http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rule-change-favors-unions-at-apf-2539152976.html?x=0
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6Not neccessarily a win for the unions It could mean more will vote in any given election and be more indicative of what the work force wants. Anyone who doesn't vote then can't complain about the outcome.
James
It's about time. Maybe Wal-Mart will have to stop firing people for union activity.
It is incumbant on both sides of a voting issue to present their case and urge their proponents to vote. The concept of not voting means a "no" vote is self defeating so anyone who thinks like that is actually voting for the opposition or at least giving the opposition a chance to win. If there were to be even a 90% turnout for a reprsentatation election in a shop of 100, 50 or fewer votes could determine the outcome. If either side is not that interested in voting it's full force, then either they are hypocrits or otherwise deserve the loss. So, this is not a pro union victory unless the anti union group is hypocritical of their convictions, or too lazy or otherwise not promted to vote. Likewise for the pro union point of view. Its like putting your vote where your mouth is.
I just can't comprehend PAYING an organization so I can work. Unions had it's place many years ago, and it has some usefullness (getting more rest for train crews) but how would it help Wal-Mart out (besides higher prices for its consumers)?
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
Soo 6604 I just can't comprehend PAYING an organization so I can work. Unions had it's place many years ago, and it has some usefullness (getting more rest for train crews) but how would it help Wal-Mart out (besides higher prices for its consumers)?
Unions still have a place, ask any coal miner about safety issues. It would also force Wal-Mart to treat its help like human beings and pay them a decent wage.
OK. That's your opinion about unions but not about this topic.
Might as well get read in the prepucker position. Airlines Unions unhappy with the Delta/Northwest merger.
Short line RR's can be a target. (now that there are consolidaions into larger Corporate structures, like Omni-Trax, or Watco, just to name a couple. (My prediction, it will get really ugly as the fight progresses.)
How about Federal Express Corp?. Currently only pilots are unionized. ( My prediction, having lived through the 1997 " Brownout" when the IBT struck UPS, it was a scramble).
Fed Ex was embroiled with the aftermath and threats that they would be targeted, and then UP RR's ownership of Overnight Transportation was collaterally involved. UP RR eventually sold Overnight to UPS, and FED Ex had bought the carrier,(in 2001) Arkansas Freight ( nee Razorback Express) now AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS. so there would be parity with each other, and they could cut out some of their ad hoc carriers.)
One thing about it nothing will be a given as long as Washington is a payback for Union financial suport of the Democrats election process.
henry6It is incumbant on both sides of a voting issue to present their case and urge their proponents to vote. The concept of not voting means a "no" vote is self defeating so anyone who thinks like that is actually voting for the opposition or at least giving the opposition a chance to win. If there were to be even a 90% turnout for a reprsentatation election in a shop of 100, 50 or fewer votes could determine the outcome. If either side is not that interested in voting it's full force, then either they are hypocrits or otherwise deserve the loss. So, this is not a pro union victory unless the anti union group is hypocritical of their convictions, or too lazy or otherwise not promted to vote. Likewise for the pro union point of view. Its like putting your vote where your mouth is.
You need to check out how a 'Closed Shop State' enters into the employement picture as well( Missouri comes first to my mind).
The other side of that picture is the " Right to Work State" where an employee is not required to join a Union, but can do that at the individual's own option. ( a number of Southern States are in this catagory.)
Lets look at Obams Last Recess APPOINTMENT to the NLRB shall we. The Former HEAD of the SEIU and his stated goal was to INCREASE Labor UNIONS power REGARDLESS of what the LABOR LAW stated. This man was DEFEATED by 23 VOTES in the Senate at a Closure vote for Conformation when the Democrats had 60 Senators. Even Robert Bryd VOTED AGAINST HIM. Yet he has Seen Obama in the White House 23 Times since Obama took office Prior to Being put on the NLRB Board. So do we have someone that will respect a compaines right to challange an UNFAIR Union Election or someone that will give the Workers anyone that they want. BTW Industry is Fighting this so do not count the victory before it happens for one reason see the Act the changed was VERY specfic on what a non-vote meant they are now saying sorry you either vote or we will ram a UNION UPON YOU.
