National Right to Work Act Petition

Bfgrn said:
Question: Chuck Nelson, this is a non-union mine. What does that mean?

CHUCK NELSON: Well, it means that, you know, the worker, when he was told to do something, that you cannot file a grievance. Absolute bullshit. Any worker can file a grievance or complaint with MSHA or OSHA. And it is against the law to fire or discipline a worker for doing so. You had to more or less do what you say—what they tell you to do, or else they’ll tell you, “Well, we have a man to replace you for the next day. You can just go home. You don’t need this job anymore.”

Whereas at a union mine, you have a union representation. You have a union fire boss. At a non-union mine, the fire boss is regulated by the company person, a salary person. The salaried person is not part of the "family"? The ONLY reason that would be true is that the union works to prevent salaried persons and hourly persons from getting along. And the salaried "fire boss" is in the mine daily doing inspections, for which he can be held liable. The union "fire boss" is often exempt from that liability. So who stands to lose more for shoddy inspections?So, you know, being from a union mine and having a union fire boss to go in and inspect the mines, he had a lot more—a lot more care about his job, because it’s his co-workers, it’s his brothers that he’s working with, side by side. And working in the mines, you become a family. I mean, these are really close-tied individuals. And, you know, it was—the difference between working at a union mine and a non-union mine is just like day and night.

More
Click to expand...

.
 
WinterBorn said:
.
Click to expand...
Tell me Winterborn. How well do those whistle blower laws work and would you be willing to test those waters? I've passed that test and it was one of the toughest decisions of my life cause not only was it my reputation and career at stake but those of about 30 other people.

I can tell you this about whistle blower laws. There not worth a warm bucket of spit and you're an idiot if you think they'll protect you from retaliation.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Tell me Winterborn. How well do those whistle blower laws work and would you be willing to test those waters? I've passed that test and it was one of the toughest decisions of my life cause not only was it my reputation and career at stake but those of about 30 other people.

I can tell you this about whistle blower laws. There not worth a warm bucket of spit and you're an idiot if you think they'll protect you from retaliation.
Click to expand...

I know of two people who have kept their jobs after contacting OSHA concerning safety violations. Unfortunately, I also know of at least one who didn't.

The sad fact is, if the company wants you gone you will probably be gone. It mainly depends on whether or not they are willing to face the hassles involved.

But would a union guarantee that you kept your job?
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
.
Click to expand...

Pretty sad WB...you have discounted the value of a human life to faulty talking points. Anyone who has ever been in the workplace knows the culture of intimidation and job security that can occur.

Want Safer Mines? Unionize Them

It isn't a matter a matter of speculation. If you're an underground coal miner, your chances of emerging alive at the end of your shift are better if you work in a union mine than if you don't.

A report from the March 28, 2007, hearing on Protecting the Health and Safety of America's Mine Workers released by the House Committee on Education and Labor contains the following statistics for the five-year period of 2002-2006:

Underground coal injuries: 19,282

In union mines: 5,362 (or 27.8% of total)

Underground coal fatalities: 109

In union mines: 22 (or 20.2%)

According to the United Mine Workers of America, in 2007-2009, there were 45 underground coal-mining fatalities. Six of these were in union mines. Thus, for the 15-year period, less than one-fifth of the fatalities occurred in union mines.

Four years ago, Charles McCollester, then a professor in the Department of Industrial and Labor Relations at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, wrote:

In a non-union mine, the inspector has no back-up. It's his word against the company. The union has the right to accompany inspectors and provide documentation and testimony. The heart of the union presence, the local Mine Committee, meets monthly, receives additional training, has the right to inspect any part of the mine including its access, and must perform full inspections at least every two months.

Critically, workers in a union mine are not afraid to speak. In a non-union operation, asking questions or challenging company mining practices or safety procedures can lead to termination. The company's fear of knowledgeable, independent inspections was illustrated in their attempt to bar the entry of UMWA representatives at Sago [where 12 miners were killed in 2006].

