Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

Thread: The Union Boss Mindset

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    988

    The Union Boss Mindset

    The Union Boss Mindset
    Wed, 04/09/2008 - 16:46 — Patrick Semmens
    AFL-CIO top boss John Sweeney and Virginia AFL-CIO chief James Leaman recently had an article in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star that shows just how union officials view the workers they claim to represent.
    The headline of the article rhetorically asks: "Without labor unions, who speaks for the worker?"
    The implication is that workers are incapable of representing themselves. This also implies that workers who reject union membership are too stupid to know what is best for them.
    That contemptuous view of workers and their ability to look after their own best interests explains why Big Labor is constantly claiming to have employees' best interests in mind while trying to limit the ability of those very employees to exercise free choice when it comes to unionization.
    According to the union boss mentality, forcing workers to be represented by the union (as happens nationwide under monopoly bargaining), forcing workers to pay dues to a union (as happens in non-Right to Work states), and eliminating the protection of a secret ballot (as happens in a card check drive), are all just ways of coercing workers into doing what the union bosses think is best for them.
    With such a condescending view of the workers they want to represent, it is no wonder that when actually given the choice, fewer and fewer employees are choosing unionization. Unfortunately, the union bosses are intent on "solving" that problem by eliminating that choice.

  2. #2
    Member BorderBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Hard to make independent judgements on blogged opinion pieces without the original cite.

    That said, there is alot in the union game these days that I don't agree with. In my union we have secret balloting and would not consider anything different. The federal sector is not a union shop per se, all non management employees are in the bargaining unit but there is no requirement that they pay dues to the national union. Likewise, our chapter is not required to represent non members past a certain point in the disciplinary process.

    Non members get a free ride when it comes to benefits lobbied on their behalf by our national union, pay raises and such. We recently gained a 20 year law enforcement retirement through those efforts. Political action committees are paid out of separate funds. Federal unions are prohibited from using dues payments for PAC efforts so any funds raised on that behalf is done privately.

    That and we don't really have a "strong" union. Most of our contracts are written with vague language which favors management. Hard and fast work rules usually exist in statute rather than in agreement.

    And these days the agency cloaks everything in "national security," to coerce our national leaders from talking in public. Facial hair for example, is a matter of national security.

    Can't talke about it, said too much already :-)

    b.b.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    4,542
    New York needs to become a right to work state.
    http://www.buffaloreuse.org/~kool aid free zone~

  4. #4
    Member cookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Over where the sun rises
    Posts
    3,592
    I can see why secret ballots can be good on one hand, but how do you know what the actual tallies are? Do you think there is never a "tipping" of the votes?

  5. #5
    Member BorderBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie
    I can see why secret ballots can be good on one hand, but how do you know what the actual tallies are? Do you think there is never a "tipping" of the votes?
    We send out numbered ballots to members. Enclosed are the ballots and a blank envelope. Members vote then place the ballot in the blank envelope then put that in the numbered envelope. We know WHO voted by the numbered ballot, but the actual ballot is in a blank envelope to be counted

    b.b.

  6. #6
    Member Smiley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Near Town Hall
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by GG716
    The Union Boss Mindset
    Wed, 04/09/2008 - 16:46 — Patrick Semmens
    AFL-CIO top boss John Sweeney and Virginia AFL-CIO chief James Leaman recently had an article in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star that shows just how union officials view the workers they claim to represent.
    The headline of the article rhetorically asks: "Without labor unions, who speaks for the worker?"
    The implication is that workers are incapable of representing themselves. This also implies that workers who reject union membership are too stupid to know what is best for them.
    I don't think that is any indication that he thinks the workers are incapable of representing themselves or that workers who reject unions membership are stupid. Without seeing the entire article, I would think that what he is saying is that there is strength in numbers and the union bosses are removed from the work place and can address the issues without any specific employee being singled out for voicing his/her opinion and ultimately being fired. Which in the labor business is capital punishment
    Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Of All That Threaten It
    What if the Hokey-Pokey IS what it's all about?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Smiley
    without any specific employee being singled out for voicing his/her opinion and ultimately being fired. Which in the labor business is capital punishment
    Yep employee's are singled out and fired for voicing their opinion. The union will work to protect the one singled out even if they did screw up big time.