Btw my wifes company a UNION Nursing home JUST DE CERTED ITS why because they were tired of the Local refusing to help. The owner stated I will honor all contracts IN WRITING and also give a larger COL next year plus put in a Greivance commitee. Because of said commitee my wife who was being forced to work every weekend while the BOSS kept hiring her friends daughters for other positions my wife applied for finally got a better job at the Nursing home. Do not FEED ME THE UNIONS ARE GREAT BS. My father was a Teamster and was BLACKBALLED FOR CROSSING IN THE 70's FOR FEEDING HIS FAMILY FROM EVER GETTING HIS RIGHTFULLY EARNED PENSION.
edbenton Lets look at Obams Last Recess APPOINTMENT to the NLRB shall we. The Former HEAD of the SEIU and his stated goal was to INCREASE Labor UNIONS power REGARDLESS of what the LABOR LAW stated. This man was DEFEATED by 23 VOTES in the Senate at a Closure vote for Conformation when the Democrats had 60 Senators. Even Robert Bryd VOTED AGAINST HIM. Yet he has Seen Obama in the White House 23 Times since Obama took office Prior to Being put on the NLRB Board. So do we have someone that will respect a compaines right to challange an UNFAIR Union Election or someone that will give the Workers anyone that they want. BTW Industry is Fighting this so do not count the victory before it happens for one reason see the Act the changed was VERY specfic on what a non-vote meant they are now saying sorry you either vote or we will ram a UNION UPON YOU. Btw my wifes company a UNION Nursing home JUST DE CERTED ITS why because they were tired of the Local refusing to help. The owner stated I will honor all contracts IN WRITING and also give a larger COL next year plus put in a Greivance commitee. Because of said commitee my wife who was being forced to work every weekend while the BOSS kept hiring her friends daughters for other positions my wife applied for finally got a better job at the Nursing home. Do not FEED ME THE UNIONS ARE GREAT BS. My father was a Teamster and was BLACKBALLED FOR CROSSING IN THE 70's FOR FEEDING HIS FAMILY FROM EVER GETTING HIS RIGHTFULLY EARNED PENSION.
rightfully earned? Yea right, If he crossed the picket line he gave up his rights and became a scab, Oh and i dont want to hear you cry a river on BS.....My dad DID NOT cross the picket and yes he was a teamster, Oh and he did get his pension.
Ive read all your complaints about how bad trucking is and how bad this state is and how this is wrong and that , But the orginazations that can help you fix the problem you run from spitting non-truths, In reality the union trucking companies are treated better at the scales are treated better by the employer, and work less and earn more than the non-union companies,
Unions are in the minority. So of you don't want to work for a union, THEN DON'T WORK FOR ONE.
Problem solved. I don't like the fact that many Walmart workers are on public assistance. Why do I have to subsidize their workers? But I don't go around bashing everyone who shops at walmart.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
edbenton My father was a Teamster and was BLACKBALLED FOR CROSSING IN THE 70's FOR FEEDING HIS FAMILY FROM EVER GETTING HIS RIGHTFULLY EARNED PENSION.
My father was a Teamster and was BLACKBALLED FOR CROSSING IN THE 70's FOR FEEDING HIS FAMILY FROM EVER GETTING HIS RIGHTFULLY EARNED PENSION.
A scab is the lowest form of life known, they get what they deserve for crossing the picket lines of their fellow workers who are trying to get a decent wage and working conditions.
Any vote taken would of course have to be a legal election. No one said a union would hold an illegal election...that's pure BS because it won't happen...so why say it except to enrage union members and mislead and excite those ignorant of how the process and laws work. The premise of this thread is that this move by the Labor Department would favor unions. But there is no proof and in fact, in my opinion, it actually moves voting importance more so that whoever wants to win it can if they work toward it and get their constituants out to vote. The discussion should be about the process as stated and not be attacking unions or managment. It makes it just as easy or just as hard for either side to win. If either side is complacent enough not to vote, they lose; if either side works to get out the vote, they win. If one choses not to vote, he'll more likely lose no matter what the outcome; but he can't complain or blame. This is not about management nor unions, it is about voting your will. If you think you were outnumberd before, one way or the other, then here is your chance to get even; and now your vote is even more important than ever.
henry6 Any vote taken would of course have to be a legal election. No one said a union would hold an illegal election...that's pure BS because it won't happen...so why say it except to enrage union members and mislead and excite those ignorant of how the process and laws work. The premise of this thread is that this move by the Labor Department would favor unions. But there is no proof and in fact, in my opinion, it actually moves voting importance more so that whoever wants to win it can if they work toward it and get their constituants out to vote. The discussion should be about the process as stated and not be attacking unions or managment. It makes it just as easy or just as hard for either side to win. If either side is complacent enough not to vote, they lose; if either side works to get out the vote, they win. If one choses not to vote, he'll more likely lose no matter what the outcome; but he can't complain or blame. This is not about management nor unions, it is about voting your will. If you think you were outnumberd before, one way or the other, then here is your chance to get even; and now your vote is even more important than ever.
