In post No. 104, I simply laid out the argument why it's better to be union than non-union when management wants to get rid of you for reasons unrelated to job performance. I get the impression that not many of the free-enterprise Republicans who frequent this thread have had much experience dealing with the dark side of corporate America.

 

You would be wrong, again.

Youse guys are too easy. Actually, there is some truth in that seemingly out-of-bounds Bangladesh statement. If bidding is opened up to all and everyone, then where does it stop?

 

Sorry but you are making those who back unions look really stupid if you are their spokesman.

 

Talking about building collapsing etc. So are you saying that non union companies do not have to follow any safety guidelines or are not held to building codes etc. or do not have to follow any sort of OSHA standards, or never have to have any inspections done? Because with idiotic statements that if a non union company is awarded a contract to build a building in Cincinnati that they somehow become exempt from all the standards that they are supposed to follow in the first place.

 

Do us a favor and try to bring facts with you next time you post about this subject. Also I would like to add, I bet you anything that a structural collapse in the united states where either a bridge failed, a building failed or any structure failed, I bet you anything that some of those failures were originally built by union workers also. Just sayin

Sorry but you are making those who back unions look really stupid if you are their spokesman.

 

Talking about building collapsing etc. So are you saying that non union companies do not have to follow any safety guidelines or are not held to building codes etc. or do not have to follow any sort of OSHA standards, or never have to have any inspections done? Because with idiotic statements that if a non union company is awarded a contract to build a building in Cincinnati that they somehow become exempt from all the standards that they are supposed to follow in the first place.

 

Do us a favor and try to bring facts with you next time you post about this subject. Also I would like to add, I bet you anything that a structural collapse in the united states where either a bridge failed, a building failed or any structure failed, I bet you anything that some of those failures were originally built by union workers also. Just sayin

I thought this thread was dead. Must have been a boring morning for you news-wise.

Re: collapsing buildings and such: The question isn't about union vs. non-union. The question is about degrees of non-union. (Revisit posts 93 and 95.) At the high end of non-union you have quality workers. At the low end of non-union you have friends of red-state governors who underbid all, then buy old school buses and haul in $8-an-hour ne'er-do-wells. Is there a safety concern with the latter? You tell me.

I thought this thread was dead. Must have been a boring morning for you news-wise.

Re: collapsing buildings and such: The question isn't about union vs. non-union. The question is about degrees of non-union. (Revisit posts 93 and 95.) At the high end of non-union you have quality workers. At the low end of non-union you have friends of red-state governors who underbid all, then buy old school buses and haul in $8-an-hour ne'er-do-wells. Is there a safety concern with the latter? You tell me.

No different safety issues that exist with any company, whether it's union or non union. If you don't think there are safety issues that cover the entire spectrum then you have had your head in the sand much too long.

 

So please try and explain how a union contractor's bridge built is any safer than a non union company's bridge. They both have to go through the same inspections.

 

Let me put it to you the same way you posed your questions. At the high end non union you have expert workers, at the low end union company you have slobs who could care less about the quality of work but are more interested in getting extended breaks. If you want to make up non factual points, I can do the same.

I love these union threads. Oh in case anyone forgot, I'm as anti-union as anyone on here. And I was a member of the Teamsters for 12 years!:lol2:

I love these union threads. Oh in case anyone forgot, I'm as anti-union as anyone on here. And I was a member of the Teamsters for 12 years!:lol2:

I had never had much use for my "international" either. On the other hand, I'm thankful that we had a strong local.

I had never had much use for my "international" either. On the other hand, I'm thankful that we had a strong local.

 

Not me. I look back at the jokers that represented us and I have to shake my head. They were a joke.It's amazing how much better I have done for myself once I left the brotherhood, and went into management.:lol2:

I can't believe that anyone could be so obtuse as to argue against a well run apprenticeship program. The one that I attended has been around since at least 1927. These programs benefit both the worker and the Contractors that ultimately hire that properly trained worker . The Idea of an apprenticeship has been around for over 300 years or at least since colonial times .

 

So has the Constitution, which I can quote many on the left calling that document "outdated".