Hey, lets hear it for the unions....

[JoeRider]

Southwest is union

In terms of value add, I think Southwest sucks. They are my airline of last resort. I fly an average of twice a month for the last 20 years so I have a little experience here. Again, what has the union done to increase the value of the consumer experience?

The airlines are a great example of the quality of service decrease over the last 20 years that is heavily unionized. I remember flying on Midwest Express and getting London Broil and a glass of wine. So nice compared to having a bag of peanuts thrown at you and a loud mouth Airline attendant and a pilot that will not shut up.

 

[Radiant1]

Guess what, non-union companies the been offering heathcare, hiring disabled, providing pensions, hiring minorities, flexible work hours and supporting GLT polices way before the government or unions came in to play. Competitive Salaries are part of the equation. Unions do not create competition, they eliminate it.

Surprising, the legal system and liability attorneys play a bigger role in safety that the government at the workplace.

Here is an example of one company.


History of Diversity in IBM

1899: Hired women before women were given the right to vote
1914: Hired first person with a disability
1935 - 1953:
Recruited first professional women
Appointed first female vice president
Hired first black salesman
Introduced first written Equal Opportunity policy
1972 - 1996:
Helped to create Hispanic Leadership Fund
Added sexual orientation to nondiscrimination policy
Implemented domestic partner benefits
2001 - Present:
Extended IBM’s Global Work/Life Fund 2005 and 2007
Added "sexual orientation, gender identity or expressions” to global equal opportunity letter
Spearheaded People with Disabilities marketing initiative on accessibility
Initiated global Flexible Work Options for employees

I think IBM is an exception to the rule, Joe.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why there is/was need for liability lawyers. They don't come out of nowhere for no reason. Ok, well some might, but that's another exceptin to the rule.

I'm not pro-union anymore than I am anti-union; however, I do kind of think you guys could give a little credit where credit is due in this regard.

 

[JoeRider]

I think IBM is an exception to the rule, Joe.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why there is/was need for liability lawyers. They don't come out of nowhere for no reason. Ok, well some might, but that's another exceptin to the rule.

I'm not pro-union anymore than I am anti-union; however, I do kind of think you guys could give a little credit where credit is due in this regard.

I give credit to unions for having a time and place in improving the working environment in the 1st half of the last century, but their time has passed. I do believe that government has a role in business operations, but things are so over regulated and out of control, the model has to change. I give the union no credit for anything in the last 40 years and in fact blame the union for contributing to the demise of the business environment.

As for IBM, Ford and Standard Oil are two other companies that took care of their workers. There is a lot more out there and many of the small business group do too. About the only area that I can think of that has continually screwed their workers is the financial areas (banks, stock brokers..etc). They seem to screw everyone.

I am still reading up on banking history and the Carriage and the Mellons, but I will get back on you about how they were screwing the worker.

I am anti-union based on my experience. I know there are some positives out there about them, but in the big picture of things, I see very little value to them. Tell me how the union is making my life better?

 

[Radiant1]

I give credit to unions for having a time and place in improving the working environment in the 1st half of the last century, but their time has passed. I do believe that government has a role in business operations, but things are so over regulated and out of control, the model has to change. I give the union no credit for anything in the last 40 years and in fact blame the union for contributing to the demise of the business environment.

As for IBM, Ford and Standard Oil are two other companies that took care of their workers. There is a lot more out there and many of the small business group do too. About the only area that I can think of that has continually screwed their workers is the financial areas (banks, stock brokers..etc). They seem to screw everyone.

I am still reading up on banking history and the Carriage and the Mellons, but I will get back on you about how they were screwing the worker.

I am anti-union based on my experience. I know there are some positives out there about them, but in the big picture of things, I see very little value to them. Tell me how the union is making my life better?

Ok, so you do give unions credit where credit is due. That's all I ask.

 

[Gilligan]

IPerhaps you should ask yourself why there is/was need for liability lawyers. :
.

Because a pool of vastly too many lawyers has to find something to feed on? Hint: answer is "yes"

Google how many lawyers we have, per capita, than every other developed country in the entire world.

 

[Radiant1]

Because a pool of vastly too many lawyers has to find something to feed on? Hint: answer is "yes"

Google how many lawyers we have, per capita, than every other developed country in the entire world.

There was no question for you to answer. And, that may be (lawyers per capita), but as I said, they exist for a reason.

Here's my quote in full.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why there is/was need for liability lawyers. They don't come out of nowhere for no reason. Ok, well some might, but that's another exceptin to the rule.

 

[Gilligan]

There was no question for you to answer. And, that may be (lawyers per capita), but as I said, they exist for a reason.

Here's my quote in full.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why there is/was need for liability lawyers. :

Because a pool of vastly too many lawyers has to find something to feed on? Hint: answer is "yes"

 

[Radiant1]

Perhaps you should ask yourself why there is/was need for liability lawyers. :

Oh, you're right, there was a question!

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Oh, you're right, there was a question!

And one you still haven't answered.

I'm kinda intrigued by this discussion. I'm rather anti-lawyer at heart. They seem to prey on class action suits in which the plaintiffs get $2.00 and they get $2million.

 

[Radiant1]

And one you still haven't answered.

I'm kinda intrigued by this discussion. I'm rather anti-lawyer at heart. They seem to prey on class action suits in which the plaintiffs get $2.00 and they get $2million.

I posed the question; however, if you want me to answer my own question and even add to it...

Liability lawyers exist because corporations don't always look out for their employees or even their consumers for that matter. It's the nature of business to make money. Sometimes that nature involves taking care of employees and consumers, and sometimes it doesn't. Heck, we even have an entire consumer protection agency. What does that tell you?

And you're right. Litigation has run rampant these days and there are some crooked lawyers. I'm certainly not denying that. But it's up to judges and juries to slap that stupid crap down. As I said twice before, there's a REASON the lawyers even exist to begin with. And, need I mention the hot-shot corporate lawyers on corporate payroll? They exist for a reason too.

You all can hide your head in the sand if you want and blame unions for every ill that exists in the business world and the economy at large, but the reality is that although they contribute, they are not the scapegoat you tend to use them as.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

You all can hide your head in the sand if you want and blame unions for every ill that exists in the business world and the economy at large, but the reality is that although they contribute, they are not the scapegoat you tend to use them as.

I don't blame unions for every ill that exists in the business world. When they can't compete on their own as they don't give value for their services, they use money dunned involuntarily from member's paychecks to bribe politicians to make union membership mandatory. Just ask any teacher in Charles County.

I don't know which is worse, corporations or unions. I think I know where you would stand.

 

[willie]

Great for IBM,the blacks ,women and the handicap were payed less and treated like crap.I see nothing about health care or working conditions or child labor laws or retirement?

I hope I am reading this wrong since I just jumped in when I saw IBM mentioned.
I worked for IBM for 33 years and it is the perfect example of what a non union company can accomplish with workers that enjoy their job and and are expected to perform on their own. I saw very few people fired and those that were, begged for it in one way or other. Usually it was for the generous separation benefits. If I read your post correctly, you are so ignorant of IBM that there is no point in trying to educate you.

 

[aps45819]

With only 6.9% of all private sector jobs still union...that's some incredible cosmic influence you attribute to their presence.

Government contracting jobs have to be bid at prevailing union labor rates

Perhaps you should ask yourself why there is/was need for liability lawyers. They don't come out of nowhere for no reason.

They're a result of teachers unions creating a generation of idiots

 

[Radiant1]

I don't blame unions for every ill that exists in the business world. When they can't compete on their own as they don't give value for their services, they use money dunned involuntarily from member's paychecks to bribe politicians to make union membership mandatory. Just ask any teacher in Charles County.

I don't know which is worse, corporations or unions. I think I know where you would stand.

Let me tell you where I stand. I think the fact that both unions and corporations can be considered a person and have political influence and donate cash to PACs or politicians is absolutely ludicrous and pisses me off to no end. They both are good and bad, depending on situations and perspective. They both have their virtues and vices.

I'll play devil's advocate for either when the conversation suits. This conversation just happened to be blaming the union for the demise of Hostess forgetting the fact that Hostess had been in bankruptcy twice already. The union seemed an easy little scapegoat for you all in this case, so I took up my horns. You can be sure that when I hear a conversation from pro-union persons that all corporations are evil and all should be collectively owned by workers, I'll take up my horns and be contrary to them too. >

 

[GURPS]

This conversation just happened to be blaming the union for the demise of Hostess forgetting the fact that Hostess had been in bankruptcy twice already.

and one or more of the UNIONS has a seat on the board ........

 

[Radiant1]

and one or more of the UNIONS has a seat on the board ........

That's kind of ingenious and desperate. From what I understand, two union board members out of eight was part of the contract re-negotiation in September. It was offered as compensation for reduction in wages, pension, and healthcare. The union rejected it. Try again.

Hostess had problems eight years ago. Union workers did not ask for more pay, pension, or benefits. Some were laid off by plant closings back then. The ones who remained working did so even when their pensions were cut. Hostess failed because of mismanagment and vulture capitalism. Nice compensation package the CEO gave himself, don't you think?

I'm sorry (not really), but I just cannot see how the union is to blame for this one. Others maybe, but not Hostess.

 

[GURPS]

That's kind of ingenious and desperate. From what I understand, two union board members out of eight was part of the contract re-negotiation in September.

Hostess Brands closing for good due to bakers strike - Nov. 16, 2012

The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.

ok I was wrong it was OFFERED Not Accepted .....

...... I misread last week, I thought 2 UNION Members were already sitting on the board


the Bakers UNION could have taken a pay cut, now they have NO JOBS


hahahahahahahahaha

The Demise of Twinkies? Yes, It’s True. Parasitic Unions Kill Their Hosts (or, in this case, Hostess)

According to a website dedicated to the strike:

“Some employees are apparently under the misimpression that if they force Hostess to liquidate, another company will buy our bakeries and offer them employment,” Rayburn said. “The fact is, the bakery industry already has far too much capacity, and there is a strong risk that many of our facilities may never operate as bakeries again once they are closed. I believe the leadership of the Bakers Union knows this fact, but is willing to sacrifice its Hostess employees for the sake of preventing other bakery companies from asking for similar concessions.”​

Rayburn continued: “That hardest part of the decision to close any facility is knowing that it will result in the loss of jobs for those Hostess Brands employees who did not support the strike and who wanted to help revive the Company,” Mr. Rayburn said. “They didn’t ask for these strikes, but they are paying a terrible price for them.”

The bakers’ union seems to have chosen a course of action that so many other union bosses have chosen for the last several decades: Suicidal strikes to preserve wages and benefits that are unsustainable in a competitive market.

 

[GURPS]

BAKERS UNION: Hostess Would Have Died Years Ago If It Weren't For Us


“Hostess failed because its six management teams over the last eight years were unable to make it a profitable, successful business enterprise.

The full statement has since been posted to Facebook; you can read it here.
Hurt adds that a bankruptcy plan submitted by the company earlier this year was deemed unreasonable by a company-hired consultant because it would have done little to reduce debt while pinching workers, and called out Hostess executives' compensation.

We also phoned the Port Chester, NY chapter of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union to hear their side.

We reached a business agent — someone who represents union members — for the chapter (Local 69) who only identified himself as Nicholas because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the union.

He said he had no regrets about Hostess' announcement this morning that it would liquidate, and that the union's strike did not backfire.

"Hostess is a corrupt company," he said, "and is attempting to shut their plant down because we are not willing to conform and take slave wages. We won't do that."

He said the company had cycled through several CEOs in recent years — a sign, he said, that "they're not bakers any more.

"They're a big business who's mismanaged the company and made all of us suffer."

The compensation the company was offering its workers was something they were no longer able to live with, he said.

"We've been in situations like this, where Wall Street, big business investors will attempt to chop up wages and have workers work for little or nothing, where they're unable to support their families," he said.


Read more: Bakers Union Member: Hostess Was No Longer A Baking Company - Business Insider

 

[Radiant1]

ok I was wrong it was OFFERED Not Accepted .....

...... I misread last week, I thought 2 UNION Members were already sitting on the board


the Bakers UNION could have taken a pay cut, now they have NO JOBS


hahahahahahahahaha

And so are those 10 vulture board members who gave themselves a hefty compensation package (the CEO's being 300% of his salary). hahahahahahaha!

So, they were working for a company that was going down anyway. They were losing their pension, they were losing their healthcare, and they were expected to work for a non-livable wage. Personally, I would have taken the cuts while looking for other work, but it really was basically a no-win situation for them. I guess they thought it better to go down on their terms. Everyone lost. :shrug:

 

[BigBlue]

John Stossel

]

ok, well he has no agenda.