National Right to Work Act Petition

WinterBorn said:
"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?
Click to expand...

Maybe you could try talking about knitting, or bee keeping or how to make good snowballs. It would be just as dismissive as your reply to my post that you quoted.
 
Bfgrn said:
Maybe you could try talking about knitting, or bee keeping or how to make good snowballs. It would be just as dismissive as your reply to my post that you quoted.
Click to expand...

Hold on, you were the one who claimed that having a competent person on a jobsite was nothing more than a way to limit liability by the company.

And you were the one who dismissed my defense of the competent person program by saying "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". And now you refuse to explain why that person shouldn't be held responsible?



The topic of the thread is Right to Work petition. You have continued to claim that companies will explout workers and get them killed for profit, but refuse to discuss a very common safety procedure that has saved many lives. If a competent person is onsite and someone is killed, why would they not be held responsible?
 
WinterBorn said:
Hold on, you were the one who claimed that having a competent person on a jobsite was nothing more than a way to limit liability by the company.

And you were the one who dismissed my defense of the competent person program by saying "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". And now you refuse to explain why that person shouldn't be held responsible?



The topic of the thread is Right to Work petition. You have continued to claim that companies will explout workers and get them killed for profit, but refuse to discuss a very common safety procedure that has saved many lives. If a competent person is onsite and someone is killed, why would they not be held responsible?
Click to expand...

Listen WB, you are not the moderator, you are a participant. The original point of our discussion was 'do unions make for a safer workplace'. I brought documented proof that in the mining industry, the difference is so much in favor of unions making for a safer work place, that it is literally a life and death difference.

I will be happy to address the competent person further, because you failed to understand my contention, but I will not let you ignore the original topic.
 
Bfgrn said:
Listen WB, you are not the moderator, you are a participant. The original point of our discussion was 'do unions make for a safer workplace'. I brought documented proof that in the mining industry, the difference is so much in favor of unions making for a safer work place, that it is literally a life and death difference.

I will be happy to address the competent person further, because you failed to understand my contention, but I will not let you ignore the original topic.
Click to expand...

Funny how you want to stick to one tiny portion of the working world. But you won't allow me to discuss a topic that you brought up.

Ok, how about I admit that its safer to work in a union underground mine? Better?

Now, concerning the competent person, would you care to answer the questions or are you going to continue to dodge and dance?
 
Bf, this thread is about whether unions make for a safer workplace. Your position is based on the assumption that companies do not care if people are hurt or killed.

But then you take a good safety law, like the competent person plan, and try to make it look as if companies only use it to escape liability.

Now you refuse to discuss your comment "...It 'can' make for safer job sites, but being a competent person is basically a law to create scapegoats to protect corporations from litigation".



So as long as we are discussing a very narrow subtopic, you are all in. But when you are called on your bullshit, you run? lmao

Why am I not surprised.
 
WinterBorn said:
Funny how you want to stick to one tiny portion of the working world. But you won't allow me to discuss a topic that you brought up.

Ok, how about I admit that its safer to work in a union underground mine? Better?

Now, concerning the competent person, would you care to answer the questions or are you going to continue to dodge and dance?
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that union mines are much safer.

I am not dodging or dancing. I am telling you why that designation can be used as a way to drag people into court and deflect litigation against corporations.

If I am on a job site for 10 minutes to see a contractor, and an accident happens within my view, it might be another contractor or sub that I am not there to see. I am not there, nor employed to evaluate the safety procedures of every contractor and sub on every job site I visit.
 
Bfgrn said:
Thank you for admitting that union mines are much safer.

I am not dodging or dancing. I am telling you why that designation can be used as a way to drag people into court and deflect litigation against corporations.

If I am on a job site for 10 minutes to see a contractor, and an accident happens within my view, it might be another contractor or sub that I am not there to see. I am not there, nor employed to evaluate the safety procedures of every contractor and sub on every job site I visit.
Click to expand...

And you are not the competent person for that workzone, so it would not have any effect on you.
 
Bfgrn said:
That is not the way it was explained to me.
Click to expand...

Then someone explained it wrong.

Do you know teh definition for a "competent person"?

"Competent person means one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them." Since you do not have the authority to take prompt corrective measures, you would not be a competent person on that jobsite. Therefore, you could not be held liable. You might be called as a witness and your knowledge used to show negligence of the competent person onsite. But you are not liable under the competent person rules.

Simply completing the training does not designate you a competent person. Only the company can do that. And it is done for the safety of the employees.
 
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...

I was able to find this....

Last year, 78 percent of the nation's underground coal mines -- and 96 percent in Kentucky -- were non-union.
Click to expand...

so, if 22% of mines were unionized and 27% of injuries to underground miners were union members, doesn't that actually mean union members are at a higher risk?....

http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/dust/dust_companies_nonunion.html
 
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...
Yes, yes, yes and we've seen company towns, child labor, unsafe work conditions, brutal and harsh work environments, etc, etc. Come on Winter. You know as well as I do that not business owners and employers are exactly saints either. I know all to damned well that with out the proper regulatory frame work in place and with the pressures for short term profits being what they are we would all be working for low wages, with out benefits and in unsafe work environments if it was permitted.

So now we have the regulatory frame work in place that protects workers and employees and ensures they have a stake and a place at the table? How did that come about when it didn't exist before?

It came about from the work of unions and the right to collectively bargain.

Now, you know I'm as familiar about the regulatory framework in EH&S as you are, so tell me, what happens to that regulatory framework when the social institution that brought about the enactments of these legislation is eroded to the point to where it no longer functions? Do you think that this won't impact the regulatory framework for these protections and that we wouldn't see subsequent erosions of these standards we take for granted now?

I can assure you we would and then we wouldn't have the social institutions such as unions to protect workers. We'd have to start all over again.

Winter Unions are no different then any other social institutions. They have their flaws but they are still are best safe guard against the unregulated financial power of corporations and big business.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes, yes, yes and we've seen company towns, child labor, unsafe work conditions, brutal and harsh work environments, etc, etc. Come on Winter. You know as well as I do that not business owners and employers are exactly saints either. I know all to damned well that with out the proper regulatory frame work in place and with the pressures for short term profits being what they are we would all be working for low wages, with out benefits and in unsafe work environments if it was permitted.

So now we have the regulatory frame work in place that protects workers and employees and ensures they have a stake and a place at the table? How did that come about when it didn't exist before?

It came about from the work of unions and the right to collectively bargain.

Now, you know I'm as familiar about the regulatory framework in EH&S as you are, so tell me, what happens to that regulatory framework when the social institution that brought about the enactments of these legislation is eroded to the point to where it no longer functions? Do you think that this won't impact the regulatory framework for these protections and that we wouldn't see subsequent erosions of these standards we take for granted now?

I can assure you we would and then we wouldn't have the social institutions such as unions to protect workers. We'd have to start all over again.

Winter Unions are no different then any other social institutions. They have their flaws but they are still are best safe guard against the unregulated financial power of corporations and big business.
Click to expand...

I have always said that the unions were great institutions in their day. But for the majority of industries, that day is in the past.

Back in the day, the company owned the town and there was no way to make the rest of the world aware of bad conditions. That is certainly not the case now.

And with the creation of OSHA in 1973, there is a better avenue for creating and enforcing most safety regs. The union's job is to create a hostile environment between mgmt and workers. If that isn't there, they have no power.

I am not saying unions are all bad. What I have argued with is the blatantly false info put out to try and make unions seem to be the only safeguard that workers have.
 
Mott, the main point I would like to make to you is that, while I am no fan of unions, I do see that they have had their place. But if you read over the statements made by Bfoon, you will see that he has tried to make unions look like saviors and companies look like villains. That sort of black & white nonsense is absolutely untrue.

And several of his examples turned out to be either wrong or misleading as hell.
 
If one is of the working class and would vote for a National Right To Work Law (what an oxymoron) you'd have to be an idiot of stupendous proportions. I've lived and worked in factories in the south and the north and the northern workers have wages, working conditions, quality of life and a standard of living substantially above their southern counterparts.

The change you're going to be seeing in the future is that unions, as with the economy, are going to be more service based, then manufacturing based.

The main reason I'm pro union even though I'm educated, skilled and in the professional class is that when unions drive up the standard of living for working class people it also drives up the market for those in the skilled and professional class.

