Union Busting

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Union Busting

Post by Jenye on Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:43 am

The practice commonly known as union busting shall be a crime with a mandatory punishment of not less than 2 years in prison per offense, to be served consecutively.

The definition of Union Busting and the known tactics used by union busters shall be defined by mutual agreement of existing non corporate unions.

Jenye

Posts: 79
Join date: 2011-10-20
Age: 58
Location: 1st Congressional District Washington

https://www.facebook.com/howlingpost

Back to top Go down

Re: Union Busting

Post by elCid on Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:54 am

Why don't we just say the Union leaders run the country and can do whatever they want...???

elCid

Posts: 31
Join date: 2011-10-19

Back to top Go down

Union Busting

Post by Jenye on Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:52 am

Which would you rather have representing you... a Corporation that doesn't care if you live or die? Or a Union that has a local president that you know personally and were able to vote for?

As for who runs the country... I suggest you look at the constitution. Under the constitution, your elected representatives are supposed to run it. The problem is that they have sold out to corporations...which is what this movement is about.

And by the way... What have you got against Unions?

Jennifer Warren


elCid wrote:Why don't we just say the Union leaders run the country and can do whatever they want...???

Jenye

Posts: 79
Join date: 2011-10-20
Age: 58
Location: 1st Congressional District Washington

https://www.facebook.com/howlingpost

Back to top Go down

Re: Union Busting

Post by elCid on Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:11 pm

Unions, like companies, have turned into Big Business. Unions are after themselves, and sometimes help their members along the way.

Unions have also bought our representatives and corrupted out government. Liking your 'local president' is the same as liking your 'store manager'; neither has any impact on how the big corporation, or big union, is actually run.

elCid

Posts: 31
Join date: 2011-10-19

Back to top Go down

Union Bashing

Post by Jenye on Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:23 pm

If you don't like Unions, then maybe you shouldn't be marching with them. It was because UNIONS got involved that our movement gained credibility. It was because of our Brothers and Sisters in UNIONS that Occupy LA and other places about the usa were able to get supplies when they needed them. It was our UNION Brothers and sisters that have supported us through marching shoulder to shoulder with us. They have driven out to sites where people needed food and medical supplies and blankets etc. and just opened their cars and their hearts...without any expectation of anything except that the supplies would be put to good use.


So before you continue your union bashing tirade, you might want to look over your shoulder...and consider who it is that has supported us from the beginning. Its not been big business or banks by any stretch of the imagination. As for Unions being after themselves...that is such a load of horse hockey that its not even addressing.

If you want to continue bashing our brothers and sisters who have marched with us in the cold, stood by us in the jails, given us food when we've needed it and blankets to keep us warm while we slept...Then perhaps you might find the Tea Party more to your liking.

elCid wrote:Unions, like companies, have turned into Big Business. Unions are after themselves, and sometimes help their members along the way.

Unions have also bought our representatives and corrupted out government. Liking your 'local president' is the same as liking your 'store manager'; neither has any impact on how the big corporation, or big union, is actually run.

Jenye

Posts: 79
Join date: 2011-10-20
Age: 58
Location: 1st Congressional District Washington

https://www.facebook.com/howlingpost

Back to top Go down

unions

Post by will621 on Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:51 am

well. The reason we have unions was in part limit how industries were taking advantage of workers. No doubt without the unions, "the beast" running wild(corporate greed) would take even more advantage of average working citizens.

There are some problems within areas of unionization that exist. For example "tenure" in the teaching union I don't support. It doesn't allow younger talented teachers that could be outperforming say someone with "tenure" the same rights to keep their job.

I do not think Unions are running anything. They are for the rights of the workers. Yet there are likely issues like "tenure" that I disagree with.

will621

Posts: 12
Join date: 2011-10-20
Location: DE-01 (Wilminton, Delaware)

Back to top Go down

Problems

Post by Jenye on Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:10 am

The only problem that I've ever found with unions is...they are made up of human beings. Like us, they have been fighting a long battle against incredible odds...and all the while they've been trying to take what time they can to come up with a better way to do things.

There is a reason corporations hire union busters like LMI...its because unions have been successful in getting pay raises, days off, overtime and other benefits for workers. All of those benefits cost MONEY. Not something your average billionaire likes to shell out to workers.

As for teachers unions, its my opinion that the concept of tenure should be replaced with "effectiveness". Effective teachers should be rewarded. Not the ones who teach to the test, but those who actually teach the material. If I tell a kid to mail a package to Bolivia, the kid shouldn't ask me what state its in.

But the only way to approach the problem of tenure is to talk to the teachers. You and I aren't the only ones who don't like the concept. Many teachers are opposed to it as well. They say it forces them to use redundant methods and materials simply because older teachers are opposed to doing anything new.

But one does NOT approach negotiations with teachers unions by following in the footsteps of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. One approaches negotiations with a sincere desire to resolve problems with partners in the education system. By doing this...and ONLY by doing this...can solutions be found which all parties agree are the best solutions currently available.

Of course, thats just my opinion.



will621 wrote:well. The reason we have unions was in part limit how industries were taking advantage of workers. No doubt without the unions, "the beast" running wild(corporate greed) would take even more advantage of average working citizens.

There are some problems within areas of unionization that exist. For example "tenure" in the teaching union I don't support. It doesn't allow younger talented teachers that could be outperforming say someone with "tenure" the same rights to keep their job.

I do not think Unions are running anything. They are for the rights of the workers. Yet there are likely issues like "tenure" that I disagree with.

Jenye

Posts: 79
Join date: 2011-10-20
Age: 58
Location: 1st Congressional District Washington

https://www.facebook.com/howlingpost

Back to top Go down

Re: Union Busting

Post by Alstein on Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:55 am

I'd prefer a ban on large corporations being able to force anti-union propaganda down their worker's throats , like what Wal-Mart and Target do. I remember this vividly from my time working at a Wal-Mart years ago.

No corporation that does business across state lines shall reference unions in any way in regards to effects on employee compensation or conditions as part of their training. Also no corporation shall threaten to close up shop if a union is chosen to represent the workers.

(Note: a business can close up shop, they just can't threaten to do this)


Unsure what other protections would be needed.

Alstein

Posts: 100
Join date: 2011-10-19
Location: NC-06

Back to top Go down

Good stuff

Post by Jenye on Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:27 pm

I like this. I think that the best way to deal with union busting, however, would be to ask our brothers and sisters who are experts in what companies like LMI do to step in and write up a demand that empowers employee's who want unions and shuts down or severely limits the abilities of companies like LMI to function.

I'd like to see something which goes to the heart of this issue. I'm not sure of how to word it, tho. I think what you've done, however, is an excellent start. I think we need it to cover more ground, though.

Jennifer Warren


Alstein wrote:I'd prefer a ban on large corporations being able to force anti-union propaganda down their worker's throats , like what Wal-Mart and Target do. I remember this vividly from my time working at a Wal-Mart years ago.

No corporation that does business across state lines shall reference unions in any way in regards to effects on employee compensation or conditions as part of their training. Also no corporation shall threaten to close up shop if a union is chosen to represent the workers.

(Note: a business can close up shop, they just can't threaten to do this)


Unsure what other protections would be needed.

Jenye

Posts: 79
Join date: 2011-10-20
Age: 58
Location: 1st Congressional District Washington

https://www.facebook.com/howlingpost

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum