If Unions are an Evil Empire then what are the Koch Brothers?

[jolmstead]

So according to the conservative view, every employer is entitled to dictate working terms to their employees. We now operate in a culture of open labor markets, so if the US Citizen is compelled to work for conditions dictated by their employer, and employers are free to offshore jobs and import cheap labor with 3rd world cost of living, what do you think happens to US labor force in a generation or two?

 

This is organized extinction of the middle class!

[PurplePride92]

Here's the difference. The Koch Brothers own the company, the unions don't (as much as they believe they do). If I own a building I am completely within my rights to paint anti-union rants on the walls even if my primary tenant is a union or union employer. As my friend pointed out in another thread you don't have a right to work for them. You know their political leanings, if you don't want to hear the politics they espouse then choose not to work for them. They are taking no money out of people's pockets and using it to support political views that the employees don't agree with. Unions do.

 

And people know where unions are and they can choose to work for them or they can choose to look elsewhere for work if they are that bothered about it. Correct?

 

It was also mentioned that you have to consent to have your dues applied to campaign donations. Nobody makes you support the democratic candidate. Just like our corporation doesn't force us or their employees to vote republican even though we all know who leans where.

 

 

I wish I owned a company and you were my employee so I could tell you to vote for Obama or you'll be laid off. Bet that would go over oh so well. Nothing like exercising my rights. :lol:

[PurplePride92]

So according to the conservative view, every employer is entitled to dictate working terms to their employees. We now operate in a culture of open labor markets, so if the US Citizen is compelled to work for conditions dictated by their employer, and employers are free to offshore jobs and import cheap labor with 3rd world cost of living, what do you think happens to US labor force in a generation or two?

 

This is organized extinction of the middle class!

 

But they'll still offer the same wages and benefits in a RTW climate. Those nice and generous corporations wouldn't change a single thing.

[All Tell]

And people know where unions are and they can choose to work for them or they can choose to look elsewhere for work if they are that bothered about it. Correct?

 

It was also mentioned that you have to consent to have your dues applied to campaign donations. Nobody makes you support the democratic candidate. Just like our corporation doesn't force us or their employees to vote republican even though we all know who leans where.

 

 

I wish I owned a company and you were my employee so I could tell you to vote for Obama or you'll be laid off. Bet that would go over oh so well. Nothing like exercising my rights. :lol:

 

Funny how I don't read where anyone has coerced a vote. What they said was that if Obama was re-elected there was a good chance people would lose their jobs. Big difference. I'll bet your holier then thou union would never do anything so underhanded and has never stated that if Romney were elected it could be bad for the worker have they?

[All Tell]

But they'll still offer the same wages and benefits in a RTW climate. Those nice and generous corporations wouldn't change a single thing.

 

After reading your posts about why you personally are so in the tank for your union I've come to the conclusion that you're every it as greedy as you claim the corporate heads are.

[marvel]

I disagree with the notion that it isn't against unions. The right to work movement is completely about busting unions and giving management more leverage with salary and benefits. I'm not sure where you got those numbers from but I don't believe they are correct. Plus we have a history in our country of people being killed for union membership and strikes so I don't get that argument either.

 

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[11]

 

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.

The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.

The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

[edit] ComparisonsThe United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2011 Occupational Employment and Wages Estimates[26], shows median hourly wages of all 22 Right to Work States (RTW) and all 28 Collective-Bargaining States (CBS) as follows:

 

Occupation Median wages in Right-to-work states Median wages in Collective-bargaining states Difference

All occupations $15.31/hour $16.89/hour -$1.58/hour (-9.4%)

Middle school teacher $49,306/year $55,863/year -$6557/year (-11.7%)

Computer support specialist $46,306/year $50,641/year -$4335/year (-8.6%)

 

Romney‘s claim that ‘right to work’ states get more ‘good jobs’ - The Washington Post

.

 

I should of mentioned it before so you didn't spend the time doing this post.

 

You are correct that non RTW states make, on average, more money. However, cost of living was not factored in with your link. When you factor in the cost of living in an area, RTW states provide more money.

[75center]

Koch Brothers are evil. Unions are evil. Everybody happy?

[PurplePride92]

Funny how I don't read where anyone has coerced a vote. What they said was that if Obama was re-elected there was a good chance people would lose their jobs. Big difference. I'll bet your holier then thou union would never do anything so underhanded and has never stated that if Romney were elected it could be bad for the worker have they?

 

:lol: :lol:

 

AT LEAST over half of my local union is voting for Romney. :lol: :lol:

 

The district reps and national reps do talk that Obama is good Romney is bad stuff. That is true. Unlike the Koch brothers they can't lay me off or fire me because their guy didn't win. That's the real difference.

Edited October 15, 2012 by PurplePride92

[PurplePride92]

After reading your posts about why you personally are so in the tank for your union I've come to the conclusion that you're every it as greedy as you claim the corporate heads are.

 

I defend my local on here and how we operate. You'd be surprised at how 'in the tank' I am for Steelworkers. I take care of my local. Period. And I refuse to stand by and let you take unwarranted shots at my local just because we are in a union and because some unionized clerk at Kroger was having a bad day or because you don't like the Jefferson County Teacher's Association. My local has done absolutely nothing to bother you at all. I will continue to defend my local union against your angst filled posts about unions. Sorry you struggle to grasp that. Anyone can read these exchanges and see who his antagonizing who.

 

Your greed sentence is laughable. My 165 monthly salary for being local president exemplifies my greed to the fullest. Good call on that one. You busted me.

