Facts to unions: inconvenient things

Pat Cleary at RedState delivers a delicious smackdown on unions and their undemocratic demands here.

BTW, the “card check” bill passed in the House today. Bush has threatened to veto it.

Here’s the vote breakdown.

17 Responses to "Facts to unions: inconvenient things"

melissa says:

March 1, 2007 at 8:28 pm

“scrap democracy?” I mean, god forbid they be just like a regular workplace — how democratic is that?
Lorica says:

March 1, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Actually this is more about Wal-Mart and the Dem hatred of it. Let’s face it Wal-Mart has stuck it to Dems everytime they have blocked or created a law against them. All because they won’t allow unions.

I joined a union a few years ago, why cuz Rummy proposed NSPS, and in it said that a civil servant can be ordered to go to a war zone with no consideration for age or health. On my base they tried to order a 54 year old man father, and husband to Baghdad, and only gave him a 24 hour notice. No training, no physical, no nothing. He went to the union and they stopped this from happening to him. The only other alternative was to turn in his resignation, for which he could of been imprisioned. It was a mess.

My Dad was a UAW member most of his life, but even he got to a point where he saw that union leadership was more concerned about regaining power than about the actual care for the members. Seems to me this is all this current legislation is about. – Lorica
Great White Rat says:

March 1, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Actually this is more about Wal-Mart and the Dem hatred of it.

Actually, Lorica, it’s all about the money. Union membership in the private sector is at an all-time low (about 7%, if I recall correctly). That means less and less dues money flowing into the hands of the union bosses, and consequently smaller donations to the Dems.

Now, if they can intimidate more workers into joining by means of this ‘card check’ outrage, the union treasury – and their ability to finance loony leftist politicos – gets a big boost. Always, always, follow the money where these guys are concerned.
melissa says:

March 1, 2007 at 11:18 pm

yes. in this case, follow it to more workers having union power. people hate that stuff.
Right Wing News says:

March 2, 2007 at 6:22 am

Rightosphere Temperature Check: Polling Right-Of-Center Bloggers On Key Issues (1st Quarter, 2007)

Right Wing News emailed more than 240 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 8 questions. The following 63 blogs responded, Aaron’s CC, The Absurd Report, David All Group, The Anchoress, Argghhhh!, AtlanticBlog, Atlas Shrugs, Babalu Blog, B…
Lorica says:

March 2, 2007 at 1:03 pm

GWR, Union coffers are not the reason that Dems are picking this item up. Unions cannot make political contributions from Dues, so this should not be a reason for the Dems. Unions can only contribute monies donated to the union for political reasons. Most people who would donate to the union would donate to the Dems on their own, so it would not provide a whole lot of extra funds for the Dems. – Lorica
Lorica says:

March 2, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Melissa, in the purest belief of the unions you are correct. But let’s face it many unions have very corrupt officials, that are only really concerned about the amount of Dues are coming in. A very good friend of mine is a Lawyer, and he while he was working on his degree, he was working in a welding shop and was the union president. Well he was visiting union head quarters, and wanted to see the law offices. The National President of the union kept wanting him to see the accounting office. This friend was really put off at the difference between the 2 offices. The law office was tiny and even tho it had many cases on it’s dockets, it was horridly understaffed. Only 2 attorneys, and 4 paralegals. Now the accounting office on the other hand had between 40 and 50 accountants in it’s full floor of the building. I know this isn’t evidence to you, but from it you can see where the real concern of the unions is.

If my word isn’t enough look up some of the older union bosses. Amazing how Hoffa’s son is/was the head of the union that Hoffa was head of. Seems to me it stays in the family, which really sounds like the mafia. – Lorica
G-Monster says:

March 2, 2007 at 1:35 pm

We live in a democracy. Let the workers decide by private ballot. The non-private ballot would obviously open up the workers to intimidation from both sides. I think there is something very wrong here when the dems in congress are going after the little people they are supposed to represent.
G-Monster says:

March 2, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Rephrase, by little people I don’t mean the workers are little people, I just think the dems siding with the power and money of the unions versus the individuals that have to live with the decisions.
G-Monster says:

March 2, 2007 at 1:38 pm

I think it’s wrong. The dems are supposed to be there to stick up for the workers.
Baklava says:

March 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Where I am in CA, the unions that represent the government employees are a big siphon (to the tune of $60 per month) to the Democrat National Committee or other left leaning causes.

