Insurance isn't going to pay for ignorance and deliberate acts of hostility.
Unions????
- Thread starter irish_handgrenade
- Start date
Insurance isn't going to pay for ignorance and deliberate acts of hostility.
Insurance will pay to defend me unless/until i am found guilty. The only they will not pay is if it's an illegal act that is not covered under insurance. So the initial defense will cost me zero.
What union wants is very simple and there is not much to address. They want more pay, more days off, higher health insurance compensation by the company etc. Basically make more and work less.
Somebody is pullin yer leg...I suspect it's poor legal advise. You've made your point so there's no reason to keep pounding foolish notions. It takes only 3 minutes of web searching to realize what right to work and federal labor laws mean. Spend a little time reading case law..ya might learn something worth spouting off about.
fortsmithman
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,335
- 5
- 38
People now play nice or the admins will start the lock.
Looker I mean no disrespect but what type of lawyer is yours does he or she specialize in labour law or is it a non specializing lawyer. My advice is check it with a labour lawyer.
Looker I mean no disrespect but what type of lawyer is yours does he or she specialize in labour law or is it a non specializing lawyer. My advice is check it with a labour lawyer.
He is general business lawyer. He is part of a lawyer(s) group, so might talk to one of his partners.
If I could pose a question
If an employer treats their employees right is there any need for a union?
I ask because i have always been treated better by employers of non union places than I have in union shops. Could it be the very presence of a union causes employers to be more tyrannical?
If an employer treats their employees right is there any need for a union?
I ask because i have always been treated better by employers of non union places than I have in union shops. Could it be the very presence of a union causes employers to be more tyrannical?
fortsmithman
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,335
- 5
- 38
I think it was in the late 1980's or early 1990's there was a strike of federal govt employees here in Canada. One of the line crossers was an immigration officer who had recently became disabled months before the strike. At the time he went to the union to see if his job could be saved the union said sorry nothing we can do. He went to his regional supervisor and his boss said that his job was safe they'd reassign him to other duties. There are instances where the union is of no use other that taking union dues. Then again there are instances where the union does defend the rights of its members. At times the unions are good other time they aren't worth it. This is just my two cents worth.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 4,997
- 1,389
- 113
I have worked in both environments. When the employer treats their employees right, the employees don't feel a need to unionize. Employees work hard because they want to, and their employer has asked them to. When the employer doesn't treat their employees right, then the employees start feeling a need to organize. The existing tensions between employer and employee levels of the company get worse and more dug-in. The employees only do as much as needed to avoid getting fired, and that can take time due to the bargaining agreement in place, not to mention that an employer can choose not to fire someone simply because the process of doing it can be... costly and time-consuming.
Under the right set of circumstances, a union can, and does, make sense. Otherwise, I don't care for them.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Well, if you were a manager at a union shop, why give raises or bonuses unless you had to?
Why introduce any sort of employee comforts outside of bargaining time?
Unions give little reason for employees to work more than the minimum and give employers little reason to give more than the minimum.
- 4,997
- 1,389
- 113
Exactly. Of course, if a non-union shop was that way anyway... that's what breeds the "let's unionize" sentiment. I've seen it happen first-hand.
Considering the union had no say-so in the employers right to run their business, the gentleman went to the wrong person in the first place. Of course line crossers will generally get the short term favor from the bosses. It's those long term security issues which historically become questionable. Historically, anti-zealots last about as long as thier services are needed. A few get lucky. In the case of this guy, he's the perfect poster boy for the boss but it's doubtful that his value means much more than that to the bosses. In the mean time, the injured man feeds his family and still holds a job...good for him.
Just for the record, not that it really means a whole lot; I am not in favor of a union shop where a union shop isn't needed. An employer who treats hard working employees with the respect and thanks they deserve has no reason to be concerned usually. I like the idea of any employer being able to get rid of terrible employees to make room for hard working, respectable workers. I also dislike good people being disrespected and shafted...one outweighs the other unfortunately.
Last edited by a moderator:
To this I fully agree, and there is no way to fire them for doing only the minimum. They drag the whole organization and profession down.
The safe needle policies, changes in mandatory safety equipment, benefits; these things are just a few examples of what dues paying members paid for, or made huge lobbying contributions toward.
If not for unions working on our behalf we'd still be driving vehicles with no floorboards and sniffing deadly exhaust. There is absolutely no doubt about anything any organized labor union has done to imporve worker safety in this country. The vast majority of our current laws are present because unions were there to help make laws happen.
If not for organized labor and dues members pay, dispite the negative side, we would be so much further back that we are. Union contributions to worker welfare, safety and benefits still rings true today....and we can thank a union member. It takes billions of dollars to create national change and it was his/her dues footing the bill and representatives of the membership doing the work. To those who think they'd be better off, I suggest we go back a few decades and live amongst those for whom organization was not a luxury and dying on the job was the expected.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rescue,
I do not doubt that unions have had a positive effect on both worker safety as well as international liberties and politics, however, those same union actions today are not required.
In the US there are a plethora of national and state safety and regulatory commisions to ensure worker and pt. safety.
Many nations have progressed past the early industrial age mentality of replacing expected workers on the job. The nations that haven't will also not be helped by a union.
Today unions are their own entities. with their own political agendas and actions that have little to do with "workers." Infact the modern world has been changing for some time from an uneducated labor force to move the economy to an educated workforce for some time. That is why more and more people like myself seem to see labor unions as self serving thugs.
They drive up the prices of goods and services disproportionately to their actual value. Which economically affects everyone. As is always the case with economic hardship, the less you have the more you are affected.
It is unions today that inhibit the ability to gain employment, whether it is the legacy credit of hiring discrimination of a fire department and the IAFF, the driving up costs of government agencies inhibiting more from being employed or raising taxes to cover costs by AFSME, the legacy costs of unions that makes american manufacturing uncompetative in the rest of the world because quality must be sacrificed to participate in a price category by the UAW, the driving up of food prices which inhibits poor people from eating because the grocery workers union (whatever it is) drives up costs at the market, or tries to stifle independant business or deprives people of a right to make a living on their own from the teamsters, these " labor 0rganizations" are nothing more than syndicates.
All the benefits they "faught for" in the promise of being paid later can be discharged in one bankruptcy hearing. What organization faced with a union action wouldn't accept "we promise to pay you in 50 years when you retire" knowing that in 10 they can declare bankruptcy or demand restructuring concessions?
How altruistic are the locals that will vote not to accept a pay cut for everyone, including the most senior members forcing the layoffs of junior members?
I have spent some time on firegrounds, I can tell you it is far safer to have 10 guys there (even if the pay sucks) than to have 4 making upwards of 70K a year. I can tell you I will never buy an American manufactured car again. The price/quality ratio just doesn't compete. When Walmart has the same goods for less than the local grocery store, I shop at walmart.
those inflated prices in the future will cost more jobs than they have saved. In today's world the value of a job is proportional to the education required to do it, not some psychomotor skill, or longevity in doing it. as technology progresses, right or wrong, it will eliminate many labor jobs.
Threaded or locktight PVC pipes are really causing problems for union plumbers who cannot hope to compete with copper piping and sauder.
I have to admit, until I couldn't get a letter of recommendation to get to into medical school for all of my hard work and extra sacrifice because the union had a contract that said an employee can only be listed as "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" it was an insult to my efforts as well as inhibiting me to advance myself out of the mindless laborer class. Of course they bargained for that to make themselves look better, not to help the "workers," it wasn't personal. But it makes me question how many people are being harmed or held back the the same unions "looking out for their interests."
DrParasite
The fire extinguisher is not just for show
- 6,289
- 2,162
- 113
yes, but if you are a manager at a union shop, you don't have to give raises at all. a union contract just ensures raises get given, while non-union shops never have to give them.
some don't give any regardless of if unionized or not.
yes, but they also prevent you from getting fired arbitrarily, because the boss doesn't like you, or wants to replace you with a cheaper employee, or his son/daughter.
emt seeking first job
Forum Asst. Chief
- 921
- 0
- 0
my two cents
My LEO job had a union. Aside from wage issues, mostly ineffective.
And while I was there there was a flip flop between competing organizations for the represenatation another issue.
Management was still able to offer favors and comfort outside union contract. That happens anywhere.
IMHO, a union will always be needed as a layer of protection and to have a balance of power.
Without job protection, who is going to run to OSHA ?
I worked at a big car service in NYC area, they only had one fire exit. Nobody was willing to report them, ever, even anonymously. And they used to illegally dock people money. People only complained to labor dept AFTER they left....
My LEO job had a union. Aside from wage issues, mostly ineffective.
And while I was there there was a flip flop between competing organizations for the represenatation another issue.
Management was still able to offer favors and comfort outside union contract. That happens anywhere.
IMHO, a union will always be needed as a layer of protection and to have a balance of power.
Without job protection, who is going to run to OSHA ?
I worked at a big car service in NYC area, they only had one fire exit. Nobody was willing to report them, ever, even anonymously. And they used to illegally dock people money. People only complained to labor dept AFTER they left....
Sorry, but that is not true:
"What is the legacy credit?
Answer: The legacy credit allows 10 additional points to be added to the final score of any applicant with a parent who has died while in discharge of his or her duties as a Police Officer or Firefighter; and a candidate who is the sibling of a Police Officer or Firefighter who was killed in service of New York City as a result of the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. For specific requirements see the Notice of Examination."
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_faq_080106.shtml#legacy
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Why do workers deserve to get raises just for being in the first place. Raises are like respect. Earned, and managing not to get fired or die is a pretty poor reason to demand a raise or respect.
First, don't work with "some." Sorry, but workers deserve just as much fault for the presence of bottom of the barrel companies as anyone else. If no one was willing to work there then they wouldn't exist.
Of course what happens when the unions fight to maintain unsafe conditions? [insert stock example of IAFF supporting 'right' for their members to show up drunk and on coke in Boston]
Prove that you are worth your pay would be a good way to start.