Union Thugs Cancel The title field is required!

1. Sandy Clark

   

   0 posts
   
   12/12/2012 9:12 AM

   Interesting that a tent was torn down with people in it and a Fox News Contributor who merely tried to ask a few questions gets punched on video and not one of the mainstream press reports it. I am amazed he didn't flatten the union thug. I guess he figured the entire union mob would jump on him and perhaps beat him to death if he did retaliate. Unions have disgraced themselves by their actions in both Wisconsin and Michigan. Michigan teachers ditch school to come out and protest yet only 7% of Michigan students in the 8th grade can read at an 8th grade level. Michigan has been in the toilet as far as the number of unemployed. That union thing is really helping the people, isn't it!

   
   
   
   
2. Kenneth Rue

   

   3 posts
   
   12/12/2012 11:12 AM

   now Sandy......Nancy Pelosi said that all the hate stuff and violence originates from the tea party goers and you know that Nancy knows best......MSNBC will be all over it tonight-Rachel, Chris and cuzzin' Eddie will set us all straight.

   
   
   
   
3. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   12/12/2012 11:12 AM

   Sandy,
   
   I don't disagree with your facts and don't agree with some of the union's tactics, my issue with the whole deal is this was all done legislatively with really no input from the citizens, only from some big money people wanting what is best for their investments and corporations and give the unions less power in the political arena, I don't so much have a problem with that except, those people that complain and oppose union money in politics are the same people pumping millions of dollars to fund republican candidates.
   
   If they would have took it to the people and the people voted for it, then the citizens would have spoken then I have less problem with it.
   
   By the way, this is government getting involved in what private businesses hiring and managing practices, I thought the right wanted government to stay out of their stuff?
   
   Ken MSNBC was all over it last night.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
4. Kenneth Rue

   

   3 posts
   
   12/12/2012 11:12 AM

   Mel:
   
   well hooray for MSNBC....they probably had to cover something because they don't talk about anything that has my interest.

   
   
   
   
5. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   12/12/2012 12:12 PM

   Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Sandy,
   
   I don't disagree with your facts and don't agree with some of the union's tactics, my issue with the whole deal is this was all done legislatively with really no input from the citizens, only from some big money people wanting what is best for their investments and corporations and give the unions less power in the political arena, I don't so much have a problem with that except, those people that complain and oppose union money in politics are the same people pumping millions of dollars to fund republican candidates.
   
   If they would have took it to the people and the people voted for it, then the citizens would have spoken then I have less problem with it.
   
   By the way, this is government getting involved in what private businesses hiring and managing practices, I thought the right wanted government to stay out of their stuff?
   
   Ken MSNBC was all over it last night.
   
   Mel

   
   
   Kinda like Obamacare, eh?

   
   
   
   
6. Ronald Kirkman

   

   40 posts
   
   12/12/2012 2:12 PM

   The unions are ticked off because the worker does not have to pay dues any longer. It will be interesting to see how many stop paying dues.
   
   Capt. Kirk
   Retired Alien
   Needham Golf Club
   Needham, MA

   
   
   
   
7. Wahlin Scott B

   
   12/12/2012 2:12 PM

   I am not sure what the difference between between Right-to-Work and not. Didn't the Taft Hartley Act make the closed shop illegal?
   
   @Captain - I bet most continue paying dues. The members have already proven that violence is an option.

   
   
   
   
8. James Schmid

   

   1 posts
   
   12/12/2012 2:12 PM

   Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: I am not sure what the difference between between Right-to-Work and not. Didn't the Taft Hartley Act make the closed shop illegal?
   
   @Captain - I bet most continue paying dues. The members have already proven that violence is an option.

   
   
   Scott - the difference is that in a non-right to work state(California is one of these), any person working in a union shop(I have one of these) MUST pay union dues, as a condition of employment.

   
   
   
   
9. Sandy Clark

   

   0 posts
   
   12/12/2012 3:12 PM

   I think all you have to do is look at the highly union controlled states and you will have just found the states that are in the biggest financial mess. Unions at one time were helpful. I have a hard time believing that today. The grocery unions go out on strike and the store employees are the ones that lose their houses for virtually nothing. Business is always the enemy and the unions will make things right for you. From what I see, unions actually get in the way of the elite employee. Look at the teachers unions. Poor teachers are paid as much as the best teachers we have. Government has become more inefficient because in a sense, the workers are voting on their own raises and retirements. The day of unions providing any benefit are long gone. Instead of providing opportunity to excel, you just become another union member without the opportunity to benefit from your achievements.