In fact, union mines may have a higher number of citations for safety violations than non-union mines. That is because union inspectors accompany Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors when they check out a mine. They are far less likely to pass over problem situations than are inspectors who are being pressed by company officials to finish up and get out of their hair so they can get back to digging. Union inspectors seek those citations because they want to prevent injury and death.

In non-union mines, it's not just an issue of operators not being pro-active on safety issues. It is, as the Associated Press reported today, a case of ferociously fighting citations of safety violations and fines levied by MSHA. Those citations and fines got tougher after Sago.
 
Bfgrn said:
Pretty sad WB...you have discounted the value of a human life to faulty talking points. Anyone who has ever been in the workplace knows the culture of intimidation and job security that can occur.
Click to expand...

I reduced it to talking points? No, I asked questions and made points.

I am not playing games with it, nor am I simply working on talking points. This is what I do for a living. I spend most of my life away from my family to make sure people are not hurt earning a living. I work with union and non-union jobs. I have not seen any significant difference in the two in my industry, as far as safety goes. In fact, changes often come quicker to non-union jobs.
 
It's Union Busting!

unions-end.jpg
 
AssHatZombie said:
Considering the low percentages of unionization, it's pretty fraudulent to assert that jobs go overseas due to "unions". its actually the relatively cheaper labor costs due to political oppression that drives them overseas.

your pet globalization stupidity is the real driver of outsourcing. STop being a liar.
Click to expand...

Unions do drive jobs overseas.:)
 
WinterBorn said:
I reduced it to talking points? No, I asked questions and made points.

I am not playing games with it, nor am I simply working on talking points. This is what I do for a living. I spend most of my life away from my family to make sure people are not hurt earning a living. I work with union and non-union jobs. I have not seen any significant difference in the two in my industry, as far as safety goes. In fact, changes often come quicker to non-union jobs.
Click to expand...

I don't know what 'industries' you were involved with, nor do I know if you were hired by companies to improve safety or if you were in an inspection role for an agency like OSHA. If you were hired to improve safety, that would signal the company was either taking a proactive approach to safety, or being heavily penalized for a poor safety record by insurance providers and/or facing sanctions by the lending institutions that finances their business. I would expect in either case there would be little or no difference between a union or non union shop instituting change.

But in the real world of industry where neither above cases exist, the statistics scream loudly that unions are an agent and advocate for the safety of the workers. And the statistics clearly support that fact and they don't support what you 'feel'. Especially in lethally hazardous jobs like coal mining. Union mine safety for human beings vs. non union mines is not even close.

In my field of construction equipment sales, we added trench boxes to our equipment line. We were required to take competent person training. It 'can' make for safer job sites, but being a competent person is basically a law to create scapegoats to protect corporations from litigation.
 
Topspin said:
If I were in the group suffering the high unemployment I'd want a union even more than I currently wish for. However, unemployment hasn't dipped below 5% for college educated. The mind is a terrible thing to waist, some of these GED's just have terrible minds.
Click to expand...

Yep, you really have "waisted" yours. :whoa:
 
Bfgrn said:
I don't know what 'industries' you were involved with, nor do I know if you were hired by companies to improve safety or if you were in an inspection role for an agency like OSHA. If you were hired to improve safety, that would signal the company was either taking a proactive approach to safety, or being heavily penalized for a poor safety record by insurance providers and/or facing sanctions by the lending institutions that finances their business. I would expect in either case there would be little or no difference between a union or non union shop instituting change.

But in the real world of industry where neither above cases exist, the statistics scream loudly that unions are an agent and advocate for the safety of the workers. And the statistics clearly support that fact and they don't support what you 'feel'. Especially in lethally hazardous jobs like coal mining. Union mine safety for human beings vs. non union mines is not even close.

In my field of construction equipment sales, we added trench boxes to our equipment line. We were required to take competent person training. It 'can' make for safer job sites, but being a competent person is basically a law to create scapegoats to protect corporations from litigation.
Click to expand...

I work for a company that takes a proactive roll in safety. Injuries and deaths are a good way to see a company go bankrupt, so it can either be a financial decision or a corporation that cares about its employees. Not being at the board meetings or privie to the top people's conversations, I cannot say for sure which it is. But the results are the same.

The competent person is most certainly NOT a scapegoat to protect corporations. How can having a person in a position of authority on a jobsite with the training and skills to recognize the hazards, be anything but a huge protection for the workers?

You think unions are the answer? I was involved in some work several years agon, in which a union claimed a worker had the necessary training and experience. Since the worker had retired from a major power provider, my company took their word for it. We only found out that he hadn't ever worked on energized high voltage lines when he was killed on the job. Had the union released his training records, he would never have been on that job. With protection like that, I'll take my chances on my own.

Or the Gulf States papermill in Tuscaloosa. The union pushed for a strike for higher wages. It was already one of the highest paying jobs in town. The owner of the mill told the workers that the mill needed to be refurbished, and that he would discuss pay raises after that. He had never been anything but decent to the workers but he told them he would not be held hostage. The union pushed for a strike. It took 6 votes from the membership to get the required number of votes to strike. That mill never reopened. the workers? The union guys left them looking for work, and most never recovered. While the top union men were relocated to another place to do it all over again.

I've seen what unions can do. They require that there be conflict between mgmt and workers, and will do all they can to foster it.
 
WinterBorn said:
I work for a company that takes a proactive roll in safety. Injuries and deaths are a good way to see a company go bankrupt, so it can either be a financial decision or a corporation that cares about its employees. Not being at the board meetings or privie to the top people's conversations, I cannot say for sure which it is. But the results are the same.

The competent person is most certainly NOT a scapegoat to protect corporations. How can having a person in a position of authority on a jobsite with the training and skills to recognize the hazards, be anything but a huge protection for the workers?

You think unions are the answer? I was involved in some work several years agon, in which a union claimed a worker had the necessary training and experience. Since the worker had retired from a major power provider, my company took their word for it. We only found out that he hadn't ever worked on energized high voltage lines when he was killed on the job. Had the union released his training records, he would never have been on that job. With protection like that, I'll take my chances on my own.

Or the Gulf States papermill in Tuscaloosa. The union pushed for a strike for higher wages. It was already one of the highest paying jobs in town. The owner of the mill told the workers that the mill needed to be refurbished, and that he would discuss pay raises after that. He had never been anything but decent to the workers but he told them he would not be held hostage. The union pushed for a strike. It took 6 votes from the membership to get the required number of votes to strike. That mill never reopened. the workers? The union guys left them looking for work, and most never recovered. While the top union men were relocated to another place to do it all over again.

I've seen what unions can do. They require that there be conflict between mgmt and workers, and will do all they can to foster it.
Click to expand...

Your bias, one sided and undocumented stories hold no sway. Provide some links; local newspaper stories etc. My search for information on the Gulf States paper mill closing came up empty.

On the other hand, I have provided documented proof that in coal mines, the safety of the worker is VASTLY better in union mines.

Your personal BIAS is not proof of anything.
 
Bfgrn said:
Your bias, one sided and undocumented stories hold no sway. Provide some links; local newspaper stories etc. My search for information on the Gulf States paper mill closing came up empty.

On the other hand, I have provided documented proof that in coal mines, the safety of the worker is VASTLY better in union mines.

Your personal BIAS is not proof of anything.
Click to expand...

I will not post links to the death of the power worker. The Gulf States papermill closing was as I stated. If you cannot find it you haven't searched well. It happened in the 1970s.

My bias is due to years of work in the field with both union and non-union shops.




I am still waiting to hear anything about having a competent person onsite being bad. You claim it is simply a scapegoat, but neglected to explain why having a trained person in a position of authority is bad for the workers.
 
WinterBorn said:
I will not post links to the death of the power worker. The Gulf States papermill closing was as I stated. If you cannot find it you haven't searched well. It happened in the 1970s.

