National Right to Work Act Petition

Let me add one more little tidbit concerning your pushing for unions, and my pushing for good working relationships between mgmt and workers.

If a worker is injured in a union shop, and is unable to perform his normal tasks, but is not required to be on bedrest, the union reps will insist he be off duty and draw workers comp.

In my company, if a worker is not able to perform their normal tasks, we find something else for them to do. Whether it is making copies, doing map work, or even just answering phone. Why? Because workers comp pay is based on income, and only pays part of the worker's normal pay. But if they can be at work, they draw their normal paycheck and keep working.

This helps them stay on top of their bills, and helps the company avoid having Lost Time injuries on their records. It is a win/win situation that is only possible because everyone is working together as a team.
 
WinterBorn said:
Let me add one more little tidbit concerning your pushing for unions, and my pushing for good working relationships between mgmt and workers.

If a worker is injured in a union shop, and is unable to perform his normal tasks, but is not required to be on bedrest, the union reps will insist he be off duty and draw workers comp.

In my company, if a worker is not able to perform their normal tasks, we find something else for them to do. Whether it is making copies, doing map work, or even just answering phone. Why? Because workers comp pay is based on income, and only pays part of the worker's normal pay. But if they can be at work, they draw their normal paycheck and keep working.

This helps them stay on top of their bills, and helps the company avoid having Lost Time injuries on their records. It is a win/win situation that is only possible because everyone is working together as a team.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, in your world if a worker is not able to perform his normal task he will be replaced by someone who can and probably at a few dollars an hour less.
It's not Right to Work it's the Right to Slave.
 
Crashk said:
Bullshit, in your world if a worker is not able to perform his normal task he will be replaced by someone who can and probably at a few dollars an hour less.
It's not Right to Work it's the Right to Slave.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. In my world replacing a trained worker with a new one is lunacy. In my world, we work to retain workers.

But nice to see you claim to know more about my job than I do.
 
Hmmm.... just because I've seen this happen in the real world doesn't make it real in your make believe world. You can believe in increasing worker insecurity but I don't.
 
Crashk said:
Hmmm.... just because I've seen this happen in the real world doesn't make it real in your make believe world. You can believe in increasing worker insecurity but I don't.
Click to expand...

I can believe in real-world answers that don't involve organizations who's intent is to create a hostile environment between mgmt and workers.

I have already explained why its best for the employee to keep working instead of collecting workers comp.

If an accident results in Lost Time, that means the company has a worse safety record. This means the cost of their workers comp insurance goes up by means of the modifier being greater. It also means, when it comes time to bid on other work, they may not be allowed to submit a bid. So it is in the best interest of the company to limit the number of lost time accidents.
 
WinterBorn said:
I can believe in real-world answers that don't involve organizations who's intent is to create a hostile environment between mgmt and workers.

I have already explained why its best for the employee to keep working instead of collecting workers comp.

If an accident results in Lost Time, that means the company has a worse safety record. This means the cost of their workers comp insurance goes up by means of the modifier being greater. It also means, when it comes time to bid on other work, they may not be allowed to submit a bid. So it is in the best interest of the company to limit the number of lost time accidents.
Click to expand...

Tell that Mr. Blankenship and all the coal miners he's responsible for murdering.
 
Crashk said:
Tell that Mr. Blankenship and all the coal miners he's responsible for murdering.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to do so. How about I give you the address of the family of a powerline worker who died because the union sent him out claiming he was qualified to do work he had never done and had no training for?
 
Crashk said:
Bullshit, in your world if a worker is not able to perform his normal task he will be replaced by someone who can and probably at a few dollars an hour less.
It's not Right to Work it's the Right to Slave.
Click to expand...

You know, this is typical bullshit from someone who claims to be for the workers, but obviously doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

You want all union companies to be evil, so you can continue to spout the bullshit you claim is the truth. And if someone contradicts your view in any way, you don't want a serious discussion. You just want to throw out more bullshit.

