jmog;1251710 wrote:1. To act like not scanning a HAZMAT package properly is not a big deal is ignorant and you know it. You can't down play hazardous material transportation.

2. If the supervisor is just like you say, in a non-union shop he might have got a way with firing the first guy or two but he would have been gone long ago because management would have figured out the problem was him quicker. So, he would have been gone long ago making your life easier and your buddy would have got fired by someone else for not scanning a HAZMAT package properly .

I'm sorry, but you have no idea how the real world, outside of unions really works if you truly believe the stuff you just posted.

It's not a big deal when the package is still being catalogued thru paper. As long as there's a slip that's all that's technically needed. The scan in is just a thing for UPS itself

And sleeper there's not much choice in this economy and how can you turn down those bennies and pay? Never worked harder for my degree before this job tho

i find it funny that people have experience with one union and use that experience to make judgements about all of them. I beleive they should be judged on an individual basis just like anything else. its fine if you dont like them, but your experience with one shouldnt be the reason why. imo

Classyposter58;1252754 wrote:It's not a big deal when the package is still being catalogued thru paper. As long as there's a slip that's all that's technically needed. The scan in is just a thing for UPS itself

And sleeper there's not much choice in this economy and how can you turn down those bennies and pay? Never worked harder for my degree before this job tho

What's a big deal is that the person didn't do the job he/ she was expected to do.

http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x1107514196/Union-may-absorb-hundreds-of-Ohio-government-jobs


600 employees forced to pay UNION DUES OH BOY just when you need more cash the Union take it away

Belly35;1258804 wrote:http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x1107514196/Union-may-absorb-hundreds-of-Ohio-government-jobs


600 employees forced to pay UNION DUES OH BOY just when you need more cash the Union take it away

"The collective-bargaining office, which is part of the state administration, agreed to the union’s request."

What that means is that the employer is agreeing to bargain with the union for the terms that will cover those 600 employees. The State was free to turn down that request and bargain with those 600 employees on their own. They're still free to step outside of that agreement, approach the bargaining office and ask for their own contract...which the employer is free to do. And finally, the proper term, if they don't want to formally join the union is an "agency fee" because the union was the agent that negotiated the contract.

Your beef is with the administration for agreeing to negotiate with the union for those employee's contracts and in all likelihood choosing not to negotiate with them on an individual basis.

Con_Alma;1252801 wrote:What's a big deal is that the person didn't do the job he/ she was expected to do.

:laugh: Yeah lets just fire everyone if they make a mistake. Now granted there are some large mistakes that can be irrhensible but take into consideration that before these new scanners that came in a few months ago we just pulled out the paper. The world still turned.

The reason for unions are so people who do manual labor have great job security since they're doing things that could injure them and they have enough to worry about. I am friends with the logistics guy at Titan Tire which is union in Bryan but non-union in Iowa. He said people in the Iowa plant were basically sprinting around because if they don't keep up their fired no matter what. Who wants that work environment in a shop? Their injury rate was also 6 times higher. Now sure I know people abuse this job security, but let me tell you those lazy people are almost constantly yelled at. Management obviously isn't dumb when it comes to those things. But unions were created for the manufacturers and laborers and those still exist so why eliminate them?

Classyposter58;1260647 wrote::laugh: Yeah lets just fire everyone if they make a mistake. Now granted there are some large mistakes that can be irrhensible but take into consideration that before these new scanners that came in a few months ago we just pulled out the paper. The world still turned.

The reason for unions are so people who do manual labor have great job security since they're doing things that could injure them and they have enough to worry about. I am friends with the logistics guy at Titan Tire which is union in Bryan but non-union in Iowa. He said people in the Iowa plant were basically sprinting around because if they don't keep up their fired no matter what. Who wants that work environment in a shop? Their injury rate was also 6 times higher. Now sure I know people abuse this job security, but let me tell you those lazy people are almost constantly yelled at. Management obviously isn't dumb when it comes to those things. But unions were created for the manufacturers and laborers and those still exist so why eliminate them?

To complain about being address in any manner when you don't do you job is just selfish.

If you don't want to work in a shop that that fires you for not "keeping up" then you shouldn't.

If a company is willing to have organized labor, great. If you only want to work in a shop that has organized labor, great.

If you don't do your job, don't be surprised when you are approached about it.

I hate the Unions because all of the teachers in Chicago are dbags and are striking, which really really benefits the kids.

Classyposter58;1260647 wrote::laugh: Yeah lets just fire everyone if they make a mistake. Now granted there are some large mistakes that can be irrhensible but take into consideration that before these new scanners that came in a few months ago we just pulled out the paper. The world still turned.

...

The employer doesn't have to fire them but the employee shouldn't be surprised if they were fired.

I can assure you the world would still turn if that employee were not longer there. I ave no doubt another person could do their job.

it should not be the company's choice to have a union, it should be the workers as a group choice to have a union.

isadore;1267726 wrote:it should not be the company's choice to have a union, it should be the workers as a group choice to have a union.

What should be according to you is not what is . No company has to negotiate with organized labor. They can simply take their capital and go home.

the company should not determine if there should be a union, the workers as a group should determine if they want a union.

isadore;1267730 wrote:the company should not determine if there should be a union, the workers as a group should determine if they want a union.

They may be what you want but that's simply just not the case.

And "breakneck pace" could be a normal rhythm when compared to some watch-the-paint-dry union shops. Just saying

isadore;1267730 wrote:the company should not determine if there should be a union, the workers as a group should determine if they want a union.

You are correct, the people can decide to form a union. However, the company then has the right to either fire everyone and hire people who don't want a union, or pick up the building and move the business somewhere else.

Even though the workers have the right to create unions, businesses still have the right to get rid of them if they don't want to work with them.

Classyposter58;1260647 wrote: The reason for unions are so people who do manual labor have great job security since they're doing things that could injure them and they have enough to worry about.

False. Workers compensation (paid for by the company) exists to take care of injured workers, and it is against the law to fire someone for filing a workers compensation claim. You don't need a union to have your injury taken care of, and you cannot be fired because of it. Try again.

isadore;1267730 wrote:the company should not determine if there should be a union, the workers as a group should determine if they want a union.

And individuals who do not want to be a part of the union 'group' should not be forced to do so.

Beyond that, companies will often simply go elsewhere to deploy their capital rather than put it at risk by subjecting their operations to the absurdities that go along with having a union. Unions have done more damage to job creation in the Rust Belt than all other negative influences combined.

QuakerOats;1267890 wrote:And individuals who do not want to be a part of the union 'group' should not be forced to do so.

Beyond that, companies will often simply go elsewhere to deploy their capital rather than put it at risk by subjecting their operations to the absurdities that go along with having a union. Unions have done more damage to job creation in the Rust Belt than all other negative influences combined.

if they do not join they should pay a negotiation fee. the absurdities of not being able to destroy workers lives then abandon them, the absurdity of not being able to use child labor, absurdity of being forced to pay compensation injured at your business, this is how soulless corporations operate.

QuakerOats;1267883 wrote:False. Workers compensation (paid for by the company) exists to take care of injured workers, and it is against the law to fire someone for filing a workers compensation claim. You don't need a union to have your injury taken care of, and you cannot be fired because of it. Try again.

workers compensation exist because of the efforts of organized labor, not the soulless conscienceless corporations.

isadore;1268298 wrote:workers compensation exist because of the efforts of organized labor, not the soulless conscienceless corporations.

Ummm, workers comp dates back to 1750 BC in the Code of Hammurabi, and earlier actually. Long before union leaders and proponents discovered how to extract wealth from their constituents. So, wrong again.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1888620/

gosh a ruddies the first true worker's compensation system was put in place by bismarck which he took from the social democrats and labor unions in germany.

unions lead the fight for work men compensation laws in america
supported the new york central v white case
that stopped corportion from using the 14th amendment to allow them to avoid responsibility for worker injury.

isadore;1268365 wrote:gosh a ruddies the first true worker's compensation system was put in place by bismarck which he took from the social democrats and labor unions in germany.

The article doesn't mention unions. Nevertheless, union haven't invented most of the protections you attribute them. Accelerated adoption, sure, but in actuality the courts have more to do with it. Worker's comp is a drop in the bucket compared with what a company can be sued for in cases of negligence. And smart companies have long since evolved to recognize that lost time due to preventable injuries is costly to the bottom line.

gut;1268381 wrote:The article doesn't mention unions. Nevertheless, union haven't invented most of the protections you attribute them. Accelerated adoption, sure, but in actuality the courts have more to do with it. Worker's comp is a drop in the bucket compared with what a company can be sued for in cases of negligence. And smart companies have long since evolved to recognize that lost time due to preventable injuries is costly to the bottom line.

unions are responsible for those protectins being made into law. For the injured, for children. we can see how these corporations act outside the boundaries of the united states in latin america, africa, asia. they treat those people like they treated american workers in the 19th century and will do again if you get your way.

isadore;1268399 wrote:unions are responsible for those protectins being made into law.

No they aren't. Workers comp dates back to the written word itself.