Wisconsin protest, a sign of things to come?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Jefpainthorse

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
0
Location
Guthrie OK
This.

Michael Brown

Me too.

How many people on this thread are ACTUALLY Union hands or grew up in a Union house?

Spouting some second hand story about "some guy I know who works at the Ford Plant" or your wife's cousin at the Steel Mill doesnt count.

I get to read HR stuff from NON UNION companies in OKLAHOMA every day. Most of it has the same stuff (no more no less except seniorty clauses) than the typical Union contract does (with the exception of UAW -Big 3 contracts up to about 5 years ago).

If your in a UNION the only glaring difference is- If you get discharged or disiplined the UNION will represent you if you need to be made whole.
IF you work NON UNION- you get to lump it or pay for your lawyer.
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
25,719
Reaction score
35,095
Location
Edmond
My biggest beef with all of this is...

What did the people of Wisconsin expect when they voted Walker into office 3-4 months ago? I mean, he was backed by the Koch brothers, opposed by nearly all the unions during his candidacy, had the little (R) next to his name.

Seems these protests may have been more timely in late October.

The public in Wisconsin support Walker and his plan, including many teachers.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...overnor_in_wisconsin_spat_38_side_with_unions

I should also point out that I have been in unions before too. I still think they are just as bad as big business when it comes to excesses.

As for the attempts to blame all the money problems on big oil, we are talking state governments here, not federal. And no, the war on drugs is not the cause either.
 

Jefpainthorse

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
0
Location
Guthrie OK
Listened to Rush for a while today. (has he gon down hill)... in among the hot air and spin he let the cat out of the bag.

State workers are willing to take concessions.
State workers are not willing to give up the rights to collective bargaining on issues outside of wages.

Wisconsin workers have been taking furlougs for a while. They are residents and taxpayers too- I think they understand more than the "conservative" press gives credit for.

If you listen long enough... you will get to the matter. Even Fox news spin-nado has the facts in the "eye".

Seems the Wisconsin Gov is willing to leave the 3 state worker's unions who backed him alone. This is a political power struggle plain and simple. And if you can divide and conquer the middle class against each other- you get a cookie.
 

Hobbes

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
8,737
Reaction score
749
Location
The Nations
Listened to Rush for a while today. (has he gon down hill)... in among the hot air and spin he let the cat out of the bag.

State workers are willing to take concessions.
State workers are not willing to give up the rights to collective bargaining on issues outside of wages.

Wisconsin workers have been taking furlougs for a while. They are residents and taxpayers too- I think they understand more than the "conservative" press gives credit for.

If you listen long enough... you will get to the matter. Even Fox news spin-nado has the facts in the "eye".

Seems the Wisconsin Gov is willing to leave the 3 state worker's unions who backed him alone. This is a political power struggle plain and simple. And if you can divide and conquer the middle class against each other- you get a cookie.
That's a huge 10-4 on that.
It's also about winning the 2012 and beyond elections by undercutting the single largest contributor to democratic candidates.

It always comes down to power. :(
 

finnimus

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Location
OKC
I offer the following non-union example:

My wife is a SALARIED employee by CONTRACT. A contract means a promise between the employer and the employee and both parties are bound by it. She makes no overtime if she works 60 hours instead of 40, which is most often the case.

When the snowstorm came, the bosses decided to shut down the office. The employees did not make the choice not to come.

Then when the employees returned to work, they were advised that they would not be paid for the days that the BOSSES closed the office.

What this amounts to is one-half of her weekly paycheck. Not enough to go to court over but plenty to dramatically affect our household. Not to mention, in a month she works more hours over 40 than she got in the days the office was closed.

The anti-union folks will say "get a new job" but where are those new jobs? Why don't employers have to follow the rules of the contract? Who enforces that?

In a non-union shop, the practical answer is NO ONE. The employer does exactly as he/she pleases if it's not enough to dispute in court and the little man is at the mercy of the big man.

A union keeps a greedy and unethical employer in check. Employers would do whatever the hell they wanted if it weren't for unions and proved it throughout history...

Michael Brown

Mr. Brown, I respectfully disagree with your example.

Should an employer be required to pay employees when they don't come into work or there is no production? How is this fair to the employer? There was an act of God that limited the ability (and safety) for workers to produce, so the bosses made a decision to shut down for the day.

If the employer violated the contract, you have remedies at your disposal without union representation. You can hire a lawyer or file a complaint with the labor board. Many lawyers will work on contingency and can have fees covered if they win the case. If you elect not to exercise your rights, that's your own decision-- not one forced on you by the employer.

I hardly consider what the employer did as being greedy and unethical. It's standard practice at every place I've worked. As a salaried employee, you can work 50 hours Monday through Thursday and if you're not in on Friday, you're not paid for Friday. That's the bad part about working a salaried job.

I hope your wife's employer goes beyond what is required by law (and possibly by the contract) and pays your wife for the snow days based on the extend hours she puts in on a regular basis.
 

Jefpainthorse

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
0
Location
Guthrie OK
Mr. Brown, I respectfully disagree with your example.

Should an employer be required to pay employees when they don't come into work or there is no production? How is this fair to the employer? There was an act of God that limited the ability (and safety) for workers to produce, so the bosses made a decision to shut down for the day.

If the employer violated the contract, you have remedies at your disposal without union representation. You can hire a lawyer or file a complaint with the labor board. Many lawyers will work on contingency and can have fees covered if they win the case. If you elect not to exercise your rights, that's your own decision-- not one forced on you by the employer.

I hardly consider what the employer did as being greedy and unethical. It's standard practice at every place I've worked. As a salaried employee, you can work 50 hours Monday through Thursday and if you're not in on Friday, you're not paid for Friday. That's the bad part about working a salaried job.

I hope your wife's employer goes beyond what is required by law (and possibly by the contract) and pays your wife for the snow days based on the extend hours she puts in on a regular basis.

If the contract is for an annual salary they probably owe the money for lost days to weather.(but I have not read Mrs Brown's contract)

Point 2... that's what the contract is for. And if it's a Union contract, the greived employee is represented by the UNION in an effort to be made whole under the terms of the contract.

Salaried workers are among the most abused (per labor laws). I work on a salary basis now days. When I am done, I am done. My terms require 44 hours per week.

Lot's of companies "salary" jobs that are outside what is traditional managerial or professional duties.

Sounds like you need to speak to a labor lawyer....
 

VitruvianDoc

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
883
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
Latest news is that all of this union stuff is a cover up to cover draw attention away from the budget bill.

Apparently the latest budget has a statue allowing the state to sell its publicly owned utilities to a private entity, without bids or any discretion to competition, at any price seen fit by the gov't. In essence, it will allow a fire-sale of the public utilities to corporations.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/947947/-The-Koch-Brothers-End-Game-in-Wisconsin

Now call me a liar and flame me about it, but facts are there.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
85,495
Reaction score
64,114
Location
Ponca City Ok

Being raised in a household where my dad worked IBEC, and I've worked, AFL-CIO, and Teamsters, I can assure you the union bosses have rather large homes and income as well. While on strike, and they are beating the drum to stay on the picket lines, the rank and file are losing their homes, credit ratings, etc, while the union bosses are eating lobster.
I've been 30 years without a union, working with my job knowledge, and willingness to do a days work for a days pay.

I'll work without a union thank you.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom