This thread really isnt about the usefulness of unions overall. Its about how insane and stupid the actions of one particular group of idiots was . And somehow some people feel the workers had some right to cry about pizza bought out of the boss's pocket. It would serve them right to get fired over a matter just as minute as the pizza. Anyone who wars that hard against common sense needs canned.

Funny VOR seems to think diddling around on company time on BGP is ok , but being handed a free lunch is not OK. We can see where you stand on this for sure .

OK. I have read it all. Here is my thought.

 

Unions would not exist if companies valued and respected their employees. Unions have overstepped their bounds and behaved just as poorly as the company management they fight against. I know of a business where the union was so adversarial the company eventually closed the plant. I know of another business where the union is so embedded with management that they may as well not be there and good workers in poor conditions lose jobs without a peep from the union. There is plenty of blame to go around. I think unions serve a very valuable place and can help a business thrive if they function properly. The difficult part is finding that proper delicate balance where workers perform at their highest level and are satisfied with their working environment.

 

Bottom line on the question at hand - if business truly cared about their workers, unions would not exist and there would be no need for them. Since that is so rare, I believe unions should be in all businesses, but not as adversaries. They should be there to help the company be as profitable as possible, make sure the workers get their fair share of the profits and working conditions are safe and not abusive.

 

Disagree 100%.

 

Even though you said this with the caveat of being non-adversarial, eventually, it would come to that. Human nature.

" make sure the workers get their fair share of the profits and working conditions are safe and not abusive."

 

Wait . Did he just say the workers get a share of the profits ? Here is a newsflash for you . The owner(s) of the business get the profits . Workers get wages and even bonuses at least in my place that I own. There might even be profit sharing if there is anything left after paying 39% back to the govt. Some people will never ever cease to confound and amaze me at just how backward their thinking can be.

Funny VOR seems to think diddling around on company time on BGP is ok , but being handed a free lunch is not OK. We can see where you stand on this for sure .

 

Well done. You have graduated to proficiency level attacker in the Right Wing Twister's Club. Make words into what you want them to say. Keep at it and you will soon reach expert status.

Disagree 100%.

 

Even though you said this with the caveat of being non-adversarial, eventually, it would come to that. Human nature.

 

And the very reason why there are unions is also due to human nature - greed leads far too many owners and managers to put money above employees.

" make sure the workers get their fair share of the profits and working conditions are safe and not abusive."

 

Wait . Did he just say the workers get a share of the profits ? Here is a newsflash for you . The owner(s) of the business get the profits . Workers get wages and even bonuses at least in my place that I own. There might even be profit sharing if there is anything left after paying 39% back to the govt. Some people will never ever cease to confound and amaze me at just how backward their thinking can be.

 

I am looking at the wages and bonuses of workers as their fair share of the profits. Is that backward thinking?

 

You are probably considering them an expense. Accounting and semantics.

And the very reason why there are unions is also due to human nature - greed leads far too many owners and managers to put money above employees.

 

Many unions have outlived their usefulness. They inflate wages for American workers and help send many jobs overseas. See the auto industry for a perfect example of this.

Many unions have outlived their usefulness. They inflate wages for American workers and help send many jobs overseas. See the auto industry for a perfect example of this.

You have any more broad-brush cliches in your hip pocket?

You have any more broad-brush cliches in your hip pocket?

 

I know you are one that dislikes facts.

I have offered up a plausible reason why this grievance proceeded. Your anti-union bias is getting the better of you. Sounds like the next time management needs to honor the contract and furnish an adequate lunch, foot-long Subways might make more sense than two slices of pizza per person. Big men framing houses burn a lot of calories in this weather.

 

Your Union indoctrination is getting the better of you, you're making up contract provisions to justify the stupidity of the grievance.

OK. I have read it all. Here is my thought.

 

Unions would not exist if companies valued and respected their employees. Unions have overstepped their bounds and behaved just as poorly as the company management they fight against. I know of a business where the union was so adversarial the company eventually closed the plant. I know of another business where the union is so embedded with management that they may as well not be there and good workers in poor conditions lose jobs without a peep from the union. There is plenty of blame to go around. I think unions serve a very valuable place and can help a business thrive if they function properly. The difficult part is finding that proper delicate balance where workers perform at their highest level and are satisfied with their working environment.

 

Bottom line on the question at hand - if business truly cared about their workers, unions would not exist and there would be no need for them. Since that is so rare, I believe unions should be in all businesses, but not as adversaries. They should be there to help the company be as profitable as possible, make sure the workers get their fair share of the profits and working conditions are safe and not abusive.

Why would or should employees get a "fair share" of profits?

Why would or should employees get a "fair share" of profits?

 

Because without them there wouldn't be any profits. Let's not act like unions are breaking these companies.

You miss the point. Reread post 82. The fact that the pizza was paid for by a company supervisor is not relevant. CWB made his initial post (#7) to add gasoline to the union bash then under way. I challenged his management version of the pizza story and asked for more info. Didn't get any.

 

I have offered up a plausible reason why this grievance proceeded. Your anti-union bias is getting the better of you. Sounds like the next time management needs to honor the contract and furnish an adequate lunch, foot-long Subways might make more sense than two slices of pizza per person. Big men framing houses burn a lot of calories in this weather.

 

What other info would you like? Ask any question you want, and I'll do the best I can to answer.

 

Also, I looked into it...two slices of Papa John's 14" pepperoni pizza is 620 calories, 26g protein, and 76g carbs, and 26g fat. Add in 160 calories, 2g protein, 15g carbs, and 10g fat for a serving of Lays potato chips (there was far more than 1 serving available per person).

 

And if any of our guys are framing houses...or any other kind of building for that matter, then I want to know about it, because they sure as hell aren't doing their jobs.

Because without them there wouldn't be any profits. Let's not act like unions are breaking these companies.

I assume you are saying that they should get a share of the profits, that are above and beyond their agreed upon wages?