National Right to Work Act Petition

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.
Click to expand...

true....in the 1800s.....when self employed people also dealt with brutal harsh work environments and unsafe work conditions.....it wasn't unions that solved those problems, it was technology......
 
Bfgrn said:
Can you write 22% and 27% in a more expansive way?
Click to expand...

yes....only 2200 out of every 100000 underground coal mines are unionized but unfortunately 2700 out of every 100000 work related injuries involves a person working at a union mine....therefore 5000 out of every 100000 work related injuries disproportionately happens to a union member......

I can expand it more if you want me to.....
 
WinterBorn;
You mean like your fairy tale of "competent persons are just scapegoats"?

Hey WB, you gave me a better understanding of the competent person rules, I helped you see that unions make for much safer mines. Why the animosity?

WinterBorn;
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.

OK...
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."
Click to expand...

I am quite capable of articulating a nuanced view of corporations and businesses, who I don't believe fall into the same category. Your attempt to portray my views with a polarized statement tells me you either don't listen, or just don't care to...that would be an arrogance problem.

WinterBorn;
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.

Yes, the employer next door has the right to set the wages wherever they choose, but your claim 'They tend to pay more for skilled labor because they want better workers' is a false conclusion. IF the employer next door wants to attract more skilled labor and better workers, he MUST offer higher wages than the union shop.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes....only 2200 out of every 100000 underground coal mines are unionized but unfortunately 2700 out of every 100000 work related injuries involves a person working at a union mine....therefore 5000 out of every 100000 work related injuries disproportionately happens to a union member......

I can expand it more if you want me to.....
Click to expand...

Please do...start by telling me where you got the 22%. You are connecting two different set of statistics.
 
Bfgrn said:
Hey WB, you gave me a better understanding of the competent person rules, I helped you see that unions make for much safer mines. Why the animosity?
Click to expand...

First, go back and reread the thread. The animosity brought here was not started by me.

Second, I don't believe your statement about scapegoats was made with you showing up on jobsites in mind, nor do I think anyone told you that you would be liable for accidents on the jobsite. The first part of any competent person training is the definition.
 
WinterBorn said:
First, go back and reread the thread. The animosity brought here was not started by me.

Second, I don't believe your statement about scapegoats was made with you showing up on jobsites in mind, nor do I think anyone told you that you would be liable for accidents on the jobsite. The first part of any competent person training is the definition.
Click to expand...

What you believe and what you know are often disconnected. I was specifically concerned with showing up on a job site, being near an accident and being pulled into litigation. Years ago (early '90's) when our company began selling trench boxes; structures that are placed in an excavated trench to protect workers in the trench from cave ins, we were given specific definitions of what a cave in encompasses and competent person training. We were also given the impression that we were considered a competent person on any job site we showed up on.
 
Bfgrn said:
What you believe and what you know are often disconnected. I was specifically concerned with showing up on a job site, being near an accident and being pulled into litigation. Years ago (early '90's) when our company began selling trench boxes; structures that are placed in an excavated trench to protect workers in the trench from cave ins, we were given specific definitions of what a cave in encompasses and competent person training. We were also given the impression that we were considered a competent person on any job site we showed up on.
Click to expand...

And that led you to claim the competent person laws were written to create a scapegoat?
 
Bfgrn said:
Please do...start by telling me where you got the 22%. You are connecting two different set of statistics.
Click to expand...

????....post #50.....I subtracted 78 (the percentage of non union underground coal mines) from 100 (the percentage of all underground coal mines).....the result was 22 (the percentage of union underground coal mines.......
 
Bfgrn said:
Link?
Click to expand...

logic, Bfgrn.....if things got better both for self employed people and for union members isn't it likely that there's another reason things got better than unions?......there were some interesting developments since the 1800s.....things like electricity, so people didn't have to light their workplace with candles any more.....technology reduced the number of people injured in fires....things like telephones so they didn't have to hire kids to run messages through the streets.....technology reduced the number of children hit by carriages...let your imagination wander and you won't need a link.....

yes, life was a pain in the ass for factory workers.....it was also a pain in the ass for farmers and shopkeepers....and since the 1800s life got better for all of them.....

why credit it all to unions?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....post #50.....I subtracted 78 (the percentage of non union underground coal mines) from 100 (the percentage of all underground coal mines).....the result was 22 (the percentage of union underground coal mines.......
Click to expand...

You are using the statistics from one study and applying them to a different study, taken during different decades.

Albert Camus said: "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"

Did you READ the article you posted? If you did, there is no possible way you could conclude union miners are at greater risk.

Excerpt:

Small, non-union mines generally pay less, cheat more on dust tests and don't have union stewards demanding compliance with costly safety regulations, according to miners, safety advocates, academic studies and The Courier-Journal's computer analysis of 24,380 federal dust records.

For those reasons, the mines survive tough economic times better than the large, unionized companies that once dominated the coalfields.

And the result is miners at small, non-union operations are more likely to develop black-lung disease than miners at large mines.

"I won't say that every non-union mine cheats on its dust sampling, but I'd sure like to see one that doesn't," said Tony Oppegard, directing attorney of the Mine Safety Project, a Lexington-based legal-aid organization devoted to helping miners.


UNION VS. NON-UNION
Miners reluctant to act with no workplace voice

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

Operators of union mines who scrimp on safety must deal with determined union stewards, who often call government inspectors if a problem isn't corrected.

Non-union miners who complain are often fired and blackballed, which makes it almost impossible to get another job in a nearby mine, miners said. So most don't complain.