I was posting real-world info because I have spent years working in the field. But you want to pop up and call bullshit because it doesn't fit with your political views? Truly sad.
 
WinterBorn:
Oh, so the fact that I did not mention your skills at service after the sale, I am slandering your profession and being condescending? rofl Now that is being far to sensitive. I only used the description of your profession that you have used. And only because it clearly showed you would have no liability at all.

I asked you a question, and you got all of that out of a straight forward question?

WinterBorn:
A Freudian slip? You think I surrendered out of some freudian slip? lmao And you accuse me of arrogance and a condescending attitude? Hello?

WOW, you didn't REALLY agree on the role unions played in worker safety. Instead of saying you agreed, you chose a word that reveals your REAL beliefs...thus, a Freudian slip. Did you notice the LOL at the end? Sensitive...Hello?

WinterBorn:
Then you are not paying attention, and that is not my problem. I have spent years working in the field, and on the road, to make sure our workers are safe. Many times I have had to argue with them, or threaten to discipline or even fire them to get them to follow the safety standards. I have spent untold hours training myself and our workers so that they would have the proper knowledge. You post on a website. I sacrifice time with my family and spend hours upon hours actually working for the safety of employees. But you "don't get that feeling from [my] words". lol And yet, I am the one who is arrogant and condescending. palm

Good for you. But you ARE posting on a website, so all we bring here is our opinions, our beliefs and our attitudes. If you are also compassionate and intolerant of human beings being abused or extinguished, you hide it well.

WinterBorn:
What I get from your words is that, even when you are shown to be wrong, you refuse to admit it and continue to attack and insult. What I get from your words is that you hear what you want to hear, not what is actually said.

You don't even remember what you said, until I quote your own words...LOL
 
Bfgrn said:
I asked you a question, and you got all of that out of a straight forward question?
Click to expand...

The "straight forward question" came after you told me to stick it because you claimed I was condescending towards your profession.


Bfgrn said:
WOW, you didn't REALLY agree on the role unions played in worker safety. Instead of saying you agreed, you chose a word that reveals your REAL beliefs...thus, a Freudian slip. Did you notice the LOL at the end? Sensitive...Hello?
Click to expand...

I have said numerous times that unions played a huge role in the past. I also admitted that unions in mines may be the best thing. But rather than accept this, you have to continue with insults by pretending I am saying this because of a freudian slip. Yeah. :palm:


Bfgrn said:
Good for you. But you ARE posting on a website, so all we bring here is our opinions, our beliefs and our attitudes. If you are also compassionate and intolerant of human beings being abused or extinguished, you hide it well.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am posting on a website. And when I make statements based on my years of experience, you and others just spout "bullshit!" and dismiss my years of actual experience because it does not jive with your political agenda. In this thread you bring your beliefs and opinions. In this thread I bring my beliefs, my opinions, and my extensive work experience working with both union and non-union shops. Can you see any difference there?

I hide it well? The only thing we have disagreed on in this thread is the place unions have in the process. And because I disagree with you on that, I hide the fact that I am compassionate? I'd call that the height of arrogance. You are basically claiming that if I don't agree with you concerning unions, I must hate workers. Yeah, that would also qualify as a big steaming pile of bullshit.




Bfgrn said:
You don't even remember what you said, until I quote your own words...LOL
Click to expand...

I remember what I said quite clearly. But I think the fact that I remember what you say is what bothers you. It limits the amount od dancing and dodging you can do.
 
WinterBorn said:
The "straight forward question" came after you told me to stick it because you claimed I was condescending towards your profession.

I have said numerous times that unions played a huge role in the past. I also admitted that unions in mines may be the best thing. But rather than accept this, you have to continue with insults by pretending I am saying this because of a freudian slip. Yeah. :palm:

Yes, I am posting on a website. And when I make statements based on my years of experience, you and others just spout "bullshit!" and dismiss my years of actual experience because it does not jive with your political agenda. In this thread you bring your beliefs and opinions. In this thread I bring my beliefs, my opinions, and my extensive work experience working with both union and non-union shops. Can you see any difference there?