My bias is due to years of work in the field with both union and non-union shops.




I am still waiting to hear anything about having a competent person onsite being bad. You claim it is simply a scapegoat, but neglected to explain why having a trained person in a position of authority is bad for the workers.
Click to expand...

I did search well. There is nothing about it. I don't take your bias narrative as providing all the pertinent facts.

You continue to ignore my DOCUMENTED FACTS...what's up with that?

I agree a competent person on a job site is a good thing, but when there is an accident, it opens up that person to liability. As a salesman that visited job sites, my visits were brief and I was there to see a particular company. I may have been 'on' the site, but my business there was not to evaluate every company and sub on the site.
 
Bfgrn said:
I did search well. There is nothing about it. I don't take your bias narrative as providing all the pertinent facts.

You continue to ignore my DOCUMENTED FACTS...what's up with that?

I agree a competent person on a job site is a good thing, but when there is an accident, it opens up that person to liability. As a salesman that visited job sites, my visits were brief and I was there to see a particular company. I may have been 'on' the site, but my business there was not to evaluate every company and sub on the site.
Click to expand...

Yes I continue to ignore your union talking points. They lack facts just as much as my "personal biased" and anecdotes lack facts.

You quote the number of deaths and whatnot, from union or nonunion jobs, but do not show the actual numbers of union or non-union mines.

For example, if there are 5 deaths in union mines and 25 in non-union mines, you assume that shows unions to be saving lives. But if there are 10 union mines and 500 non-union mines, the number of deaths no longer shows that.

Also, you ignore the fact that unions have pushed for strikes which closed businesses and mines. Leaving the local populations to live in poverty, while the top union people move on. Or the vast amount of corruption that has been funded by union dues.




The competent person puts a trained person onsite. If there is an injury or death, and it is shown that the competent person did not do their job, then they SHOULD be sued or prosecuted. Why would you think otherwise?
 
Topspin said:
If I were in the group suffering the high unemployment I'd want a union even more than I currently wish for. However, unemployment hasn't dipped below 5% for college educated. The mind is a terrible thing to waist, some of these GED's just have terrible minds.
Click to expand...

irony can be delicious.....
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes I continue to ignore your union talking points. They lack facts just as much as my "personal biased" and anecdotes lack facts.

You quote the number of deaths and whatnot, from union or nonunion jobs, but do not show the actual numbers of union or non-union mines.

For example, if there are 5 deaths in union mines and 25 in non-union mines, you assume that shows unions to be saving lives. But if there are 10 union mines and 500 non-union mines, the number of deaths no longer shows that.

Also, you ignore the fact that unions have pushed for strikes which closed businesses and mines. Leaving the local populations to live in poverty, while the top union people move on. Or the vast amount of corruption that has been funded by union dues.




The competent person puts a trained person onsite. If there is an injury or death, and it is shown that the competent person did not do their job, then they SHOULD be sued or prosecuted. Why would you think otherwise?
Click to expand...

Union talking points? WOW, not only are you bias, you are too arrogant to even READ.

A report from the March 28, 2007, hearing on Protecting the Health and Safety of America's Mine Workers released by the House Committee on Education and Labor contains the following statistics for the five-year period of 2002-2006:
 
Bfgrn said:
Union talking points? WOW, not only are you bias, you are too arrogant to even READ.

A report from the March 28, 2007, hearing on Protecting the Health and Safety of America's Mine Workers released by the House Committee on Education and Labor contains the following statistics for the five-year period of 2002-2006:
Click to expand...

"The competent person puts a trained person onsite. If there is an injury or death, and it is shown that the competent person did not do their job, then they SHOULD be sued or prosecuted. Why would you think otherwise? "

Its funny that you want the companies held responsible for what happens on a jobsite away from their office, but somehow the competent person onsite shouldn't be held responsible for doing their job? If someone is hurt or killed due to the negligence of the competent person, what possible reason could you have for them not being sued or prosecuted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top