Very well said What i did get out of what i scaned thru is this gives a man or woman a chance to say yes i want union representation. with out the company that person works for to fire them or disapline them in any form. its just a step in the prossess of getting fair terms and a safe working enviroment.
henry6Any vote taken would of course have to be a legal election. No one said a union would hold an illegal election...that's pure BS because it won't happen...so why say it except to enrage union members and mislead and excite those ignorant of how the process and laws work.... The premise of this thread is that this move by the Labor Department would favor unions. now your vote is even more important than ever.
Any vote taken would of course have to be a legal election. No one said a union would hold an illegal election...that's pure BS because it won't happen...so why say it except to enrage union members and mislead and excite those ignorant of how the process and laws work.... The premise of this thread is that this move by the Labor Department would favor unions. now your vote is even more important than ever.
spokyone I am against a procedure that allows a union to represent ALL employees, even though less than a majority votes for it. Let an election prove that a majority WANTS to be represented. The fact that a non-vote equals a vote for a change is hard for me to accept.
I am against a procedure that allows a union to represent ALL employees, even though less than a majority votes for it. Let an election prove that a majority WANTS to be represented. The fact that a non-vote equals a vote for a change is hard for me to accept.
If someone can't be bothered to vote, then I really have no sympathy for them if they don't like the outcome. Is it fair to automatically count them as a no vote? I don't think so.
zugmann spokyone I am against a procedure that allows a union to represent ALL employees, even though less than a majority votes for it. Let an election prove that a majority WANTS to be represented. The fact that a non-vote equals a vote for a change is hard for me to accept. If someone can't be bothered to vote, then I really have no sympathy for them if they don't like the outcome. Is it fair to automatically count them as a no vote? I don't think so.
Did Eleanor vote? Say man yo wont a hot apple pie wiff that,
I agree, a non-vote should logically count for the status quo.
-Crandell
If you are against the procedure, then the labor laws have to be changed to appease you. So to begin to accomplish that, contact your congressmen and tell them how you feel and ask what you must do to change the laws.
If you do not vote you give the opposition a chance to get at least one more vote than your view gets. In a group of 100 divided equally 50-50 on a question, one non vote would give the opposition the election. This is a point Americans don't seem to understand about the election process. If you have a conviction, vote it because if you don't those with the opposite conviction can, and often do, win. If you don't vote you're more than sure of not having your view win.
Henry, this isn't a presidential election where the man has TX'd and must either run again or yield power. When a union is in tight and at least showing a semblance of doing what its membership desires, then any changes need to be approved by a simple majority. Those who don't vote should be counted as not actively seeking the change(s) being contemplated.
Would you like your auto service center to go ahead and swap out that old transmission because it seems to be running hot, and then tell you it was for your own good, and to not worry about not being consulted? Or would you like to have an active role in determining the extent to which your car should be altered? You should have a say. If you are not present, or elect not to respond, would that be a signal for them to go ahead and effect the swap?
selector Those who don't vote should be counted as not actively seeking the change(s) being contemplated. -Crandell
Those who don't vote should be counted as not actively seeking the change(s) being contemplated.
Why? I see those that don't vote as not caring one way or the other. So they should be removed from the final decision.
zugmann Why? I see those that don't vote as not caring one way or the other. So they should be removed from the final decision.
This probably isn't going to affect the railroads that much, since it really in many ways has more to do with getting the union certified in the first place. Railroads already have very old, established unions.
To me, the argument that unions have served their purpose so should be eliminated is like saying since so many infectious diseases are now rare, we should stop producing antibiotics and penicillin. The fact that employers fight things like this with expensive TV ads and such shows to me how much they want to get rid of unions and turn back the clock.
spokyone If the union can't get the majority of employees to vote for them, they should not represent all.
If the union can't get the majority of employees to vote for them, they should not represent all.
And if people don't bother to vote that doesn't mean they are against unions, per se. To me it just screams "I don't give a ***".
The mediation board are appointed by a President and confirmed by the Senate. Apparently, their decision is final. Only time will tell if an election under the new rule will be contested in court.I have found this editorial that you may care to read.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=533719
Could not get the investors.com link to work.
But still the point is: if you don't vote why should you be counted? I don't care what it is for, if it is that important that you have either an opinion or a stake, then you should vote or forever hold your tongue.
henry6...if you don't vote why should you be counted?
My point precisely. And if it should be counted in a binary system of yes or no, to which camp should it be assigned, and under what criteria?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.