[PurplePride92]

I should of mentioned it before so you didn't spend the time doing this post.

 

You are correct that non RTW states make, on average, more money. However, cost of living was not factored in with your link. When you factor in the cost of living in an area, RTW states provide more money.

 

We receive a cost of living raise yearly. How does that factor in?

[formerkywrestler]

 

I defend my local on here and how we operate. You'd be surprised at how 'in the tank' I am for Steelworkers. I take care of my local. Period. And I refuse to stand by and let you take unwarranted shots at my local just because we are in a union and because some unionized clerk at Kroger was having a bad day or because you don't like the Jefferson County Teacher's Association. My local has done absolutely nothing to bother you at all. I will continue to defend my local union against your angst filled posts about unions. Sorry you struggle to grasp that. Anyone can read these exchanges and see who his antagonizing who.

 

Your greed sentence is laughable. My 165 monthly salary for being local president exemplifies my greed to the fullest. Good call on that one. You busted me.

 

Frank Sobotka would be damn proud of this post!

[marvel]

We receive a cost of living raise yearly. How does that factor in?

 

Each state has a higher cost of living or standard of living, so they are, most likely, going to have different wages. Most non RTW states have annual income at a higher rate -- but it is more expensive to live in those areas. That income isn't nearly as powerful as in RTW states where, even though average income was higher, purchasing power is better because they get more for their money.

 

 

Is your union considered a labor union?

[PurplePride92]

Frank Sobotka would be damn proud of this post!

 

I loved that dude.

[PurplePride92]

Each state has a higher cost of living or standard of living, so they are, most likely, going to have different wages. Most non RTW states have annual income at a higher rate -- but it is more expensive to live in those areas. That income isn't nearly as powerful as in RTW states where, even though average income was higher, purchasing power is better because they get more for their money.

 

 

Is your union considered a labor union?

 

 

To a certain extent. We provide the labor for Corning Incorporated and that is it. We are backed by Steelworkers. We used to be backed by AFL-CIO but they 'merged'(went under) with the Steelworkers. There are multiple locals that provide the labor for the Corning plants here in the USA. I believe there are seven locals in all. Our relationship with the other locals and the Steelworkers is interesting to say the least. We're cordial.

 

If I no longer worked here at Corning I would not be obligated or made to go work in another union.

[leatherneck]

I've worked in/help run companies with union labor and companies without union labor. Both have their advantages. I've seen the dedication and commitment up front and personal of union workers. Almost every union worker I experienced was top notch, well trained and dedicated. There were a few, very few, that weren't. Having to deal with the union procedures in dealing with the few that weren't, bothered me I'll admit (but won't give examples). But fortunately, I didn't have to deal with that issue much at all. It was also great having the union bench to call on when we needed a bunch of qualified workers fast. All in all, the union workers I dealt with were top notch workers and great family men.

 

I also dealt with non-union labor. Most of them were top notch, well trained and dedicated also. Contrary to what we had been told, I saw non-union welders that could weld every bit as good as the best union welders. But, finding those folks took time and there was a lot more trial and error. Also, when you had to lay off some of the non-union workers for any significant period of time, unlike the union worker that either went on the bench or took a job with another local contractor and remained in the area, the non-union worker may have to leave the area to find work and not be available when you needed him back. That sucked.

 

Personally I think there is a place for both in the U.S business place. The union workforce had its advantages, but so did the non union workforce.

 

I fully understand the role of the union in making sure it's members got paid properly, then again, I as an employer liked being able to tell one of my non-union workers that showed up in my office one day after work asking me why he wasn't paid as much as another non union worker working for us. I looked him in the eye and said it was because he wasn't as good of a welder as the other guy and that if he improved his welding, I'd gladly pay him as much. He sat there for a minute, acknowledged he wasn't as good of a welder and said he'd get better. He did and when he did, I started paying him as much as the other welder he referenced. With the union employee, you pay your worst worker the same as the best worker and that always bothered me. Fortunately, we didn't have many bad union workers so it wasn't a real big problem. But it did bother me when I saw the occasional slacker and if the bench was empty, we had to keep him.

 

I'll admit that in these tough economic times with high unemployment it's a little different, but I don't believe the hard working, dedicated workers need a union to protect them from the greedy business owner. Good, hard working workers will leave the employment of greedy, unfair owners and find employment with employers that will treat them fairly. The law of supply and demand and survival of the fittest will take over and eventually the greedy, unfair business owner will go out of business because he/she won't be able to keep the best workers. Any business that can't keep its good workers is doomed to fail. It's just a matter of time. Those owners that treat their employees fairly will survive and prosper. I've seen it happen many, many times.

 

From what I read in the article, I've got no problem with what was sent to the workers. Maybe I missed it, but it seemed to me that the letters and info merely told the workers how the owners felt about the two candidates and their likely impact on the businesses' future. Seems fair and upfront to me. Heck, years ago when a collective bargaining agreement was going to expire and we heard talk of an possible strike, we contacted all of our union workers and asked them to vote against the strike and that if they did strike it was going to have a major negative impact on the company and their future jobs with us. It wasn't a threat; not at all. But we had been directly told by the purchasing manager of a major customer that if we didn't man the job (because of being out on strike), we would never step foot in the plant again. Because that affected us and our union workers, we wanted them to be educated about the impact of their vote. And to balance it out, if you don't think the UAW is telling its workers that President Obama saved the jobs of all the UAW workers at GM and they better vote for him to be re-elected, you're kidding yourself.