    Better not rat out someone for not doing their job or else everyone will turn against you and your out of a job.

    Well isn’t that just dandy. The unions circle becomes complete.

    Because of union contracts people get into the position they are in.
    Because of union contracts you can't fire a lazy bastard.
    Because of union contracts you cannot be promoted based on ability.
    Because of union contracts lazy bastards make the exact same as the ones who bust their ass.
    Because of union contracts they can only fire you if you do something illegal or majorly screw up.
    Because of union contracts the whistle blower will be harassed by lazy people.
    Because of union contracts they must represent the whistle blower.
    Because of union contracts they must represent the wrongdoer.

    Anyone see how the union leaders, lawyers, etc... use this to their advantage to keep themselves employed?

    In the real world.
    People would EARN their position based upon their proven ability to perform.
    People would be fired if they were lazy and low performers.
    People would be given a raise based on their ability and proven performance not their longentivity.
    People would be fired for illegal activities and majorly skewing up. They would have to hire their own lawyers to represent themselves. If they won they would be compensated. Resulting in less BS lawsuits they don't stand a chance of wining.
    People wouldn’t harass the ones who bust their ass, they would be the ones busting their ass.
    People would actually work to earn their promotion, raise, etc... rather then it be handed to them.
    The system would be much more effective, productive, etc...

    There will always be a need for government employees. Thus the government will have to do what it takes to fill the requirements of these positions. Weather it be pay, beanies, etc...
    Employees wanting to make money will have to actually work to earn the money.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Smiley
    without any specific employee being singled out for voicing his/her opinion and ultimately being fired. Which in the labor business is capital punishment
    Yep employee's are singled out and fired for voicing their opinion. The union will work to protect the one singled out even if they did screw up big time.

    Better not rat out someone for not doing their job or else everyone will turn against you and your out of a job.

    Well isn’t that just dandy. The unions circle becomes complete.

    Because of union contracts people get into the position they are in.
    Because of union contracts you can't fire a lazy bastard.
    Because of union contracts you cannot be promoted based on ability.
    Because of union contracts lazy bastards make the exact same as the ones who bust their ass.
    Because of union contracts they can only fire you if you do something illegal or majorly screw up.
    Because of union contracts the whistle blower will be harassed by lazy people.
    Because of union contracts they must represent the whistle blower.
    Because of union contracts they must represent the wrongdoer.

    Anyone see how the union leaders, lawyers, etc... use this to their advantage to keep themselves employed?

    In the real world.
    People would EARN their position based upon their proven ability to perform.
    People would be fired if they were lazy and low performers.
    People would be given a raise based on their ability and proven performance not their longentivity.
    People would be fired for illegal activities and majorly skewing up. They would have to hire their own lawyers to represent themselves. If they won they would be compensated. Resulting in less BS lawsuits they don't stand a chance of wining.
    People wouldn’t harass the ones who bust their ass, they would be the ones busting their ass.
    People would actually work to earn their promotion, raise, etc... rather then it be handed to them.
    The system would be much more effective, productive, etc...

    There will always be a need for government employees. Thus the government will have to do what it takes to fill the requirements of these positions. Weather it be pay, beanies, etc...
    Employees wanting to make money will have to actually work to earn the money.

    The goverment can not make a profit. A surplus yes, but eventually it is used for the taxpayers in one form or another.

    Think of the taxpayers as the stock holders/owners, the leaders as the board, and the workers and managers as the employees...

    If we don't like the way the company preforms we take stock out of the company just as people pack up and move. The only diffrence is this company called the goverment can not close up and go out of business, as it's business is selling the location. it can only downsize due to stockholders (taxpayers) not willing to invest the system (the area).

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Smiley
    without any specific employee being singled out for voicing his/her opinion and ultimately being fired. Which in the labor business is capital punishment
    Yep employee's are singled out and fired for voicing their opinion. The union will work to protect the one singled out even if they did screw up big time.

    Better not rat out someone for not doing their job or else everyone will turn against you and your out of a job.

    Well isn’t that just dandy. The unions circle becomes complete.

    Because of union contracts people get into the position they are in.
    Because of union contracts you can't fire a lazy bastard.
    Because of union contracts you cannot be promoted based on ability.
    Because of union contracts lazy bastards make the exact same as the ones who bust their ass.
    Because of union contracts they can only fire you if you do something illegal or majorly screw up.
    Because of union contracts the whistle blower will be harassed by lazy people.
    Because of union contracts they must represent the whistle blower.
    Because of union contracts they must represent the wrongdoer.

    Anyone see how the union leaders, lawyers, etc... use this to their advantage to keep themselves employed?

    In the real world.
    People would EARN their position based upon their proven ability to perform.
    People would be fired if they were lazy and low performers.
    People would be given a raise based on their ability and proven performance not their longentivity.
    People would be fired for illegal activities and majorly skewing up. They would have to hire their own lawyers to represent themselves. If they won they would be compensated. Resulting in less BS lawsuits they don't stand a chance of wining.
    People wouldn’t harass the ones who bust their ass, they would be the ones busting their ass.
    People would actually work to earn their promotion, raise, etc... rather then it be handed to them.
    The system would be much more effective, productive, etc...

    There will always be a need for government employees. Thus the government will have to do what it takes to fill the requirements of these positions. Weather it be pay, beanies, etc...
    Employees wanting to make money will have to actually work to earn the money.

    The goverment can not make a profit. A surplus yes, but eventually it is used for the taxpayers in one form or another.

    Think of the taxpayers as the stock holders/owners, the leaders as the board, and the workers and managers as the employees...

    If we don't like the way the company preforms we take stock out of the company just as people pack up and move. The only diffrence is this company called the goverment can not close up and go out of business, as selling the location is it's business.
    It can only downsize due to stockholders (taxpayers) not willing to invest the system (the area). Or merge with other business (goverments).
    This is why it makes perfect sence to run a goverment like a business though it is not your typical business format.
    Last edited by GG716; April 16th, 2008 at 12:15 AM.

  10. #10
    Member Smiley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Near Town Hall
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by GG716
    Yep employee's are singled out and fired for voicing their opinion. The union will work to protect the one singled out even if they did screw up big time.

    Better not rat out someone for not doing their job or else everyone will turn against you and your out of a job.

    Well isn’t that just dandy. The unions circle becomes complete.

    Because of union contracts people get into the position they are in.
    Because of union contracts you can't fire a lazy bastard.
    Because of union contracts you cannot be promoted based on ability.
    Because of union contracts lazy bastards make the exact same as the ones who bust their ass.
    Because of union contracts they can only fire you if you do something illegal or majorly screw up.
    Because of union contracts the whistle blower will be harassed by lazy people.
    Because of union contracts they must represent the whistle blower.
    Because of union contracts they must represent the wrongdoer.

    Anyone see how the union leaders, lawyers, etc... use this to their advantage to keep themselves employed?

    In the real world.
    People would EARN their position based upon their proven ability to perform.
    People would be fired if they were lazy and low performers.
    People would be given a raise based on their ability and proven performance not their longentivity.
    People would be fired for illegal activities and majorly skewing up. They would have to hire their own lawyers to represent themselves. If they won they would be compensated. Resulting in less BS lawsuits they don't stand a chance of wining.
    People wouldn’t harass the ones who bust their ass, they would be the ones busting their ass.
    People would actually work to earn their promotion, raise, etc... rather then it be handed to them.
    The system would be much more effective, productive, etc...

    There will always be a need for government employees. Thus the government will have to do what it takes to fill the requirements of these positions. Weather it be pay, beanies, etc...
    Employees wanting to make money will have to actually work to earn the money.

    The goverment can not make a profit. A surplus yes, but eventually it is used for the taxpayers in one form or another.

    Think of the taxpayers as the stock holders/owners, the leaders as the board, and the workers and managers as the employees...

    If we don't like the way the company preforms we take stock out of the company just as people pack up and move. The only diffrence is this company called the goverment can not close up and go out of business, as selling the location is it's business.
    It can only downsize due to stockholders (taxpayers) not willing to invest the system (the area). Or merge with other business (goverments).
    This is why it makes perfect sence to run a goverment like a business though it is not your typical business format.
    You must be management at a place where there is no union. Typical management tactics of taking ONLY a part of what is said and twisting it. Not to mention total ignorance on how to deal with slug employee's. A good manager knows how to efficiently and effectively terminate a bad employee, whether there is a union or not. Then there are the ones who just moan and groan, but do nothing.

    Trying to bring the union's thoughts and practices to full circle? You obviously don't even know where to start to attempt to do that.
    Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Of All That Threaten It
    What if the Hokey-Pokey IS what it's all about?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Smiley
    You must be management at a place where there is no union.
    Typical management tactics of taking ONLY a part of what is said and twisting it. Not to mention total ignorance on how to deal with slug employee's. A good manager knows how to efficiently and effectively terminate a bad employee, whether there is a union or not. Then there are the ones who just moan and groan, but do nothing.

    Trying to bring the union's thoughts and practices to full circle? You obviously don't even know where to start to attempt to do that.

    OK so tell me how to efficiently and effectively terminate a bad employee and how the process is different between a union and a non-union job?
    You will notice how the union managers usually just moan and groan and do nothing. Because of the process they must go through created by the union.
    To become a manager/supervisor one usually starts out by being one the of the people they manage and work their way up. One becomes a manager/supervisor at a union job differently than a nun union-job. If you take a lazy person and stick them in a management position, they will still be a lazy person and a poor manager. If you take someone who has earned the position of manager by being a hard worker, someone who motivates other to work and is a good leader. Then naturally they would be a better manager.
    They may not be well liked and their job isn’t a popularity contest of the workers either.

    It has been proven money and job security does not motivate employees and in most instances it causes an employee to become less motivated.
    "We don't get paid extra to work harder"
    "If we work less we still get paid the same"
    "I'm going to do as little as possible without getting fired"

    It has also been proven fear does not motivate employees, it may in the short term but in the long run it only creates resentment and people to find ways to work against the system.
    "Our boss is an *******"
    "Screw our boss, lets work together to get him fired"
    "Lets abuse and break the tools so we cant do the job"

    Motivation and productivity are improved when there are set goals and rewards to the employees who meet these goals. Goals with no rewards do not motivate employees.

    "Lets get this crappy job done so we don't have to do it again"
    "Lets work together and get the job done so we can be compensated for it"
    "Screw the other employees I’m going to work harder and prove I deserve that raise more then them"
    "If I work harder my boss will give me the better jobs and make the lazy people do the crappy jobs"

    Work smarter not harder.
    "If I abuse the equipment I will be without, the job still needs to get done and I don’t want to have to do it by hand"
    "I'm going to be stuck on this job until it is done right, lets do it right so we don't have to go back and do it again, lets get it done quick so we can do something more interesting"


    Lazy employees make lazy managers.
    Lazy managers make lazy employees.
    Managers who do not have to answer to their superiors have no motivation themselves.
    Employees who do not have to answer to their supervisors have no motivation themselves.
    Managers who are on a power trip make bad managers.
    Managers who work alongside the employees rather then stand around watching over them are much more effective.