I hide it well? The only thing we have disagreed on in this thread is the place unions have in the process. And because I disagree with you on that, I hide the fact that I am compassionate? I'd call that the height of arrogance. You are basically claiming that if I don't agree with you concerning unions, I must hate workers. Yeah, that would also qualify as a big steaming pile of bullshit.

I remember what I said quite clearly. But I think the fact that I remember what you say is what bothers you. It limits the amount od dancing and dodging you can do.
Click to expand...

Check out post #63 to refresh your need to refresh your memory.

Please clarify this statement as it pertains to 'the company'...do you mean the manufacture or the end user? This is not a trick question.

WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Bfgrn said:
Check out post #63 to refresh your need to refresh your memory.

Please clarify this statement as it pertains to 'the company'...do you mean the manufacture or the end user? This is not a trick question.
Click to expand...

The company doing the actual work is the one to designate someone a "competent person".

The definition of "Competent Person", according to OSHA is as follows:

"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". [29 CFR 1926.32(f)].

It is a designation made by the company doing the work, since they are the ones verifying or providing the training/experience, and giving the person the authority to take prompt corrective actions.
 
Bfgrn, I wanted to revisit this topic in light of some experiences from this week.

We had a young man get hurt on the job this week. An old man (possibly with alzheimers) drove thru a workzone and hit him. The worker was transported, in critical condition, to a local hospital and then on to another hospita with a top trauma unit.

I received phone calls within hours from no less than 4 of the corporation's top executives. Without exception, the first question out of their mouths was "how is he?". There was never a mention of money. Within 3 hours of inputting the case in the system, a nurse advocate was at his bedside making sure the hospital did all that he needed. His wife was brought up and numerous people (at the corp level) made sure she was taken care of and that she had what she needed.

What would a union have been able to do except interfere? Why would this young front line worker receive such care and concern if the corporations are the greedy, uncaring entities that you claim they are?
 
WinterBorn said:
Bfgrn, I wanted to revisit this topic in light of some experiences from this week.

We had a young man get hurt on the job this week. An old man (possibly with alzheimers) drove thru a workzone and hit him. The worker was transported, in critical condition, to a local hospital and then on to another hospita with a top trauma unit.

I received phone calls within hours from no less than 4 of the corporation's top executives. Without exception, the first question out of their mouths was "how is he?". There was never a mention of money. Within 3 hours of inputting the case in the system, a nurse advocate was at his bedside making sure the hospital did all that he needed. His wife was brought up and numerous people (at the corp level) made sure she was taken care of and that she had what she needed.

What would a union have been able to do except interfere? Why would this young front line worker receive such care and concern if the corporations are the greedy, uncaring entities that you claim they are?
Click to expand...
I think the obvious answer is because not all corporations care. If it wasn't for union representation and agitation for national safety standards you wouldn't even have OSHA standards from which to even base your argument. The fact is, you are both generalizing. In your arguments case, Winter, your weak point is that many corporations currently react proactively cause the threat of ecnoomic consequences from penalties and fines is to great to be born. So much of that motivation is for avoiding economic sanctions and not because it's the right thing to do. That does not mean that corporate managers are thoughtless people who don't care about their people but a realization that their primary purpose is to maximize profits. So much of the motivation corporate managers have to be proactive in safety come from either the regulatory frame work that originated from the labor movement and they are also motivated to be proactive to avoid unionization.

People who work for a living have the right to organize and negotiate for a fair wages and the conditions under which they are employed. Management cannot have it all it's own way. A persons rights do not end at their employers door.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think the obvious answer is because not all corporations care. If it wasn't for union representation and agitation for national safety standards you wouldn't even have OSHA standards from which to even base your argument. The fact is, you are both generalizing. In your arguments case, Winter, your weak point is that many corporations currently react proactively cause the threat of ecnoomic consequences from penalties and fines is to great to be born. So much of that motivation is for avoiding economic sanctions and not because it's the right thing to do. That does not mean that corporate managers are thoughtless people who don't care about their people but a realization that their primary purpose is to maximize profits. So much of the motivation corporate managers have to be proactive in safety come from either the regulatory frame work that originated from the labor movement and they are also motivated to be proactive to avoid unionization.

