What happens if you don't join the union?

[UnconTROLLed]

Interesting thread. the OP may be a troll or at the least a baiter of sorts that has certainly asked some thought provoking questions.

Within that context I think all of you pro-union advocates should be prepared to sell the benifits of unionism without shooting the guy asking the questions.
Once you resort to questioning his motives you lose the debate...jmho

There is no debate to lose. His mind is made up, he just needed to make himself feel good by extracting the responses he wanted via baiting/trolling, like you said. It was all a cop-out by design.

 

[latin0man]

Building heat?

i registered on this forum read all 11 pages of this thread( i big lmao at sloppyjoes btw) just to say this
a heated UPS building HA

 

[tieguy]

There is no debate to lose. His mind is made up, he just needed to make himself feel good by extracting the responses he wanted via baiting/trolling, like you said. It was all a cop-out by design.

I think those monthly dues and those hefty initiation fee's help them make their mind up. thats a lot of cash to pay out up front when starting a new job.

the debate itself is always an interesting one. The fact is the union helped improve working conditions over the years but many government agencies now do for you what union advcotes take credit for.

I got a chuckle out of the building heat item someone promoted as a union benifit. Building heat is dictated by local laws and not by the union.

I like the right to work laws because I think they hold a union accountable.
with that said I do think someone enjoying the beni's of a union shop should join and support the collective cause.

 

[soberups]

the debate itself is always an interesting one. The fact is the union helped improve working conditions over the years but many government agencies now do for you what union advcotes take credit for.

1. There is no government agency that requires seniority to be followed in the workplace. Nor will a governement agency negotiate wages and benefits on our behalf.

2. There have been several management people in my area who have been fired for "performance issues" and I dont see any government agency intervening on their behalf. They are considered "at will" employees of the company and can be discharged at any time for almost any reason with no recourse.

Anyone who thinks that a non-union UPS would be a better place to work needs to look at the way the company treats its own management people before they reach such a conclusion.

 

[804brown]

I think those monthly dues and those hefty initiation fee's help them make their mind up. thats a lot of cash to pay out up front when starting a new job.

People don't like paying taxes either, but services don't come for free.

the debate itself is always an interesting one. The fact is the union helped improve working conditions over the years but many government agencies now do for you what union advcotes take credit for.
Though it is true unions improved working conditions and wages and increased our standard of living, i do not trust a government agency to do that job alone. Those agencies are there in theory to protect us, however, elections have meaning. We can't allow our rights to be subject to the political winds . Starting in january, the purse strings will be controlled by corporate rt wing forces looking to underfund and undermine government working for , by and of the people. So i worry.

I like the right to work laws because I think they hold a union accountable.
Wrong on this one. Right to work only empowers the employers! Only an educated membership can hold a union accountable!

with that said I do think someone enjoying the beni's of a union shop should join and support the collective cause.

I agree. So lets all lobby the next Congress to overturn Taft-Hartley!

 

[soberups]

[I like the right to work laws because I think they hold a union accountable.
with that said I do think someone enjoying the beni's of a union shop should join and support the collective cause.

Your two statements are contradictory and mutually exclusive.

In a RTW state, a worker automatically enjoys the beni's of a union shop whether he joins or not.

Thats sort of like saying I should be allowed to sit down at a restraunt and order whatever I want, but in order to hold the chef "accountable" I should only have to pay for the meal if I am 100% satisfied with how he cooked it.

If a person takes a union job with a union wage and they should be required to pay union dues, and if they are not satisfied with the performance of their union they should either (a) run for office and become part of the solution or (b) seek employment at a non-union company elsewhere.

 

[hypocrisy]

I think those monthly dues and those hefty initiation fee's help them make their mind up. thats a lot of cash to pay out up front when starting a new job.
Sorta separates the wheat from the chaff in my mind.
the debate itself is always an interesting one. The fact is the union helped improve working conditions over the years but many government agencies now do for you what union advcotes take credit for.
I sort of agree with you on this one. Besides Seniority, Unionism has always promoted a higher wage, health benefits, and security of a Pension. 401k's and higher "living" wage laws have diluted the Union benefit to our lower income base, and now Obamacare is a terrible idea from an organizing standpoint.
I got a chuckle out of the building heat item someone promoted as a union benifit. Building heat is dictated by local laws and not by the union.
Article 18 Sec 6: Centers will be heated where practical etc. I don't have this issue in my area and if others do and the grievance procedure has not been successful, I suggest stronger language in 2013 or use the court system. Personally, anything over 68 degrees is too hot for me.
I like the right to work laws because I think they hold a union accountable. Of course you do, but I think it's up to the members to hold their Union accountable just as we hold Management accountable.
with that said I do think someone enjoying the beni's of a union shop should join and support the collective cause.

Can I get an "amen"?

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Re: You bunch of intolerant close-minded fools...

1. I never called you a liar. You asked a specific question, and I gave you what was, in my opinion, a specific and honest answer. I'm sorry I didnt tell you what you wanted to hear.

Anyone who questioned my motives, after I explained my motives twice, was calling me a liar. Anyone who accused me of trolling or being insincere, after I made my reasons clear, was calling me a liar. Also, anyone who accused me of fabricating reasons for my beliefs, after I gave my real reasons, was calling me a liar. I have given my reasons for asking questions several times, and yet people kept accusing me of trolling. This is what annoyed me, and eventually made me angry.

2. You cannot on the one hand admit to being "biased", yet at the same time claim to be "honest and sincere". The two mindsets are mutually exclusive.

I must disagree. I think only honest people will admit their biases. Everyone is biased.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Sloppyjoe, I'm really enjoying your opinion now, especially the **** part. Keep deluding yourself that you are so much more righteous than us thug Union members. Keep deluding yourself that non-Union workplaces are so much more efficient and better for the employee (oh, wait, the employee must sacrifice their own prosperity for efficiency).

Want to know something funny? I accused some people of being "intolerant" and "close-minded." The moderators bleeped out the words "intolerant" and "close-minded." Seriously. I didn't use crude language at all. I was called worse things in this thread, and I don't think those were moderated.

And, crowbar, you lost the debate the moment you admitted to treating non-members unfairly, and even with hostility. This is illegal, unethical, and against union policy. I disagree with your opinions regarding efficiency, but your close-minded attitude towards anybody who disagrees is revealing.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Kinda fly off the deep end there, SloppyJoes7?

I've tried to stay out of this thread, but in my humble personal opinion you are trolling. Everything you've said is designed to get the kind of responses you get. Come on now, you come on a (mostly) Teamster website and say you don't like unions! What were you expecting?

May I suggest you try Tnet next.

over9five, I admit I got angry. However, my words were precise, if inflammatory. I didn't curse or falsely accuse. I reacted to people calling me a liar, which after the dozenth time, started to get to me.

Ironically, in response to me getting angry with those accusing me of trolling, you accused me of trolling.

This thread started with me asking questions about how unions work. I didn't reveal my opinion about unions well into this thread, and I was only answering a question posed to me. I seriously doubt that qualifies as "trolling."

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Interesting thread. the OP may be a troll or at the least a baiter of sorts that has certainly asked some thought provoking questions.

Within that context I think all of you pro-union advocates should be prepared to sell the benifits of unionism without shooting the guy asking the questions.
Once you resort to questioning his motives you lose the debate...jmho

You get it. I appreciate your response. I got upset because people kept questioning my motives.

The response, to me going on a union-friendly website to ask questions about unions, was that I was clearly "trolling." How dare I ask union members about unions? That's just asking for a fight, right?

Besides, I didn't reveal my opinion until my original questions had been answered. I knew that if I had revealed my position earlier, the thread would have immediately been derailed. (And then, because I didn't want the thread derailed, people accused me of "hiding" my intentions." I couldn't win.)

 

[hypocrisy]

Want to know something funny? I accused some people of being "intolerant" and "close-minded." The moderators bleeped out the words "intolerant" and "close-minded." Seriously. I didn't use crude language at all. I was called worse things in this thread, and I don't think those were moderated.

And, crowbar, you lost the debate the moment you admitted to treating non-members unfairly, and even with hostility. This is illegal, unethical, and against union policy. I disagree with your opinions regarding efficiency, but your close-minded attitude towards anybody who disagrees is revealing.

LOL look who's back. I take it anger management wasn't successful?

Might want to look up some facts regarding efficiency, I get mine from the Dept of Labor.

Of course, you're going to have to open up that brainwashed mind of yours....Good Luck.

 

[over9five]

Want to know something funny? I accused some people of being "intolerant" and "close-minded." The moderators bleeped out the words "intolerant" and "close-minded." Seriously. I didn't use crude language at all. I was called worse things in this thread, and I don't think those were moderated.

Come on SloppyJoes7, you're lying. I edited you calling people names. "Thick skulls" and "bigots" ring a bell?

 

[UnconTROLLed]

/lockthread

this thread blows.

 

[soberups]

Besides, I didn't reveal my opinion until my original questions had been answered. I knew that if I had revealed my position earlier, the thread would have immediately been derailed. (And then, because I didn't want the thread derailed, people accused me of "hiding" my intentions." I couldn't win.)

It was quite obvious from the tone and wording of your questions that
(a) you are not a fan of labor unions
(b) you had already done a considerable amount of research on the subject
(c) you had pretty much made up your mind that you weren't going to join, and
(d) that you wanted to justify that decision and get into a debate about the merits of compulsory membership.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions. But you arent entitled to get your feelings hurt when you get called out on them.

You didnt "reveal" your position earlier because you wanted the pro-union members to get angry, thereby justifying the decision that you had already made to not become a full member.

Go ahead and take the "high road" and pay your agency fee and bask in the glow of moral superiority while saving $5 a month. You can justify almost anything to yourself if you try hard enough. But dont expect any of us to validate your decision for you.

 

[Catatonic]

It's amazing the lengths someone will go to to try and justify being a freeloader.

Not too much length ... they claim to just be loyal union members.

 

[Catatonic]

I didn't get benefits from either one. For Wal-Mart, I was young and worked over the summer, and for UPS, I was seasonal.

Also, crowbar is hardly fair or impartial. He clearly hates anyone who dislikes unions

I don't think he's limited to just that.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Come on SloppyJoes7, you're lying. I edited you calling people names. "Thick skulls" and "bigots" ring a bell?

I'm not lying. I don't do that.

Yes, you also bleeped out "thick skulls." When I directly answer a question three times in a row, and am still accused of dodging the question, I don't think I was being inaccurate. I admit, though, that it was inflammatory. ....As though nobody else has been inflammatory.

You then bleeped out "closed-minded intolerant bigots." Now, I understand that this offended those I was describing. However, it's hardly "name calling." It's redundant, but not name calling.

So yes, you bleeped out the words "closed-minded," "intolerant," and "bigots." I find that hilariously ironic. If you don't agree, I suggest you look those words up in the dictionary.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

It was quite obvious from the tone and wording of your questions that
(a) you are not a fan of labor unions
(b) you had already done a considerable amount of research on the subject
(c) you had pretty much made up your mind that you weren't going to join, and
(d) that you wanted to justify that decision and get into a debate about the merits of compulsory membership.

(a) Correct
(b) Correct
(c) Possibly correct. I generally don't like unions, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't join.
(d) Wrong. I came here to ask questions about how non-members are treated. I had no idea, and my research turned up nothing. Specifically, I was primarily interested in the laws and regulations governing the treatment of non-union members within a union company, both in RTW and non-RTW states.

And then I decided to answer some questions asked of me, and the thread took a turn. Re-read this thread, and you'll find this all to be true.

 

[grgrcr88]

I'm not lying. I don't do that.

Yes, you also bleeped out "thick skulls." When I directly answer a question three times in a row, and am still accused of dodging the question, I don't think I was being inaccurate. I admit, though, that it was inflammatory. ....As though nobody else has been inflammatory.

You then bleeped out "closed-minded intolerant bigots." Now, I understand that this offended those I was describing. However, it's hardly "name calling." It's redundant, but not name calling.

So yes, you bleeped out the words "closed-minded," "intolerant," and "bigots." I find that hilariously ironic. If you don't agree, I suggest you look those words up in the dictionary.

Thats not name calling? What is it then?