What has that $60 per month bought employees? Nothing. Before the government employees had mediocre pay and great benefits. Now while union represented the couple million CA employees have mediocre pay and great benefits.

It’s a way of reverse Democracy. Funding ideas you disagee with against your principles. It’s why I’ll never be an employee of the state of CA. CA loses good talent that way.
forest hunter says:

March 2, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Many moons ago while I was an avid practicing Christian, I worked at a plant manufacturing lumber handling machinery and was one of a handful opposed to Union involvement. The company of less than a hundred had an open door policy that I would eventually discover worked. But I am getting ahead of myself and slightly OT…..(insert a short novel about politics inside companies and power here)

For whatever reasons of their own at least twenty people were trying to convince me to advocate the need of a union. I asked them only a few questions. What did they want that we could not do ourselves as an unpaid and obviously interested group? If wages are an issue, then why would you pay out pocket to what I viewed as male gold diggers?

I eventually went a union meeting where the cheerleaders worked the crowd and when it came time to take comments from us common folk, I stood up and asked them all the thing I had discussed with many previously. Without a mic I roared over the top of the mouthpiece at the podium as he tried in vain to out shout me. I simply stated that if these questions are not addressed and answered, I’m walkin’. I did and so did about half of the room.

Fast forward a few weeks later after my transfer to the night shift, where a certain relation of a certain upper level supervisor (I would discover the nepotistic practices much later) has me welding with machines that had been tagged for various reasons (In essence incapable of creating good welds). Within a matter of days I am told by the nephew they have to let me go for inferior work.

I suppose he was more than a little bit shocked to discover such a stalwart Christian man would snatch him up and deliver him in front of the Presidents desk. The Presidents secretary certainly was, as I whipped the nephew down to the floor and bade him explain. He did and that’s another story but the point was that, some folks need unions and some of us can do without them. Especially, if you have the Presidents attention and willingness to negotiate the differences. It also helps if someone knows what’s at stake and is able to lead by example.

Sorry if this falls outside the jurisdiction of the topic at hand or is oversimplified.

As you can tell, while the past needs for unions were obvious, for the most part good people don’t need unions per se.
Marshall Art says:

March 2, 2007 at 8:33 pm

I agree, Forest Hunter. In this day and age, certain benefits that didn’t exist are expected by prospective employees and if employers want any employees at all, they need to provide certain basic packages of compensation. Plus, I believe laws protecting against certain unethical business practices cover other areas formerly dealt with by unions. Nowadays, unions tend to keep loafers on the job, which is a burden to other employees as well as the boss, and they artificially inflate wages which, like the minimum wage laws, cause other problems for business owners.

Side bar: if you’re not an “avid practicing Christian”, does this mean you’re an accomplished Christian? I hope it doesn’t mean you’re no longer a Christian. That would be a bad life choice.
melissa says:

March 3, 2007 at 9:49 am

unions have intense accouting and reporting rules. no surprise that accounting is big.

G-monster: you don’t work in a democracy. try picking your boss by private ballot.
Lorica says:

March 3, 2007 at 11:26 am

LOL Melissa, yes their accounting need is 10 TIMES as large as their legal needs. That’s what it must be. Can’t be that they care more about money than helping their members. If this was one of your federal representitives, and they had 1 lawyer on staff and 10 accountants, I am certain you would believe the same thing. RIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTT!!!! Keep hoping for a brighter future Dear. I am certain one day it will come. – Lorica
melissa says:

March 3, 2007 at 1:07 pm

so you’d be happier if the union had more lawyers? ok.
Lorica says:

March 3, 2007 at 3:11 pm

I’d be happier if the unions had a larger concern for their members. How many union member have been represented by an accountant when it comes to arbitration?? How many union accountants go before the Supreme Court to argue a case that could, quite possibly, affect workers thru out the country for years to come??? Come On Melissa, let’s try to be alitte realistic here. – Lorica

Comments are closed.