The result is a dramatic difference in working conditions between union and non-union mines. Rates of deaths and serious injuries from accidents and black lung are all higher in small mines, which are usually non-union, than in large, often-unionized mines, according to government studies presented at a 1994 conference on small mines. These studies define small mines as those with fewer than 50 workers.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
logic, Bfgrn.....if things got better both for self employed people and for union members isn't it likely that there's another reason things got better than unions?......there were some interesting developments since the 1800s.....things like electricity, so people didn't have to light their workplace with candles any more.....technology reduced the number of people injured in fires....things like telephones so they didn't have to hire kids to run messages through the streets.....technology reduced the number of children hit by carriages...let your imagination wander and you won't need a link.....

yes, life was a pain in the ass for factory workers.....it was also a pain in the ass for farmers and shopkeepers....and since the 1800s life got better for all of them.....

why credit it all to unions?.....
Click to expand...

I never gave all the credit to unions. I credited the working conditions that existed for the need for unions. Though technology played a role, it was not the genesis of the major social and political change that occurred. The progressive movement and the labor movement share the most credit.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
true....in the 1800s.....when self employed people also dealt with brutal harsh work environments and unsafe work conditions.....it wasn't unions that solved those problems, it was technology......
Click to expand...
You simply don't know what you're talking about PMP. I sat on my grandfathers knees and heard first hand the horror stories of workers being killed and maimed for life because it was viewed as cheaper to replace a killed or maimed employee then to implement appropriate safety procedures or equipment as well as the other abuses and outrages to their rights and dignity as a human being they had to suffer in order to simply provide for their families and my grandfather was no ordinary unskilled working stiff, he was a railroad conductor (and if you know anything about the RR's you should know what that means.) and this wasn't the 18th century it was the 1930's and 40's. You should also examine the historical record of all the major industrial safety initiatives legislated in our nation. They were all spear headed by organized labor and were aggressively opposed by trade and industry/business interests.

Also your comment about technology shows you don't understand the principles of safety in the workplace or how safety is managed in an industrial setting. You can ask Winter or myself or others who are professionals in the field that if you rely on technology alone for safety then your a damned fool. Not to down play the importance of technology in safety but all professionals in the field know that when it comes to driving safety outcomes the most important aspects are behavior and administrative controls. Engineering controls (technology) are your third (and least) most significant driver cause with out the appropriate behavior and administrative controls for safety whatever engineering controls (technology) you have doesn't mean a lot and thus will not be as significant a factor in driving safe work outcomes. So when you say technology solved the problem of unsafe work conditions you're quite wrong. It is having the correct administrative controls and promoting/teaching the appropriate work place behaviors and management practices which drives safety cause I can assure you that with out those correctly implemented and managed then technology makes the work place a far more dangerous environment and where do those behavioral practices and administrative controls (and requirements for engineering controls for that matter) begin? With the appropriate and enforceable legislation. Who spear headed that in our nation? Labor Unions!
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
You are using the statistics from one study and applying them to a different study, taken during different decades.
Click to expand...

well, yes I am, because one study answers the question the other left unanswered or at least unreported.....what percentage of underground mines are union.....as for different decades, do you think the percentages of union mines has changed dramatically between the two dates?.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You simply don't know what you're talking about PMP. I sat on my grandfathers knees and heard first hand the horror stories of workers being killed and maimed for life because it was viewed as cheaper to replace a killed or maimed employee then to implement appropriate safety procedures or equipment as well as the other abuses and outrages to their rights and dignity as a human being they had to suffer in order to simply provide for their families and my grandfather was no ordinary unskilled working stiff, he was a railroad conductor (and if you know anything about the RR's you should know what that means.) and this wasn't the 18th century it was the 1930's and 40's. You should also examine the historical record of all the major industrial safety initiatives legislated in our nation. They were all spear headed by organized labor and were aggressively opposed by trade and industry/business interests.

Also your comment about technology shows you don't understand the principles of safety in the workplace or how safety is managed in an industrial setting. You can ask Winter or myself or others who are professionals in the field that if you rely on technology alone for safety then your a damned fool. Not to down play the importance of technology in safety but all professionals in the field know that when it comes to driving safety outcomes the most important aspects are behavior and administrative controls. Engineering controls (technology) are your third (and least) most significant driver cause with out the appropriate behavior and administrative controls for safety whatever engineering controls (technology) you have doesn't mean a lot and thus will not be as significant a factor in driving safe work outcomes. So when you say technology solved the problem of unsafe work conditions you're quite wrong. It is having the correct administrative controls and promoting/teaching the appropriate work place behaviors and management practices which drives safety cause I can assure you that with out those correctly implemented and managed then technology makes the work place a far more dangerous environment and where do those behavioral practices and administrative controls (and requirements for engineering controls for that matter) begin? With the appropriate and enforceable legislation. Who spear headed that in our nation? Labor Unions!
Click to expand...

my apologies....I will no longer doubt you that without unions every man, woman and child on this planet would have been dead years ago......
 
Bfgrn said:
Based on what I was told...I could see where it could draw people like myself into a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Drawn in? As a witness perhaps. But surely you did not believe that a salesman (with no authority whatsoever) making a call on a customer could be held liable for an accident on a jobsite simply because he was there?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, not sarcasm.....merely recognizing that once you've bought into the union mentality your mind can never be changed.....
Click to expand...

The union mentality? You mean the belief that every worker has the right to a fair wage, reasonable work hours, benefits that allow raising and supporting a family, a level of dignity every citizen in a civil society deserves and the 'privilege' to return home at the end of the day on your feet, instead of in a pine box?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top