Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bailout Recp. This Is The Demise Of A Civilization  
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3897 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2594 times:

Bailout Recipients Hosted Call To Defeat Key Labor Bill

" Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top legislative priority. "


" "This is the demise of a civilization," said Marcus. "This is how a civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I'm watching this happen and I don't believe it." "


" We will turn into France " !


Read and hear audioleaks from the conferance here:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...of-america-hosted-an_n_161248.html

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Anti-union...al._and_Rick_Berman%2C_17_Oct_2008






A bit dramatic is'nt it.....  

[Edited 2009-01-29 16:29:31]

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

Unions are necessary in order to protect workers from big-businesses mistreating their workers. Read back into the history books and see what working conditions were like in the days when there were no unions.

This is not a good thing (in fact one could argue, it's a step towards fascism)


Blackbird


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5524 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

The big issue is the "card check" aspect of the bill. There are many members on this site that will argue passionately for and against it.

From the Huffington article:

Quote:
The legislation -- which would allow workers to form a union either by holding a traditional election or having a majority of employees sign written forms --

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 1):
Unions are necessary in order to protect workers from big-businesses mistreating their workers.

However most of the unions have lost that historic meaning of their institutions. Many of them now fight for their own benefit anyway.

EDIT: I'm not saying unions should be banned. However, I do believe unions need to be reformed, so they go back to doing what they are supposed to do: genuinely fight for worker's rights. Like I said, most of them don't care about workers anyway, they just care for themselves.

[Edited 2009-01-29 18:56:11]

User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2508 times:

LTU932,

Well, I largely agree with you.


Blackbird


User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12103 posts, RR: 49
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2497 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 1):
Unions are necessary in order to protect workers from big-businesses mistreating their workers. Read back into the history books and see what working conditions were like in the days when there were no unions.

This is not a good thing (in fact one could argue, it's a step towards fascism)


Blackbird



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 3):
However most of the unions have lost that historic meaning of their institutions. Many of them now fight for their own benefit anyway.

Unions are out dated and only out for themselves. Recently here in OH we had 9-11 operator that failed to send police to a call, she lost her job over her stupidness and her lack of doing her job, never showed up for disciplinary hearings the whole nine yard. Now the police union is fighting for her to get her job back. Yet someone lost there life over her not doing her job.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 2475 times:

Luv2fly,

I hate to break it to you but unions are not out date. There needs to be means to protect the workers from abuses by management.


Blackbird


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17450 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 2464 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
There needs to be means to protect the workers from abuses by management.

What protects employees from unions?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 2461 times:



Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 5):
Unions are out dated and only out for themselves

Exactly! Just about everthing substantial that the unions fought for in the previous decades is now federal law. It's now about keeping those at union HQs employed.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 7):
What protects employees from unions?

 checkmark  I would do everything possible to keep a union from setting up shop at my workplace.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25171 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PSA727 (Reply 8):
I would do everything possible to keep a union from setting up shop at my workplace.

Without my US guild, my union, I'd be screwed.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3897 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Unions are necessary, no question about it !

User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2722 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2400 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
I hate to break it to you but unions are not out date. There needs to be means to protect the workers from abuses by management.

Yes they are in their present form

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 7):
What protects employees from unions?

Nothing. They scam us every chance they get. They are suppised to be representing us and work for us but they act like it is the other way around. We are their bread and butter and they will not let it go

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 10):
Unions are necessary, no question about it !

But not in the present form like we have here.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8135 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2386 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
There needs to be means to protect the workers from abuses by management.

There is - they're called employee rights laws.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineVictrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 513 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

What I still fail to see, is why is it that if the workers want a union, they are unable to vote for it in a secret ballot?

Without the secret ballot, there is all kinds of room for intimidation from both management, and the unions.

I still have yet to see any kind of rational arguement for why a union should not need to win a secret ballot election to get certified.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3362 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2288 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 1):
Unions are necessary in order to protect workers from big-businesses mistreating their workers. Read back into the history books and see what working conditions were like in the days when there were no unions.

Very true and they fought for a lot of the laws, benefits and regulations that we have today. If this could be overturned by corporations legally they would which is why a lot of them outsource dangerous and heavily regulated manufacturing jobs to China, India, Brazil etc. where these regulations do not exist.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 3):
However most of the unions have lost that historic meaning of their institutions. Many of them now fight for their own benefit anyway.

Very true, but what we should do is keep the good and scrap the bad things that unions bring. Such as the following bad things.

- Jobs kept during layoffs based on seniority and not productivity, I would switch this.
- Unlimited Sick days without proof of being sick
- Not being able to vote in a secret ballot
- The ease that which grievances are filed. If they are necessary they should always be dealt with in arbitration with whatever side is deemed wrong gets punished. Even though it will cost more it will scare the crap out of someone filing an unjust one if there is a penalty if the reason that

There are several good things as well.

- You can't be fired without cause (any non-union employee can be but the employer has to provide severance or compensation under the law)
- You get rights and benefits through numbers
- You get a decent living wage (this is both good and bad because many think union wages are too high)
- In most cases in the event of an incident or safety violation you have legal coverage provided by the union.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12):
There is - they're called employee rights laws.

Which wouldn't exist without the formation of unions and corporations that have outsourced IMHO have said basically screw you to these laws.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12103 posts, RR: 49
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
Luv2fly,

I hate to break it to you but unions are not out date. There needs to be means to protect the workers from abuses by management.


Blackbird

Yes they are totally outdated and inefficient and have failed to adopt to a changing world. Do in part to the stance of "Full pay to the last day" even if it is full pay that is killing the company they are working for. Nothing to save the company, only what the union can get.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2236 times:



Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14):


Quoting Blackbird (Reply 1):
Unions are necessary in order to protect workers from big-businesses mistreating their workers. Read back into the history books and see what working conditions were like in the days when there were no unions.

Very true and they fought for a lot of the laws, benefits and regulations that we have today. If this could be overturned by corporations legally they would which is why a lot of them outsource dangerous and heavily regulated manufacturing jobs to China, India, Brazil etc. where these regulations do not exist.

Every now and again, there is proof that not all on here are shall we say, a little biased against workers and any "rights" for them.

I must congradulate you both on common sense and the intelligence to appreciate the need for unions to protect workers rights. On NBC tonight, I just caught part of the news item about President Obama signing somthing about making it more difficult for non-union companies to do government work. Did anyone else hear that? I have not found a refference to it so far.

Well said
 Smile



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2224 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 16):
just caught part of the news item about President Obama signing somthing about making it more difficult for non-union companies to do government work. Did anyone else hear that? I have not found a refference to it so far.



According to the AP, Obama signed an executive order reversing Bush Policy. It is in relation to companies doing contract work for the Federal Government. They must now inform their workers about their legal rights on the job. I guess Bush did not think this was important and Obama does. Maybe they will now have to inform their workers that they have the right to unionize. Imagine that.
 Smile  Smile  Smile



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2170 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):
They must now inform their workers about their legal rights on the job.

Every employee break area I've been in has these and OSHA rules posted on the walls, not that anyone pays attention to them. Just because a company isn't "advertising" this right doesn't mean they're denying it.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2161 times:



Quoting Victrola (Reply 13):
What I still fail to see, is why is it that if the workers want a union, they are unable to vote for it in a secret ballot?

Without the secret ballot, there is all kinds of room for intimidation from both management, and the unions.

I still have yet to see any kind of rational arguement for why a union should not need to win a secret ballot election to get certified.

Some quotes from the Wiki page on the EFCA. From the AFL-CIO:

Quote:
People call the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election system a secret ballot election—but in fact it's not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. It's really a management-controlled election process because corporations have all the power. They control the information workers can receive and routinely poison the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who try to organize unions. No employee has free choice after being browbeaten by a supervisor to oppose the union or being told they may lose their job and livelihood if workers vote for the union.

From Representative George Miller, Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor:

Quote:
The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to form a union. Although it is illegal, one quarter of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are active union supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it does little to deter law breakers.
Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they control the information workers can receive, can force workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can force workers to meet with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted.
The Employee Free Choice Act would add some fairness to the system…

Giving employees another way to request a union helps to balance the scale back towards labor. And the bill does not eliminate the secret ballot election; employees can choose either means of establishing a union.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2147 times:



Quoting Mortyman (Reply 10):
Unions are necessary, no question about it !

I agree they are necessary, but they themselves have become businesses, and they thrive on actually inciting labor-management disputes even if otherwise they got along OK.

Here is some interesting poll results:

Gallup Poll. Aug. 13-16, 2007. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions?"

Approve 60%
Disapprove 32%
Unsure 8%

--------------------------

Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by FD. Jan. 21-24, 2009. N=800 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

"I would now like to read you some background on some legislation Congress is considering and ask you if you support or oppose it. As you may know, Congress is debating legislation to change how unions may form in companies. There are two parts to this legislation. The first part would change the way unions are formed. Instead of holding a federally supervised secret ballot election to decide whether to unionize, union organizers would be allowed to ask employees to sign a card saying they support forming a union. If a majority of employees sign these cards, the union would officially represent that company's entire workforce. The second part of the legislation would change the bargaining process. It would give the newly formed union and the employer 90 days to reach a contract agreement or else the matter will be handed over to federal arbitrators. It would be those arbitrators who would determine the wages, benefits and other terms of the contract that employees would be required to work under for two years. Do you support or oppose this legislation?"


Support 37%
Oppose 50%
Unsure 14%

------------------------------------

So it appears that most people support the idea of unions, this particular bill is not popular at all.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 2128 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
he first part would change the way unions are formed. Instead of holding a federally supervised secret ballot election to decide whether to unionize

Those words maybe the reason for the negative vote in this poll. the words Federally supervised secret ballot election is the killer. People identify with a secret ballot and regard it as a protection, it is in the world of politics, not the world of labor. The pro-business bias of the rules for union organization, (think threats and coercion, fear of firing) slant it away from labor to the business side. the wording of the poll maybe intentionally slanted by the pollsters. Who are these people?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 2122 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 21):
Those words maybe the reason for the negative vote in this poll. the words Federally supervised secret ballot election is the killer.

Absolutely it's the killer, but not because of the so-called federal element.

People know perfectly well why unions want the secret ballot eliminated in favor of a simple list of signatures. Union toughs will be able to go from employee to employee, even at their homes and get the signatures. Will there be intimidation? Of course. What's to prevent union agents saying, "sign, or you'll find that your little boy gets beat up at school". Petty vandalism, slashed tires, all sorts of things become possible when your position on unionization is a matter of public record.

The secret ballot is the protection against such action. It is meant as a protection for the workers.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 2105 times:

Dreadnought,

Quote:
I agree they are necessary

As do I, obviously.

Quote:
but they themselves have become businesses, and they thrive on actually inciting labor-management disputes even if otherwise they got along OK.

Which is a problem (that they actually work by inciting labor-management disputes even if there is no good reason to do so) which I hope can be reasonably resolved.


Blackbird


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 2097 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22):
People know perfectly well why unions want the secret ballot eliminated in favor of a simple list of signatures. Union toughs will be able to go from employee to employee, even at their homes and get the signatures. Will there be intimidation? Of course. What's to prevent union agents saying, "sign, or you'll find that your little boy gets beat up at school". Petty vandalism, slashed tires, all sorts of things become possible when your position on unionization is a matter of public record.

The secret ballot is the protection against such action. It is meant as a protection for the workers.

You have read the tactics mentioned in the previous replies regarding the companies tactics, that is no different than the union wanting to exert a little influence themselves in the process. Let us not exaggerate the situation, no children or families are going to be put in danger. A union, is for the purpose of allowing people to be able to afford better for their families. Intimidation is a favorite tactic of companies, and it has worked well. This bill will just make it a little more even in the process. You will not be able to be two faced, and that is not a bad thing. You do not want a union, stand up and say so, you do want a union, stand up and say so. I would tell my wife that a union was needed in the bank where she worked, she would tell me to kiss off, she would be fired immediatly for trying, the bank made no bones about anyone trying to organize a union and my wife feared her fellow workers the most, you know the rat types.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
25 Post contains links Dreadnought : Agreed, that was their original purpose. But when they start to get union dues (revenue) and start employing people themselves (union officials, lobb
26 Jeremy : I will agree that Unions are far from perfect but without a Union, you can be terminated at will for any or no reason at all. There is not a federal
27 WarRI1 : Talk about BS. How about the same for corporations and all business interests? Do you agree on that, no lobbying, no special interests for anyone, un
28 WarRI1 : Well, talk about hitting the nail on the head, you cannot say anything more important than that. "To be fired at will" Maybe because you are Black, W
29 PSA727 : Not true. There are state and federal laws that protect workers from being fired at the whim of the employer, such as age, race, gender. But most com
30 WarRI1 : Not worth the paper they are written on. You can be fired, no problem, even for age race and gender, unless the ACLU agrees to take the case, who can
31 Jeremy : Ok, yes there are laws that prevent discrimination. Can it be proven that it was discrimination? Rarely. On paper it looks great but in reality, it j
32 WarRI1 : A realistic viewpoint, well done. Experiance is the best teacher. the laws are a joke as you found out.
33 NIKV69 : Total BS, that was 50 years ago. Today they are a means to strongarm companies into giving more to their employees out of a sense of entitlement. Wat
34 WarRI1 : [quote=NIKV69,reply=33]Total BS, that was 50 years ago. Today they are a means to strongarm companies into giving more to their employees out of a sen
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is The Name Of The Song In This Video? posted Mon Oct 8 2007 11:08:42 by Chi-town
What Is The Name Of This Song? posted Tue Sep 6 2005 03:47:28 by BR715-A1-30
What Is The Name Of This Song? posted Sat Feb 5 2005 22:24:03 by Venezuela747
What Is The Name Of This Song? posted Mon Jul 8 2002 04:16:56 by Usair737-200
What Is The Name Of This Song? posted Wed Nov 29 2000 05:44:02 by Gocaps16
Is The Health Of A Candidate Important? posted Sat Nov 8 2008 21:45:22 by Tsaord
Where Is The Sense Of Humor? posted Sat Sep 27 2008 22:42:22 by PilotNTrng
This Is The Reason We Need The Death Penalty posted Tue Nov 27 2007 02:17:21 by Stratosphere
You Tube And The Demise Of The Civillised World.. posted Mon Oct 29 2007 16:02:15 by Jafa39
This Is One Hell Of A Watch Commerrcial (vid) posted Sun Sep 30 2007 03:47:27 by Alberchico