Right to work laws are just another way of busting unions and collective bargaining.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
If one is of the working class and would vote for a National Right To Work Law (what an oxymoron) you'd have to be an idiot of stupendous proportions. I've lived and worked in factories in the south and the north and the northern workers have wages, working conditions, quality of life and a standard of living substantially above their southern counterparts.

The change you're going to be seeing in the future is that unions, as with the economy, are going to be more service based, then manufacturing based.

The main reason I'm pro union even though I'm educated, skilled and in the professional class is that when unions drive up the standard of living for working class people it also drives up the market for those in the skilled and professional class.

Right to work laws are just another way of busting unions and collective bargaining.
Click to expand...


Now I can respect that sort of opinion, even if I disagree with it.

You stayed away from the inflammatory and inacurate stuff, like "competent person laws are just for making scapegoats" ect.
 
WinterBorn said:
I have always said that the unions were great institutions in their day. But for the majority of industries, that day is in the past.

Back in the day, the company owned the town and there was no way to make the rest of the world aware of bad conditions. That is certainly not the case now.

And with the creation of OSHA in 1973, there is a better avenue for creating and enforcing most safety regs. The union's job is to create a hostile environment between mgmt and workers. If that isn't there, they have no power.

I am not saying unions are all bad. What I have argued with is the blatantly false info put out to try and make unions seem to be the only safeguard that workers have.
Click to expand...

You're putting the cart before the horse Winter. What I'm saying is that with out the agitation by the working classes and union representation we'd have no OSHA. Don't forget that and with out collective bargaining rights for working people I can guarentee you that corporate interest, and I'm not trying to demonize them, will whittle that regulatory framework away in the ceaseless chase for profits.

To say that Unions are obsolete is a gross mischaracterization. As I stated in the previous post, we're seeing a shift of union representation to service industry from a manufacturing industry cause that's the way are economy has shifted and that's where the jobs are. Union are not obsolete because of this change in our economy rather you're seeing a decrease for unions in manufacturing cause automation has replaced huge numbers of unskilled workers who are no longer needed.

However in the skilled trades such as construction, plumbing, masonry, electricians, etc, unions are alive and well.

Look I'm a big believer in free enterprise but I also believe that those who actually produce deserve their fair cut of the pie and that hasn't been happening in this country for nearly 40 years now.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
If one is of the working class and would vote for a National Right To Work Law (what an oxymoron) you'd have to be an idiot of stupendous proportions. I've lived and worked in factories in the south and the north and the northern workers have wages, working conditions, quality of life and a standard of living substantially above their southern counterparts.

The change you're going to be seeing in the future is that unions, as with the economy, are going to be more service based, then manufacturing based.

The main reason I'm pro union even though I'm educated, skilled and in the professional class is that when unions drive up the standard of living for working class people it also drives up the market for those in the skilled and professional class.

Right to work laws are just another way of busting unions and collective bargaining.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of historical evidence of how unions have benefited ALL workers. But the argument: 'I support(ed) unions, but they served their purpose and their usefulness was in the past' is false. The need for unions will never subside. It is a naive fairy tale. The need for unions is based on human foible. Without unions, the workers were exploited and abused. You can't attribute all human virtues to one group and all human failings to another. Unless you believe the world should be a aristocracy.

Unions don't set the top wage, they set the bottom wage, the minimum benefits and workplace safety. The employer next door has the right to offer you more pay and benefits for your talent than a union shop...but not less.
 
Bfgrn said:
There is plenty of historical evidence of how unions have benefited ALL workers. But the argument: 'I support(ed) unions, but they served their purpose and their usefulness was in the past' is false. The need for unions will never subside. It is a naive fairy tale..
Click to expand...

You mean like your fairy tale of "competent persons are just scapegoats"?

Bfgrn said:
You can't attribute all human virtues to one group and all human failings to another. Unless you believe the world should be a aristocracy..
Click to expand...

Please point out where I have done that? I have acknowledged the usefulness of unions. You, however, continue to try and portray all corporations as evil and ready to exploit their workers.

Bfgrn said:
Unions don't set the top wage, they set the bottom wage, the minimum benefits and workplace safety. The employer next door has the right to offer you more pay and benefits for your talent than a union shop...but not less.
Click to expand...

Actually, in most places the employer next door has the right to set the wages wherever they choose. They tend to pay more for skilled labor because they want better workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top