    It's quite simple. The system is flawed and is destined to fail when there is no motivation to become more productive and efficient. A system of rewards and consequences need to be set in place for those who deserve it and throes who don’t. other wise you have a bunch of lazy robots.

    The rewards could be small such as taking them out for a few drinks after work up to a raise or promotion.
    The UNION do not allow rewards or incentives for the workers nor the managers. The unions created this mess for the lazy employees, as well as the union itself. Not for for above average hard working people.

    The unions work against the system not for it.
    Creating a system with the employees thinking, If I make them money I make more myself. The more I save them the more I make myself. Everyone working together for a common goal WORKS.
    A perfect example of this is how Wegmans is structured and has PROVEN to work.
    If only there was a system in goverment allowing this.



    BTW: I've been a laborer, foreman, manager, supervisor and owner.
    Any questions?
    Last edited by GG716; April 16th, 2008 at 05:21 PM.

  12. #12
    Member Smiley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Near Town Hall
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by GG716
    OK so tell me how to efficiently and effectively terminate a bad employee and how the process is different between a union and a non-union job?
    You will notice how the union managers usually just moan and groan and do nothing. Because of the process they must go through created by the union.
    To become a manager/supervisor one usually starts out by being one the of the people they manage and work their way up. One becomes a manager/supervisor at a union job differently than a nun union-job. If you take a lazy person and stick them in a management position, they will still be a lazy person and a poor manager. If you take someone who has earned the position of manager by being a hard worker, someone who motivates other to work and is a good leader. Then naturally they would be a better manager.
    They may not be well liked and their job isn’t a popularity contest of the workers either.

    It has been proven money and job security does not motivate employees and in most instances it causes an employee to become less motivated.
    "We don't get paid extra to work harder"
    "If we work less we still get paid the same"
    "I'm going to do as little as possible without getting fired"

    It has also been proven fear does not motivate employees, it may in the short term but in the long run it only creates resentment and people to find ways to work against the system.
    "Our boss is an *******"
    "Screw our boss, lets work together to get him fired"
    "Lets abuse and break the tools so we cant do the job"

    Motivation and productivity are improved when there are set goals and rewards to the employees who meet these goals. Goals with no rewards do not motivate employees.

    "Lets get this crappy job done so we don't have to do it again"
    "Lets work together and get the job done so we can be compensated for it"
    "Screw the other employees I’m going to work harder and prove I deserve that raise more then them"
    "If I work harder my boss will give me the better jobs and make the lazy people do the crappy jobs"

    Work smarter not harder.
    "If I abuse the equipment I will be without, the job still needs to get done and I don’t want to have to do it by hand"
    "I'm going to be stuck on this job until it is done right, lets do it right so we don't have to go back and do it again, lets get it done quick so we can do something more interesting"


    Lazy employees make lazy managers.
    Lazy managers make lazy employees.
    Managers who do not have to answer to their superiors have no motivation themselves.
    Employees who do not have to answer to their supervisors have no motivation themselves.
    Managers who are on a power trip make bad managers.
    Managers who work alongside the employees rather then stand around watching over them are much more effective.


    It's quite simple. The system is flawed and is destined to fail when there is no motivation to become more productive and efficient. A system of rewards and consequences need to be set in place for those who deserve it and throes who don’t. other wise you have a bunch of lazy robots.

    The rewards could be small such as taking them out for a few drinks after work up to a raise or promotion.
    The UNION do not allow rewards or incentives for the workers nor the managers. The unions created this mess for the lazy employees, as well as the union itself. Not for for above average hard working people.

    The unions work against the system not for it.
    Creating a system with the employees thinking, If I make them money I make more myself. The more I save them the more I make myself. Everyone working together for a common goal WORKS.
    A perfect example of this is how Wegmans is structured and has PROVEN to work.
    If only there was a system in goverment allowing this.



    BTW: I've been a laborer, foreman, manager, supervisor and owner.
    Any questions?
    The difference between the union represented employee and the employee working in a non-union place is that the non-union employee are "at will" employees and can be terminated without any type of due process. The employee represented by a union (public sector) has a due process all spelled out under the "law" along with time frames for all of the steps. There is no getting around the "law" even though some of you would like to. Once it gets to a hearing officer/arbitrator, that person looks at the issue and the chain of events leading up to the "Notice of Discipline." Both the hearing officer and/or the arbitrator work under the stand of "progressive Discipline." So the "Burden of Proof" is on management to show what steps they have taken to correct the issue. This includes any type of counseling, 3 day suspension, 10 day suspension, etc. before you can even consider termination. Unless it is for theft or fighting. Unlike the private sector, they can not just say "you're fired!" In your post you put all of the blame on the unions. Just think, If there is a management person out there that really wants to have an employee fired, then he/she HAS to do their work. If they don't, then the Lazy no good employee skates and the rest of the employees get frustrated. And along comes the foolish people to blame the unions, when they do not have a clue.
    Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Of All That Threaten It
    What if the Hokey-Pokey IS what it's all about?

  13. #13
    Member Pete Moss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by GG716
    The Union Boss Mindset
    Wed, 04/09/2008 - 16:46 — Patrick Semmens
    AFL-CIO top boss John Sweeney and Virginia AFL-CIO chief James Leaman recently had an article in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star that shows just how union officials view the workers they claim to represent.
    The headline of the article rhetorically asks: "Without labor unions, who speaks for the worker?"
    The implication is that workers are incapable of representing themselves. This also implies that workers who reject union membership are too stupid to know what is best for them.
    That contemptuous view of workers and their ability to look after their own best interests explains why Big Labor is constantly claiming to have employees' best interests in mind while trying to limit the ability of those very employees to exercise free choice when it comes to unionization.
    According to the union boss mentality, forcing workers to be represented by the union (as happens nationwide under monopoly bargaining), forcing workers to pay dues to a union (as happens in non-Right to Work states), and eliminating the protection of a secret ballot (as happens in a card check drive), are all just ways of coercing workers into doing what the union bosses think is best for them.
    With such a condescending view of the workers they want to represent, it is no wonder that when actually given the choice, fewer and fewer employees are choosing unionization. Unfortunately, the union bosses are intent on "solving" that problem by eliminating that choice.

    When Labor was in its infancy, Labor needed volunteers to promote the cause. Labor is not the fat-cats sitting in Washintgton stuffing their faces with donuts and drinking coffee; Labor are the workers covered by their contracts.

    Today, the right to organize and bargain collectively is firmly established in our country. There ought to be a mandatory check-box required on all employment applications if the employee wants to organize with other employees and bargain terms collectively, or not.

    There is no need any longer for heirarchy that a few have created for themselves, the NLRA was never created for that purpose; and we don't need it.

  14. #14
    Unregistered
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles California
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by keyboard150
    New York needs to become a right to work state.
    This only benefits company's/management. Right-to-work means, "screw the working man"!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    11,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SundayNiagara
    This only benefits company's/management. Right-to-work means, "screw the working man"!
    And over paid underworked Unions only mean screw the taxpayer!

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Unions use Union money to fight for the employment of illegal aliens?
    By Sylvan in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 10th, 2008, 05:53 PM
  2. Local 17 Members Arrested
    By winfield31 in forum A Monopoly on Our Community Services
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: April 11th, 2008, 03:11 PM
  3. Collins tells Union "Sue Me"
    By gorja in forum A Monopoly on Our Community Services
    Replies: 283
    Last Post: April 6th, 2008, 07:29 PM
  4. County Union Gets Raise, Before Collins Negotiates
    By VegasDude in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 15th, 2008, 07:23 PM
  5. School Board Members Pin Heads?
    By Cgoodsp466 in forum Schools and Education in Buffalo NY and surrounding area
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2008, 06:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •