumulative value of the labor movement compared to the negatives it may have shows the good seriously outweighs the bad.

The right to collectively bargain and vote on unionization by secret ballot should never be infringed.

Next time you go on vacation, call in sick, have a paid holiday, get home from work at a reasonable time, get an on-the-job injury taken care of for free, or get a raise, feel free to thank the unions and union men from the past that made it all happen.

[creeky]

I have worked both in a union, and not. I have served as an acting union stewart on occasion, and was asked to be part of the negotiating team for our next contract.

I see no problem with "organized labor"... which is what it is. Negotiating terms of employment as a group.

A set of rules are established that both sides agree on. The company can then plan fiscally for the next 5 years (or the life of the contract) and the workers have a set procedure for handling disputes, promotions, medical, etc.

A good administrator (for a company) knows full well what they can and can't do under the terms of the contract. Same as the employees.

I used to have arguments with my cousin in my twenties about unions... me for, him against. Now... he's a Union President.

In my experience the best situation I have seen is working without a union, but with the "vote" always around the corner. Management has always seemed more attentive to the employees and workers are able to have some respect for the employers.

Again just my opinion... but broad statements about unions being either "good" or "bad" are just too general. Sure the "you can quit and move" argument is there... but for a coal miner it may not be that easy to pack up, move a family and pick up a system admin job.

Everything has it's own set of circumstances...

When you have people setting up policies that effect a huge company... it's pretty easy to make some unethical decisions when you don't ever see the guys clocking in, or the pictures of their kids on their desks.

Again just my opinion... no better than anyone elses.

[Marswolf]

Neither side is the deity nor the devil.

It's is possible to do a cost/benefit wage study on union membership but both sides only listen to the part they like. Basically, economists tell us that union membership increases benefits for it's members by 10-15%. Union claims of 20-28% increases are pipe dreams or creative accounting Union representation also reduces the number of employees in an industry while apparently increasing the number of deadwood employees, which may explain some of the overtime complaints we are hearing here. The extra wage and benefit money doesn't come from corporate profits (that are only around 8% on average) but primarily from reducing the salary of the other workers. That's what the analysis shows. About 10-15% of the people end up overpaid by 10-15% by underpaying the other 85-90% of the working folks by about 4%. That doesn't sound very "fair" does it?

I could go on - but I won't. You can study it yourself. As I say, independent economists understand the figures and analysis is always being done. You can find lots of economic studies on the matter online. Google is our friend. You also find lots of propaganda. Don't believe the folks who have a vested interest.

[Guest c_o_jones]

Something For Nothing: Unions

by Thomas Sowell

Government is not the only institution that promises something for nothing.

The decline of General Motors is just one consequence of the idea that labor unions can get their members something for nothing.

Workers themselves increasingly recognize the reality that there is no free lunch through unionization and are increasingly voting to be non-union.

But the word has yet to reach many among the intelligentsia, who still think of labor unions as institutions that benefit the working class.

You can always benefit particular segments of any society at the expense of some other segment but unions do not benefit even the working class as a whole -- just those who are current union members -- at the expense of other workers, current and future.

One reason that General Motors has been losing market share for years -- going from selling about half the cars in the country to selling about one quarter today -- is that its union contracts put them at a disadvantage compared to its Japanese competitors.

Even though Toyota has factories in the United States, the American employees in those factories vote to keep their jobs by staying non-union.

Toyota takes business away from unionized Detroit car makers, who are forced to lay off thousands of workers while Toyota is hiring additional workers.

There may not be any big difference in pay scales but unions can create higher production costs in many other ways. Fringe benefits are just one.

Work rules are another.

In some industries, employers pay their workers as much as, or more than, unionized workers receive for the same jobs, just in order to be free of red tape restrictions on how they can organize their business or discipline employees who aren't doing their jobs right.

Toyota, for example, takes fewer hours to produce cars with fewer defects than Detroit cars.

While unions are declining in the private sector, they are expanding among government employees. Government agencies are usually monopolies, so competition is no threat to their jobs.

Taxpayers get hit with the high cost of these monopolies. There is no such thing as something for nothing.

Teachers' unions fight desperately and ruthlessly against vouchers, because they must maintain a monopoly of school children under the compulsory attendance laws. Their members stand to lose jobs if forced to compete with private schools.

Monopoly is the key to unionized teachers' job security -- at the expense of children's education as well as the taxpayers' money.

Labor unions in the private sector have long been in the forefront of those pushing for higher minimum wage laws.

Usually union members already make much more than minimum wages but they need to safeguard their jobs from others who could do the same work for less.

People on the inside looking out benefit at the expense of people on the outside looking in. Losers include not only less experienced and lower skilled workers, whose output would not cover the cost of the minimum wage, but also future workers who may find fewer job opportunities in the unionized industries.

Minimum wage laws are like protective tariffs insulating unionized workers from the competition of other workers.

It is robbing a less affluent Peter to pay a more affluent Paul -- all the while using noble rhetoric that appeals to the uninformed and the unthinking, which includes many people with fancy degrees and even fancier illusions about their own higher sense of compassion.

Some people may believe that unions benefit their members at the expense of employers -- and that big corporations should be paying a "living wage."

That may be possible in the short run. But think about it: If unionized workers producing widgets get higher pay by reducing the rate of profit of widget manufacturers, do you think investors are going to continue to invest as much in the production of widgets when they can earn higher rates of return by investing elsewhere?

The rate of return on widgets cannot remain permanently below rates of returns in other industries. Widget prices will have to rise -- and that means lower sales and lower employment.

There is no free lunch, no way to get something for nothing.

[Rightwinger]

Sowell is a very special and gifted man with "no dog in the fight" either way.

Thanks for posting C O

[Guest unreconstructed1]

They don't see the 60+ hour weeks some of those suits (I can't afford one, glad they don't make me wear one) put in to set up and manage that business so the union can come in on Monday morning and run thier 8 hours and look for more if they feel like they need a kiss or tell the boss nope, I done my 8 when they don't. Its called work for a reason.

so you feel that since the owner of the company works 60 + hrs a week, without OT, everyone should? that really doesn't make a wholelot of sense. the owner has an added incentive for working harder, it's his company.

THE COMPANY MADE 12 MILLION DOLLARS, I SHOULD GET 80 OR 90K A YEAR DOING WHAT I DO FOR 8 HOURS A DAY.

well, I certainly don't make 80,000 to 90,000 dollars a year, and neither do many of teh union workers that I know, but we should make enough to survive, and 18/19K ain't it.

By the way, this "suit" did 19 hours from yesterday afternoon to today at noon to set up his facility for success. Can't wait for that overtime check this week.....oh crap.....the salary fairy just whacked me again!

sounds like you're getting screwed. ever thought about joining a union?

oh, and to the gentlman that posted about refueling Obama's jet, my union has a voluntary political fund donation system. while the Union may get a tiny percentage of my money, Obama will not.

Edited August 5, 2008 by unreconstructed1

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Minimum wage laws are like protective tariffs insulating unionized workers from the competition of other workers.

so basically, Sowell is against the minimum wage? wow, just wow.

the minimum wage is a safeguard against 40+ hr a week poverty. why should a man have to work 60 hrs a week and still need to be on food stamps? without the minimum wage, we would be seeing that a lot.

as for GM, if a company has a good product, it will sell.

let's use snap on tools as an example. Snap on tools manufacturing facilities are unionized, and yet they are still in business. why? because they have a good product.

Harley Davidson is another good example. both companies have unionized plants, and they are still in business, AND making a profit.

General motors quality has suffered for several years, and as a result, more people are buying other products. poor design is the fault of engineers, not union labor.

[Guest m14man]

m14, if your job is so bad and you are treated so harshly why do you stay?

I am just saying...

Gotta be something in it for you.

first off i live in rural tn not tomany jobs available and i didnt say they dont pay well i was trying to point out that if i had no union the i wouldnt have an off day, and your complaning about 60 hours a week well lets see i have worked 16 hours to memphis spent another 24 in the motel then 13 hours working back to bruceton so i would be gone form home for 53 hour in three days then when i get home im back to work in 8 hours. then when i do finally get an off day they ring my phone off the hook for me to go to work all because they dont want to pay garauntee and i have been salaried mangment at another job, and im telling you the rail road will walk all over you if they could. when they started the average life expectancy of a brake man was 7 days. the rail roads did not care untill unions brought in the government and forced the fela act, were they would be held responsiable for wrong doings. not all companies need unions. you work for on that cares about you with out on good for you. if it werent for unions i wouldnt be working for them the good things about my job are there because the unions got them in a contract. not cause the company cares about me.

take a look here and tell me if you think companies allways care about there employees

http://www.csx-sucks.com/

[Guest m14man]

heres you a good one about how much they care, and oh yeah we are not cover under osha, rail roads do not answer to anyone but the fra.

http://www.csx-sucks.com/pictures/?br2.jpg

[Marswolf]

I'm against food stamps too.

My view is very much as in this piece from http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1221-Labor_Unions.aspx

Labor Unions

Would an ideal Objectivist [i.e. Capitalist] society allow labor unions? In essence, I'm sort of confused as to the OBjectivist position on (non-governmentally funded) labor unions: on one hand, people can employ and withdraw their labor as they see fit, yet on the other hand to achieve values by pull is morally wrong.…

Answered by Malini Kochhar

An ideal Objectivist society would be one where there would be maximum individual freedom, and minimum governmental functions, primary among which would be preventing the infringement of these individual rights. Such a society would allow for the formal formation of any private groups with common interests as long as they abide by the essential rule of civilized society - non violence. If a set of peaceful people (including workers) comes together for any legal reason, then yes, they are completely free to do so. A union in this sense is no different from any other group of citizens that chooses to organize itself into a formal association. In fact, if the formation of labor unions were illegal, this would violate the fundamental human right to freedom of association.

Although labor unions have been historically associated with violent action plans (non-peaceable strikes, rioting, picketing etc), this does not mean that all labor unions will necessarily be violent. Workers can have legitimate demands that can be lawfully stated. The employer can accept, reject or negotiate these as he sees fit in a society that values individual rights because he faces no personal threats or compulsions. He is protected from the potential use of force by the law.

Unionization of firms as it occurs today is usually a process that works by majority vote and thereby ignores the desires of individual dissenting workers. In the ideal Objectivist society, this forced unionization of workers who may not want to be part of the union would never be allowed as it violates the rights of those workers. In addition, there would be no governmental interference in unionization or in their formalization. Labor unions would be private and voluntary groups of workers, dealing with employers without unnecessary governmental regulations.

Labor unions that succeed in achieving their values are not doing something morally wrong. The workers are free to make their demands in any way they chose, including collectively. They are free to chose to express their demands as a group and with the condition that negotiations include all members. The employer is not forced to give in to these demands if he considers them unreasonable. Thus this "achievement of values" is not by pull because it is a not an achievement tainted by illegal or illegitimate means. It is a "value" that has been obtained with no use (or threat of use) of force on either side.

The basic concept is that the government doesn't get involved in either union advocacy or restricting what the employer can say to oppose union formation.

[Mike.357]

m14 all I am saying is there must be something in it for you.

If it sucks so bad move. Do something that enables you to have a better life.

Your posts really do make you sound terribly unhappy.

Life is too short to be miserable in a career or to work at a job that forces us to be unhappy.

I have relocated three times in my life. It is very possible to do. Not saying it is easy but it is viable. I did not have to make any of the moves we made, I did it because we wanted to live different places and live a fruitful and adventurous life.

I have quit jobs that made me miserable though.

[Marswolf]

It sounds like the company is able to find people who want the job under the pay and conditions they insist upon. There is no indenture. Don't like the job? Find another one.

It could be a dangerous job with low pay, on call 24/7, and no chance to quit - like military service. Pardon me if I'm not sympathetic.

[Guest m14man]

m14 all I am saying is there must be something in it for you.

If it sucks so bad move. Do something that enables you to have a better life.

Your posts really do make you sound terribly unhappy.

Life is too short to be miserable in a career or to work at a job that forces us to be unhappy.

I have relocated three times in my life. It is very possible to do. Not saying it is easy but it is viable. I did not have to make any of the moves we made, I did it because we wanted to live different places and live a fruitful and adventurous life.

I have quit jobs that made me miserable though.

i only pointed out the bad things to prove my point that in some cases unions are a good thing and if it werent for the unions your durn right i would quit and get a diffrent job. the good things we have are there because of our unions, and we are very profitable companies. take away our union and we would have a very dangerous job on call 24/7 with low pay and know benefits. the descusion is about unions good our bad and unions are not allways good and they can be just as corrupt. i was trying to show you why we have unions, i have a friend who works at nissian and is treated very well with know union and thats great. i see no need for a union where he works, not all companies are like that, ours has provin in the past that they dont even care about human life that why we have a union. all those regulation you spoke of, osha, workmans comp do not apply to rail roads all we have is the union and it might not be much but atleast its somethin.

p.s. im allways lookin for somethin better so anyone that wants to offer go ahead and there are some rail roads that arent as bad, i have applied to one just waiting to here. there they get paid much better and have less rules and the bosses work with you, like they should.

[Guest Grizzly Johnson]

first off i live in rural tn not tomany jobs available and i didnt say they dont pay well i was trying to point out that if i had no union the i wouldnt have an off day, and your complaning about 60 hours a week well lets see i have worked 16 hours to memphis spent another 24 in the motel then 13 hours working back to bruceton so i would be gone form home for 53 hour in three days then when i get home im back to work in 8 hours. then when i do finally get an off day they ring my phone off the hook for me to go to work all because they dont want to pay garauntee and i have been salaried mangment at another job, and im telling you the rail road will walk all over you if they could.

My Brother also works for CSX out of Bruceton and he pretty much feels the way you do. I know it takes it's toll on his family life, and pretty much on his recreational activities too, since he is on call and HAS to report for work within 2 hours of getting the call, or risk getting fired!! Working for the RR is one of the best paying jobs around those parts with a good retirement plan. Not too many jobs in Camden, it's a poor place as it is, and the future doesn't look any better than it has for the last 10 years for industry.........

[Guest nashnoob]

One more reason to like walmart. Cheap ammo, cheap socks and not supporting the dems

[strickj]

Will some kindly PM me once this is settled out so Ill know whether to join a union or not :: patiently waiting::

[Angus]

Ok, ok....I have to add this: I was the union rep for 12 months, I work for an airline. Now....do we truely NEED a union....well, no. Has it helped us obtain better benefits, and made our workplace more enjoyable...absolutely.

I work alot of ot...on a voluntary basis, and I have worked every Christmas, Thanksgiving, 4ths of July etc. for 15 years. some folks would call BS on this, but this is part of my job, and if I don't like it...I can quit.

But, when they come to me, and say..we need you to be back here at 5:00 am, and it is now 12:30 am...welll....now we have a set of rules that makes this scenario a more agreeable situation. Would we have this option without a union...doubtfull. So, I have a job I love, I work with happy folks for the most part, we have a union.

Has the union failed us...yes, on occasion. Has someone gotten their job back that should have been fired..uh huh. I will tell you first hand, the ONLY people that got their jobs back in 15 years are the ones that werent fired properly in the first place. These were not UNION regulations that were not followed, but company policy that the managers and supervisors failed to follow.

BTW: just as a FYI deal...I have a degree in Aviation Management, and as long as unions arent allowed to get out of control, they cannot ruin a workplace.