Right to Work is Wrong For Union Workers

a reply to: dandandat2

Unions are somewhat of a business. They are the middle man between a worker and a company to negotiate stuff like pay, benefits, pto, etc.

The company "gives" you your benefits, but without the union who knows what those benefits would actually be.

originally posted by: Enduro

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: PorkChop96

I worked non union in the coal mines and my pay and benefits were better. There were union mines around here and they were forever going on strike for one reason or another.
Guys would lose their homes or cars because of it and had a hard time even keeping food on the table. The union kept saying "we're doing this for you !!"... but they still lost their homes.

If people want to go union, go for it. But it's not all rainbows and sunshine. Their ultimate goal is to line their own pockets and helping you is just a side effect.

I work in Aerospace and most at my employer are the "screaming at the sky" lefties, so they all recently voted yes to the union. Now nobody gets raises anymore. The company didn't want the union but the lefties didn't listen. Some of the most vocal ones already quit which was odd.

The only people that got raises were the union executives at an average salary of 125k or better. Some making almost 400k.

I hope my employer NEVER accepts any contract. No contract so far.

When I was at Boeing Everett, the union president was arrested and imprisoned for embezzlement.

Been involved in unions for 30+ years and your post stinks of disinformation. I hope my employer never accepts any contract? The workers and the union negotiate every couple years with your employer for better wages , insurance, more vacation days and many other things. If you don’t have a contract between yourself ( the worker ) and the company that the union negotiated for you then your not in a union.

Nope, we have been UNIONIZED. No contract yet? Is just semantics. Union insignias and stuff pasted on every door and wall bulletin board. Now they negotiate for a POS contract. This union is CORRUPT, so I don't care if they ever successfully negotiate a contract or not. We ARE in a union. The machinists union, I'm not going to mention which local chapter. All the lazy machine operators believe they will become wealthy soon, but it hasn't improved their job performance yet.
Joining the union isn't in my best interest since the company is not a multi billion dollar company like Boeing, who can afford to give away lots of benefits and raises.

You have been in a union for thirty years and it has worked out well for you. Congratulations!

When I was at Boeing it was Machinists local 751.. Totally corrupt union with racketeering happening often. Organized crime. Tom Baker the union president of local 751 jailed for embezzling back in 1990 -ish.

But just to be fair, I acknowledge that unions do work out well for some people. But they have never helped me. For all the dues I paid at Boeing, all I saw with each new contract was large reductions in benefits, and small cost of living raises.

I had an uncle who was in one of the railroad unions for 45 years. I had to listen to him praise the union each time he visited.

Fu** unions.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: VulcanWerks


The difference between you and I, if we had the exact same skill set/job, is that you can be fired for doing absolutely nothing wrong, you have nobody to help negotiate a fair wage/benefits/PTO/retirement/etc for you so you can focus on your job, and plenty of other things.

Why would a company fire a skilled laborer who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Sounds like a waist of corporate resources to fire skilled labor for no reason.

a reply to: dandandat2

In this example, it's not a matter of right vs wrong. It's an example of if the company decides it needs to get rid of people they can get rid of you without cause and no repercussions. As to where for a company to get rid of someone in a union there has to be actual cause for termination.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: dandandat2

Unions are somewhat of a business. They are the middle man between a worker and a company to negotiate stuff like pay, benefits, pto, etc.

The company "gives" you your benefits, but without the union who knows what those benefits would actually be.

Yes, I understand the concept. I was questioning the way you a union supporter were describing unions.

If even union supporters discribe unions as a "BIG" business there is something wrong and its not remarkable that some would not wish to participate.

a reply to: dandandat2

How exactly am I describing a union that is not accurate?

If you don't want to contribute to the cause, don't reap the benefits. Plain and simple

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: dandandat2

In this example, it's not a matter of right vs wrong. It's an example of if the company decides it needs to get rid of people they can get rid of you without cause and no repercussions. As to where for a company to get rid of someone in a union there has to be actual cause for termination.

Are you talking about layoffs or individual firings?

Unions can't prevent layoffs.

And it would be irrational for a company to lay off their skilled workers for "no reason"... Does it happen some place somewhere? Some CEO has a bad day and fires someone for no reason? Im sure that happens; but not enough to make it a point in an argument.

a reply to: dandandat2

Layoffs and firing someone are two completely different things and in no way is what I am talking about a layoff.

I understand what a layoff is and that a union cannot prevent them. But, in the event of a layoff the union makes sure you get your job back, if you so choose to.

You're reading way to far into this just to try and prove a point that you think you have.

