trickpony1
Well-Known Member
.....all this and 25 cents might buy you a cup of coffee.
Scabs complaining about the steward not representing them
- Thread starter 728ups
- Start date
.....all this and 25 cents might buy you a cup of coffee.
brown_trousers
Well-Known Member
I feel your pain, I had a scab that just wouldnt go away and kept bleeding every time I picked at it, eventually I learned to just let it do its own thing and fall off on its own.
Jackburton
Gone Fish'n
Scabs are good for picking off and throwing away.
728ups
All Trash No Trailer
There are a great many factors in why unions are weak in the south,and this link explains FAR better than I can
Weak Unions in South
Anonymous 10
Guest
Plus they like to send all the jobs overseas. Didn't southerners like slave labor at one time also??
I don't like sending jobs overseas
I don't like right to work
i don't like scabs
i hate slavery
democrats & rebublicans in office can kiss my ass they are all crooks. I vote Jesus
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Drunk Again? LOL
rod
Retired 23 years
I won't argue about them having a strong work ethic but to be honest everytime I have visited the "south" it seems to me that they work at a snails pace (not the UPS people but everyone else).
Hee Haw Blooper - YouTube
gorilla75jdw
Well-Known Member
I am from the south md-TN to be exact , I lean right , conservative , libetarian ( Ron Paul-ish) (yes I said it ) . Dont get the south twisted up , not every body hates the unions , I n fact I would say with the majority in the union in the south love it . I do run into alot of older folk who despise the union , only because of the slacker mentality . As you and I most know , We are no slackers . The union provides me and my family with protection from the devils that call themselves our managers . If it wasnt for the unions , the middle class here would be non-existant , and sad to say , but most of these folkes just are oblivious to what the union is . They do not teach much about unions in the public schools around here , even though our teachers are union , go figure . Therefore we , I , and my co-workers who do know and understand the importance of unions try our best to educate the hows and whys of the unions , and 75% of the time we get a sign-up or atleast an acknwledgement of the understanding of what is important about having a union , usually when a non-member is caught up in a situation where his job is on the line . Hey , I will take a sign up anyway it comes , alot of the folkes I think are just to plane cheap to pay the dues , but want the represntation ,lol, not from me tho , not what they thought without the sign-up .
Catatonic
Nine Lives
This is hardly a balanced literary (if one can call it literary) effort but presents many plausible explanation.
I read this with a lot of skepticism even though it was on the Internet.
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
Sorry, man..."Right to Work" means anyone can FREELOAD on your union, not pay union dues, and still benefit from the bargaining the union does. That's the LAW. It is intended to BUST the union by draining it of union dues, so it can't negotiate anything for anyone. So these two scabs may be the most egregious example of this sort of behavior, but I betcha your next month's union dues that LOTS AND LOTS of people in "Right to Work" states are freeloading on your union.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
TechGrrl;
The union doesn't HAVE to represent non-members; if it so chooses, a union can go the "non-exclusive" route, and only represent those who pay to be members. Of course, in doing so, it would lose many of the protections provided by the NLRA (the company wouldn't have to recognize it, there'd be no duty of the employer to "bargain in good faith", etc.)...and the very thought of losing those protections is something that absolutely terrifies unions; to lose them would require them to "stand on their own two feet". And that is something which, from all appearances, very few unions seem to think they can do.
In truth, unions are "freeloading" much more on the backs of the non-members than vice-versa. Why? Because, again, it's a CHOICE the union makes....it HAS that choice. Whereas those so-called "freeloaders" who are NOT members are REQUIRED to accept the "representation" of the union (even in RTW states), whether they want it or not. And since those who are most likely to decline union membership are often the most "go-getting", they're being thrown in with the "lumpen proletariat" in terms of wages, etc., rather on what they could achieve ON THEIR OWN. Many see that as their loss.
If you doubt me, check to see just how readily your local would give up "sole representation" rights. Bottom line is that the union not only WANTS those "freeloaders", it also absolutely NEEDS them.
The union doesn't HAVE to represent non-members; if it so chooses, a union can go the "non-exclusive" route, and only represent those who pay to be members. Of course, in doing so, it would lose many of the protections provided by the NLRA (the company wouldn't have to recognize it, there'd be no duty of the employer to "bargain in good faith", etc.)...and the very thought of losing those protections is something that absolutely terrifies unions; to lose them would require them to "stand on their own two feet". And that is something which, from all appearances, very few unions seem to think they can do.
In truth, unions are "freeloading" much more on the backs of the non-members than vice-versa. Why? Because, again, it's a CHOICE the union makes....it HAS that choice. Whereas those so-called "freeloaders" who are NOT members are REQUIRED to accept the "representation" of the union (even in RTW states), whether they want it or not. And since those who are most likely to decline union membership are often the most "go-getting", they're being thrown in with the "lumpen proletariat" in terms of wages, etc., rather on what they could achieve ON THEIR OWN. Many see that as their loss.
If you doubt me, check to see just how readily your local would give up "sole representation" rights. Bottom line is that the union not only WANTS those "freeloaders", it also absolutely NEEDS them.
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
First of all, I was last a Teamster member in 1975, just before I went into management. So I see both sides of the issue. Since I believe in checks and balances, I believe that unions make UPS stronger.
Secondly, it is already established law that union members can "opt out" of that portion of union dues that goes to political activities. This is more protection than I get as a shareowner when a company whose stock I own decides to spend corporate money on god knows what political cause or candidate.
Thirdly, even with NLRB 'protections', unions have been attacked and enfeebled ever since the Reagan years, and the plutocracy will continue what they have begun until the last union is dead. Watch the attacks from the right-wing ALEC machine when the Teamsters go up against UPS in 2013.
And, last but not ever least, just what kind of leverage does an individual employee have with a megacorporation like UPS? How much of a better deal does that 'go getter' squeeze out of the Big Brown Machine? Who do they bargain with? The powerless center manager? The equally powerless division manager? Just askin'... We used to say that unless the district manager decided to paint the package cars pink, he was pretty much absolutely in control of his district. That ended in 1999. Corporate is in control. And they ain't talkin' to the minions...not even their own minions, much less the 'lumpen proletariat' you sneer at.
In the corporate state, individuals have NO BARGAINING POWER WHATSOEVER, John Galtian fantasies notwithstanding.
Unions have their warts and problems, just like any institution made up of fallible human beings. But they are the only way employees have any leverage when dealing with megacorporations.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
Just how effective is the "opt out" decision? Do you REALLY believe that ordinary dues are NOT applied to such "political" issues as lobbying, position statements, etc.? Heck, unions - the Teamsters included - won't even effectively limit DIRECT payments to political campaigns taken from dues, let alone that used for political activity generally! As for it being "established in law", I'm very much aware that it is NOT an element of "law" that is being effectively enforced.
That said, I'm trying to reconcile your decision to go "into management" with your declaration that, in relation to a "corporate state" (of which UPS would represent at least a level one example of that condition) "individuals have NO BARGAINING POWER WHATSOEVER"; i.e. - if you have no bargaining power, then why are you IN management? Are you working for nothing? Spending your days at UPS knowing that you're not going to receive a dime for the work you're doing? If you have "no bargaining power", then why on earth would a "corporate" element pay you ANYTHING? See how ludicrous your claim is?
Sorry, but there are a LOT of employees who have "leverage when dealing with megacorporations". I suspect every management person on this board, past and present (with the apparent exception of you!) and many on the "labor" side as well would recognize that there are employees who are worth more than others....and, if given the freedom, would receive more compensation based onthat worth.
I pre-date management in 1975 and, frankly, I NEVER heard the saying of "that unless the district manager decided to paint the package cars pink, he was pretty much absolutely in control of his district"....nor have I known a district manager who had even remotely that much power. Corporate was ALWAYS "in control"; remember the "determined men, working together stuff"? It has ALWAYS been a collegiate, corporate environment. Many may have not like that environment (myself included), but it has ALWAYS been that way. From my perspective, the only thing that changed (or was "accomplished", if you prefer) in 1999 was that an element of fairness was introduced to the shareholders; i.e. - many of those who were responsible for making the company grow and prosper were able to gather in their just rewards; it was just unfortunate that, through the years, so many had to make that contribution....and then essentially got rear-ended upon retirement.
That said, I'm trying to reconcile your decision to go "into management" with your declaration that, in relation to a "corporate state" (of which UPS would represent at least a level one example of that condition) "individuals have NO BARGAINING POWER WHATSOEVER"; i.e. - if you have no bargaining power, then why are you IN management? Are you working for nothing? Spending your days at UPS knowing that you're not going to receive a dime for the work you're doing? If you have "no bargaining power", then why on earth would a "corporate" element pay you ANYTHING? See how ludicrous your claim is?
Sorry, but there are a LOT of employees who have "leverage when dealing with megacorporations". I suspect every management person on this board, past and present (with the apparent exception of you!) and many on the "labor" side as well would recognize that there are employees who are worth more than others....and, if given the freedom, would receive more compensation based onthat worth.
I pre-date management in 1975 and, frankly, I NEVER heard the saying of "that unless the district manager decided to paint the package cars pink, he was pretty much absolutely in control of his district"....nor have I known a district manager who had even remotely that much power. Corporate was ALWAYS "in control"; remember the "determined men, working together stuff"? It has ALWAYS been a collegiate, corporate environment. Many may have not like that environment (myself included), but it has ALWAYS been that way. From my perspective, the only thing that changed (or was "accomplished", if you prefer) in 1999 was that an element of fairness was introduced to the shareholders; i.e. - many of those who were responsible for making the company grow and prosper were able to gather in their just rewards; it was just unfortunate that, through the years, so many had to make that contribution....and then essentially got rear-ended upon retirement.
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
Can't speak to YOUR experience in YOUR career, but MY experience in MY career was that prior to going public, local district management had a lot of flexibility within the constraints of the policy book. I was personally involved in a lot of innovation in operations and technology that made a difference in the way UPS did things.
Also, compensation, at least among the management ranks, was far more responsive to the individual's demonstrated ability to stand out and create excellence.
By the time I retired, most of that flexibility in compensating people had disappeared. Today, it is even worse. The "bell shaped curve" is FORCED onto even the smallest work group, where its validity is not just questionable, but completely bogus. The "value" of people as measured by the QPR, which feeds directly into the compensation plan is FIXED beforehand, and pretty much bears no resemblance to actual results of any individual. And even a district manager has MINUTE ability to influence the outcome. In any non-operations workgroup, where "value" is in the eye of the beholder, it quickly devolves into a purely political contest of butt-kissing, and "don't rock the boat!"
So, again, I say that individuals have very little ability to negotiate a better deal for themselves in a large corporation, based on real life observation and experience. Your Mileage May Vary.
One of the best responses ever written...thank you. I believe Jim Casey shared your views.
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
Say, rather, that I shared Jim Casey's views. I was fortunate enough to have been in the Corporate offices in Greenwich, CT, when Jim was still alive and coming to the office most every day. It was very cool to see him in the cafeteria line. We even spoke once: "What do you think of the fish sticks?" he said to me...
CharleyHustle
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you have documentation and exhaustive study results to support this claim. If they truly are go-getters, why do they choose to be "thrown in" and not work to decertify the union so they could "achieve on their own"? Or, why do they not take their services to a non-union company like say... FedEx, where I hear "achieving on your own" is down right rampant?
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
CharleyHustle;
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many (in terms of real numbers) HAVE "take[n] their services to a non-union company like say... FedEx"....or do you believe that those hundreds of thousands of FedEx jobs which NON-union employees have chosen to fill don't exist?
Sorry, but I come from a time when those jobs DIDN'T exist...and I doubt that they'd exist today if it weren't for the intransigence of the Teamsters. As for decertification, have you been following the statistics of union membership in the private sector today...or noticed the incredible number of jobs that HAVE been "decertified" in one way or another?
Lastly, if it's NOT the "go-getters" (the most cost-effective) who choose to be non-union, then why are so many companies making it clear that they would prefer to NOT have a "union" workforce? Seems to me that if "union" was the most cost-effective option, companies would be falling all over themselves to be organized. Is that what's happening? Are companies, for example, migrating to NON-"RTW" states? If so, how does one explain the movement of Cat's Electro-Motive work from Ontario to a plant in Indiana....immediately AFTER Indiana passed RTW legislation? Or, speaking of Indiana again, why did Honda choose to place an automotive plant in Indiana in a locale that was traditionally NON-union in lieu of establishing it in the heavily UAW-organized areas of north central Indiana? Or go to the extreme of saying that it would hire only from the counties immediately surrounding that facility, thus effectively locking-out (in terms of employment) the [supposedly] "experienced", RIFed auto workers in Delaware, Madison, and similar UAW-strong counties? Or how does one explain Boeing's choice of of S.C. over (traditional) Washington for the opening of its new aircraft assembly plant? Or all the "foreign" auto makers that chose to open plants in MS, AL, SC, TN, etc?
Sorry, but reality is reality....the point being that workers generally are NOT choosing to be "thrown in"
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many (in terms of real numbers) HAVE "take[n] their services to a non-union company like say... FedEx"....or do you believe that those hundreds of thousands of FedEx jobs which NON-union employees have chosen to fill don't exist?
Sorry, but I come from a time when those jobs DIDN'T exist...and I doubt that they'd exist today if it weren't for the intransigence of the Teamsters. As for decertification, have you been following the statistics of union membership in the private sector today...or noticed the incredible number of jobs that HAVE been "decertified" in one way or another?
Lastly, if it's NOT the "go-getters" (the most cost-effective) who choose to be non-union, then why are so many companies making it clear that they would prefer to NOT have a "union" workforce? Seems to me that if "union" was the most cost-effective option, companies would be falling all over themselves to be organized. Is that what's happening? Are companies, for example, migrating to NON-"RTW" states? If so, how does one explain the movement of Cat's Electro-Motive work from Ontario to a plant in Indiana....immediately AFTER Indiana passed RTW legislation? Or, speaking of Indiana again, why did Honda choose to place an automotive plant in Indiana in a locale that was traditionally NON-union in lieu of establishing it in the heavily UAW-organized areas of north central Indiana? Or go to the extreme of saying that it would hire only from the counties immediately surrounding that facility, thus effectively locking-out (in terms of employment) the [supposedly] "experienced", RIFed auto workers in Delaware, Madison, and similar UAW-strong counties? Or how does one explain Boeing's choice of of S.C. over (traditional) Washington for the opening of its new aircraft assembly plant? Or all the "foreign" auto makers that chose to open plants in MS, AL, SC, TN, etc?
Sorry, but reality is reality....the point being that workers generally are NOT choosing to be "thrown in"