   
   
   
   
10. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    12/12/2012 3:12 PM

    This is a sticky and troubled debate. No one should be forced to join a union, period. However, the union will intimidate and in some cases will beat the "scabs" into joining. Its a sad reality and only serves to enhance the very real nature of some unions. The union should be run like any business. The union should pitch the virtues of the union to potential members and let each employee decide if the union is worthy of joining. I personally belonged to, or should I say forced to join, two unions over the years and received absolutely no benefit other than having the privilege of paying them dues every month.
    
    On the other hand, a non-union employee should not be entitled to the wage and benefits which were bargained on behalf of the union. A non-union employee should bargain for himself or herself. This is inherently difficult, not for the employee but for management, particularly HR. The logistics of performing annual performance reviews and wage increases would be a daunting task for a large company.

    
    
    
    
11. Wahlin Scott B

    
    12/12/2012 4:12 PM

    Doesn't Taft Hartley make it illegal to make union membership a requirement for employment? That is what that law says and it is still in effect. I was pressured to join a union once (in Florida - a right to work state). We were in a room with union guys and me, and no management. They pressed me and I asked, "What are you going to do to me if I don't join?" Looking back on it, I would have chosen to pay the dues. If I took a job that was represented by a union, I would pay the dues. My experience with unions and union employees has been very positive. You might be able to motivate some to walk through fire for you, but if you compensate them well enough to where they can support their families and their futures, they will just lay down on hot coals for you until the job is done.

    
    
    
    
12. Steve Nelson

    

    0 posts
    
    12/13/2012 7:12 AM

    Steal a few dollars and you're a common thug, steal millions and you're a financier. Sadly, this is the way it is in this country.
    
    At our course in Ca. the employees may join or not join the union. Either way they get whatever the union negotiates for them. About 75% of them choose to pay dues, which aren't very much. I, as a management employee, am the only 'at will' employee at the course. This system does have pros and cons.
    
    For those that don't understand why unions exist, check history. Check also recent history if you think they're no longer relevant. Just a couple of weeks ago in the Hostess fiasco, the company used money that was contractually obligated to go to pensions for something else. When it all closed down, employees were shorted but of course the executives earned their millions in bonuses. Mirroring my opening statement, get angry and protest and you're a thug, rip off people for millions and you're a well compensated professional executive.
    
    One thing that I have never understood about those that whine about unions is that the labor agreements are fairly negotiated contracts. In a contract, both parties receive benefits. Isn't this just capitalism? Sorry you on the outside looking in think the laborers are paid too much, but they are paid what the company agreed to pay them. As a third party with no ties, the labor agreement between a company and its employees is really none of your business anyway.

    
    
    
    
13. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    12/13/2012 8:12 AM

    Steve Nelson, CGCS said: As a third party with no ties, the labor agreement between a company and its employees is really none of your business anyway.

    
    
    But when "the company" is the public, and its employees are those of a city, county, state and/or federal type, then I guess it is all of my business anyway.

    
    
    
    
14. Andrew Cross

    

    5 posts
    
    12/13/2012 9:12 AM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: Doesn't Taft Hartley make it illegal to make union membership a requirement for employment? That is what that law says and it is still in effect. I was pressured to join a union once (in Florida - a right to work state). We were in a room with union guys and me, and no management. They pressed me and I asked, "What are you going to do to me if I don't join?" Looking back on it, I would have chosen to pay the dues. If I took a job that was represented by a union, I would pay the dues. My experience with unions and union employees has been very positive. You might be able to motivate some to walk through fire for you, but if you compensate them well enough to where they can support their families and their futures, they will just lay down on hot coals for you until the job is done.

    
    
    Scott,
    
    I would think this would be true of any employee, whether union or not. I can see both sides of this debate, but I'd prefer to have the option of joining, not just be forced to.

    
    
    
    
15. Sandy Clark

    

    0 posts
    
    12/13/2012 9:12 AM

    Gus, I would argue that public employee unions should not be allowed to exist. Go back to the old but fair civil service system that worked for years. When you can go to the ballot and vote on your own issues at work, so-called fairness has gone down the drain. The rest of us are responsible for the pay and benefits of government employees at all levels and closest to all of us would be city employees. It somehow sounds like a severe conflict of interest when the union officials that in most cases work for that city, are setting the financial agenda for the city. Setting your own wage and benefits and being able to vote on them as well is not a perk the rest of us have. Union people also seem to manage their way on to city councils. That is another total conflict of interest. It all sounds pretty dirty. We wonder why our various levels of government are broke!

    
    
    
    
16. Steve Nelson

    

    0 posts
    
    12/13/2012 1:12 PM

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said:
    
    But when "the company" is the public, and its employees are those of a city, county, state and/or federal type, then I guess it is all of my business anyway.

    
    
    Not necessarily Pete. From your perch up in Lodi is it any of your business what the good people of San Clemente agree to pay me and the employees? What if the folks in Beverly Hills, with all of their resources, decide they want to pay their teachers, police, and even garbagemen, more than what they pay down in Compton? Isn't that their choice and not ours?
    
    A public union contract isn't that much different from a private contract. In the case of public, at will employees (the management) negotiate with the unions and bring the tentative agreement to the elected officials for approval. Since this is a democracy, that's where John Q. Public gets his say if he lives in that jurisdiction. Since municipalities in CA are required by law to have balanced budgets every year, it's not like there isn't ample opportunity to be heard as the budget and discussions of costs are 75% of every council meeting.
    
    I do agree with Sandy that union members that find their way onto city councils (it always seems to be firemen) should not vote on these issues. How that has ever been legal is beyond me. Also how allowing municipalities to declare bankruptcy ever became legal is a mystery too. It's not like a city is going to become one of those wild west ghost towns and just move everyone out and fall off the map. They just need to be told to shut up and pay their bills, including those owed to the employees.
    
    Sorry for the length, but it is finally raining here and I am enjoying the office time (after getting soaked this morning)

    
    
    
    
17. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    12/14/2012 9:12 AM

    Steve Nelson, CGCS said:

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said:
    
    But when "the company" is the public, and its employees are those of a city, county, state and/or federal type, then I guess it is all of my business anyway.

    
    
    Not necessarily Pete. From your perch up in Lodi is it any of your business what the good people of San Clemente agree to pay me and the employees? What if the folks in Beverly Hills, with all of their resources, decide they want to pay their teachers, police, and even garbagemen, more than what they pay down in Compton? Isn't that their choice and not ours?
    quote]
    
    I guess I wasn't clear, Gus. Certainly not my business what San Clemente citizens decide to pay you and your guys. It is my business what Lodi wants to do with city employees, or what San Joaquin County, or California, or the federal government do with theirs.

    
    
    
    
18. Wahlin Scott B

    
    12/14/2012 11:12 AM

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said: I guess I wasn't clear, Gus. Certainly not my business what San Clemente citizens decide to pay you and your guys. It is my business what Lodi wants to do with city employees, or what San Joaquin County, or California, or the federal government do with theirs.

    
    
    What have you done to have an affect on that? I presume you vote and that is always commendable. Do you go to city council meetings, run for the city council, write letters, etc.?

    
    
    
    
19. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    12/14/2012 11:12 AM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said: I guess I wasn't clear, Gus. Certainly not my business what San Clemente citizens decide to pay you and your guys. It is my business what Lodi wants to do with city employees, or what San Joaquin County, or California, or the federal government do with theirs.

    
    
    What have you done to have an affect on that? I presume you vote and that is always commendable. Do you go to city council meetings, run for the city council, write letters, etc.?

    
    
    I work and pay taxes. And vote, usually for the wrong guy or gal, apparently. No interest in running for any office at this point. How about you, Scott? Not that it's any of my business.

    
    
    
    
20. Wahlin Scott B

    
    12/14/2012 11:12 AM

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said: I work and pay taxes. And vote, usually for the wrong guy or gal, apparently. No interest in running for any office at this point. How about you, Scott? Not that it's any of my business.

    
    
    I have written one letter to my representative in the city that I live. They cut my property taxes to less than half of what they were because of the reduction in home values. In order to do this they had to reduce city services and dip into the general fund. Reducing city services while trying to attract residents and raise home values did not seem like a good idea to me. Also dipping into the general fund in an area that has been pounded multiple times by hurricanes this decade seemed like a bad idea.
    
    I follow the activity of the municipality I work for very closely. I am not sure about Sandy's government employees, but there are no union financial decision-makers where I work. I see people who are not only concerned, but they actually get involved. They speak at meetings. They join advisory boards. They run for office. They do all of this while the side-liners throw darts at them and write nasty comments in the paper.