A non union worker has no protection from being fired and/or laid off that a union worker has. Plain and simple

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: dandandat2

How exactly am I describing a union that is not accurate?

If you don't want to contribute to the cause, don't reap the benefits. Plain and simple

You compared unions to insurance companies and cell phone companies. And made it sound as if you pay your union for your benefits as you would pay an insurance company for their insurance policies.

"If I don't want to contribute to the cause, I will instead negotiate with my employer for my benefits and forgo paying the middle man. Its not my fault that my employer is willing to give me the same pay and benefits they are willing to give union members" is not an irrationally argument for someone who is not in a union.


Just to be clear unions have done well for my family; I am not an unti-supporter. I just can understand why some people might not want to be part of one. Especially with the rampant corruption that exists in to many unions.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: dandandat2

Layoffs and firing someone are two completely different things and in no way is what I am talking about a layoff.

I understand what a layoff is and that a union cannot prevent them. But, in the event of a layoff the union makes sure you get your job back, if you so choose to.

You're reading way to far into this just to try and prove a point that you think you have.

A non union worker has no protection from being fired and/or laid off that a union worker has. Plain and simple

And I am telling you this feer you have of being fired "for no reason" is irrational. Yes unions can protect you from being fired for "no reason" but at the same time, the great majority of companies aren't going around firing people "for no reason".

a reply to: dandandat2

You are missing the point of the entire thread.

This thread is for those that want the benefits of being in the union, but don't want to pay to be in the union, aka Right to Work. If you just don't want to be in a union, don't, it's simple. But don't to come my job and expect the union to help you but you don't want to go through the same things that the dues paying members do.

Not paying someone, or company, for a service and then demanding to receive it anyways was the point of the comparison. And that is spot on, those were ones that came to mind. Not my fault you didn't understand them at the time.

In my field (and most others around me) there are, almost, no companies that would give someone with my skill set the same pay, benefits, etc that I get through my union.

a reply to: dandandat2

Jesus, are you still hung up on this?

There is no irrational fear, they are examples being used in a conversation.

Move on

Have worked both union jobs & non-union.
Here's the rub. Union pay scale is used to set base pay for non-white collar work in the private sector. Without having that we'd all be making 1950 wages. Bad union leadership is the same as bad politicians, ya gotta vote them out.
Instead everyone just gripes about them & nothing changes.

IIRC the whole "right to work" thing came about cause union dues were used to fund political campaigns, the idea being you couldn't even by default force anyone to fund a political party with no say so.

Union rules in the workplace have made workplaces safer for everyone as the private sector got forced ( by the unions fighting for regulations) to adopt the new standards.

The bad news being in the last 20yrs or so unions haven't done much for anyone. Still altho I prefer a non-union shop cause I'm fully capable of negotiating my own pay & benefits, I'm also a union supporter.
Labor Day is "Pete Seeger Day" in my household.

there use to be a commercial when i was in my teens on TV that had a jingle with the line that said,

look for the Union Label.

my dad would always sing,

p_ _s on the Union label. always got a kick out of that.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: dandandat2

You are missing the point of the entire thread.

This thread is for those that want the benefits of being in the union, but don't want to pay to be in the union, aka Right to Work. If you just don't want to be in a union, don't, it's simple. But don't to come my job and expect the union to help you but you don't want to go through the same things that the dues paying members do.

Not paying someone, or company, for a service and then demanding to receive it anyways was the point of the comparison. And that is spot on, those were ones that came to mind. Not my fault you didn't understand them at the time.

In my field (and most others around me) there are, almost, no companies that would give someone with my skill set the same pay, benefits, etc that I get through my union.

Right to work individuals are not demanding anything from you and your union. They want to obtain a job at thè same company and industry as you with out being associated with you and your union. They want an independent relationship with your employer and it is you and your union thar have a problem with this relationship that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

It is not their fault that the employer is willing to pay them the same amount or given them the same benefits that your union obtained. Its none of your business.

If the benefits of being a union member in your union was so apparent than you wouldn't have any issues recruiting people; they would be falling over themselves to join. It's precisely because you have a problem convincing people to join that this is even an issue. It's not surprising given that you yourself have pointed out the problems with unions and your union in particular.

You can't begrudge people for making a choice that is best for them. You shouldn't begrudge freedom where people are allowed to choose what is best for themselves. If unions are a good as you claim (and you don't need to convince me) than get out and promote your union and find a way to convince right-to-work individual to join.

a reply to: dandandat2

If they want to work at my job, they have to join the union. Plain and simple.

If you don't want to work in a union, go find a job that doesn't have a union.

I am only begrudging those that want to reap the benefits of an organization they are choosing not the be a part of. Pay to play or you don't win.

Not sure where your malfunction is that you can't understand a simple concept such as that.


Look here bub, you know absolutely nothing about me so don't try to say "you don't.... or you have a problem..." You don't know jack.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: dandandat2

If they want to work at my job, they have to join the union. Plain and simple.

And you don't understand how that statement is fascist?

What gives you the right to demand people do what you want to have a job in your industry/company?

They can't demand that you disbanded your union; and you can't demand they join your union.... freedom.

I am only begrudging those that want to reap the benefits of an organization they are choosing not the be a part of. Pay to play or you don't win.

If you're employer is willing to pay non union members the same as union members than that is a private negotiation with the non union employee and your employer. Its none of your business. Conduct private negotiations with your employer your self if you feel doing so gives you an advantage.

a reply to: dandandat2

Nothing "fascist" about a TRUE statement. Every single hourly employee at my job is union.

Nothing of what I have said is what I want, it is a factual statement.

Good job trying to talk about things you know nothing about

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: dandandat2

Nothing "fascist" about a TRUE statement. Every single hourly employee at my job is union.

Nothing of what I have said is what I want, it is a factual statement.

Good job trying to talk about things you know nothing about

My apologies I was under the impression you started this thread to lament right-to-work. But I see now that right-to-work isn't impacting you. So what was the point of your thread then?

a reply to: PorkChop96

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

the day after (right to work) is employed, the unions are no longer needed/funded

THE COMPANY LAWYERS WILL START CHIPPING AWAY AND NEVER STOP!
just look at workers compensaion in pennsylvania...

the agreement was, you accept the injury no matter whose fault,
AND WE WONT SUE THE COMPANY..

but from day number 1 they try everything possible to take it away,
first theres the COMPANY APPROVED DOCTORS you are REQUIRED to treat with, who say its pre-existing, or you are fine for 100% duty.... nothing wrong, even if your arm hangs by a thread..

your doctor will tell you that its possible for an office worker to
pop a disk in their back from BEING STRESSED OUT, but
all the construction workers who lift heavy objects all day long,
are given bull# excuses why its NOT a work related injury
send you back to work and hope you give up

then they have armys of lawyers ever chipping away at your benefits in courts
but NEVER ANY LAWYERS FIGHTING FOR MORE BENEFITS
so year after year you lose more and more, and gets harder to collect

you are told on pennsylvania workers comp website that it is
an INSURANCE POLICY
that you are required (FORCED) to pay into... but,
if you have ANY OTHER insurance like AFLAC, the companies lawyers
DEMAND to be re-imbursed, wether you have 1 or ten policies
that you ALSO pay for... WHICH IS TOTAL B.S.
so it is IMPOSSIBLE to get 100% of your wages

they are SUPPOSED TO pay you 66 % (2/3rds) your normal average pay
but most times gotta pay for a lawyer just to be accepted
thats at minimum another 20% out of every weekly check (for life)
so you only get 46% MAXIMUM

and will get you rejected for a technical error no matter how much
MEDICAL EVIDENCE you have accumulated..
most people are in pain, and on POWERFUL mood/mind ALTERING meds
and they know exactly how much and will take your deposition then
asking you complicated questions to confuse you into giving
wrong or false answers to screw you with

(while Larry Silverstein can collect DOUBLE for a terrorist act at wtc on 911
just DAYS after buying a policy that others must wait 1 year before
policy comes into effect)

so even though you are paying (FORCED) for this policy
they are getting THEIR money back.....NO DOUBLE DIPPING (for you)


no double dipping like mortgage banks get if you foreclose on your house

FIRST, they keep every penny you paid in, even if you only owe $1 left.

2nd,,,you pay for mortgage insurance, that the bank collects if you stop paying..

3rd,...PLUS ,they keep your house to SELL ALL OVER AGAIN..
and if you pay it off in 30 years, you basically pay them THREE TIMES THE PRICE
AND you also are BORROWING 30 years of taxes and mortgage insurance payments
that would cut your payments in half if you paid them seperately

SORRY,... i got a bit off track there....
if there is no labor union dues money coming in,
THEY CANNOT SUBMIT THE HIGHEST WINNING BRIBE
to your elected officials to protect the workers'ses jobs

and they purposely named it RIGHT TO WORK to confuse
the masses who have not read the bill written by lawyers,
so you believe the words RIGHT TO WORK is good for the worker
and YOU UNWITTINGLY VOTE FOR IT