People who work for a living have the right to organize and negotiate for a fair wages and the conditions under which they are employed. Management cannot have it all it's own way. A persons rights do not end at their employers door.
Click to expand...

Mott, the historic acheivements of unions are undeniable. But the current conditions are not what they were. OSHA fines are a joke for corporations. The maximum fine for a "willful" violation is $70k. Most corporations spend 10x that on safety programs.

Yes, economic sanctions are an issue in a profit driven world. But I think the idea being put across in this thread is that unions are the only way workers can have a good job.
 
Damocles said:
With a bit of change in the way they are run, Unions could benefit from allowing people to simply opt-out. Had that been an option here I wouldn't have voted in their election at all, the tie wouldn't have happened, they'd be able to join a union and I'd be able to go about my life without it.

Unions aren't "evil", and people who want to join one should be allowed to, those of us who want no part of them should also be allowed to go without being forced to associate rather than have an option for it.

As it stands now, if they did unionize here I'd be forced to give them money regardless of using the option to resign from the union.
Click to expand...

a 'shop' is either union or non-union

if union, then every worker benefits from the work of the union

people that want to have non-union worker in a union shop are people that want something for nothing
 
Damocles said:
With a bit of change in the way they are run, Unions could benefit from allowing people to simply opt-out. Had that been an option here I wouldn't have voted in their election at all, the tie wouldn't have happened, they'd be able to join a union and I'd be able to go about my life without it.

Unions aren't "evil", and people who want to join one should be allowed to, those of us who want no part of them should also be allowed to go without being forced to associate rather than have an option for it.

As it stands now, if they did unionize here I'd be forced to give them money regardless of using the option to resign from the union.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is would you also have to opt out of all the job classifications and wage scales and benefits negotiated by the Union and would you be willing to sign a contract to that affect with both the Union and Management and then negotiate you're own "at-will" agreement and opt out not only from paying union dues but from all the wages, benefits and protections that the Union provides? If you're willing to walk that talk I think you'll find that a Union Shop won't oppose opt-outs. The problem is, those who opt out want their cake and to eat it too. If you want the union wages, benefits and protections, even if you don't want to belong to the union, then you need to pay the dues. Keep in mind Damo, union employees are not "at will" employees. They are working under a legally binding employment contract with that employer.

The same goes with the secret ballot. Another famous union busting method. I tell you what. If a company is willing to bring in an objective, non-partisan government agency to supervise those elections to make sure they are fair, then I don't think unions would have a problem with secret ballots.
 
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...

My brother in law is a master machinist and tool maker (that's "master" not a journeyman). I'd put him up against any member of this board in terms of intelligence and skill and he probably makes more money then most of the college educated members of the board and he's also a union member.
 
Dude, you don't have that completely right. That's $70,000 fine per occurrence. I can tell you of a situation where a Steel company was working at was fined $25,000 fine for a safety violation by OSHA....that was per occurrence. There was over 100 recorded occurrences of the violation. You do the math! They negotiated the fine down to a million dollars, hired a new safety manager and implemented a new safety program.

As to your second point, that's a rediculous notion. Unions are not the only way to get a good job. The best way to do that is to learn a highly marketable skill but that doesn't change the fact that people have the right to organize their resources to negotiate the best price the market will bear for their work/services. Now corporations, companies and managers do this all the time in order to maximize their profits. Why is it ok for them to do this but not ok for workers to do so? I'll tell you why, because then they have to share more of the profits with those who work for them to produce those profits and they lessen the power and authority they have over the conditions of their employment. So no unions are not the only way but it is the principle that this is a right for people to organize to negotiate the conditions of employment that I am supporting!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top