No more Twinkies or wonderbread?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well the workers agreed to an all for one, one for all system. Maybe it didn't work out this one time, so it's news but if you check your history, it works way more than not.

Except it wasn't an all for one.

When the other unions are screaming at you to back off and protect jobs for everyone and you decide to roll the dice then its not an all for one system.

The bakers killed the company, ignored their desperate fellow workers and put everyone out of work.

I very much doubt that any of the bakers are being invited to a thanksgiving dinner being thrown by the other union workers.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except it wasn't an all for one.

When the other unions are screaming at you to back off and protect jobs for everyone and you decide to roll the dice then its not an all for one system.

The bakers killed the company, ignored their desperate fellow workers and put everyone out of work.

I very much doubt that any of the bakers are being invited to a thanksgiving dinner being thrown by the other union workers.

I'm not defending their choice, I'm defending their right to make it. What the teamsters thought about it is cool and all but the bakers arrived at their decision together.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not defending their choice, I'm defending their right to make it. What the teamsters thought about it is cool and all but the bakers arrived at their decision together.

I was a union member for a number of years and what always RGMG's was that one couldn't make an informed "choice/decison" when the company is not allowed to talk directly to the employees. The information you get is edited by the union to support a view they want the workers to support. You then have to try and decifer what is the truth and what isn't.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not defending their choice, I'm defending their right to make it. What the teamsters thought about it is cool and all but the bakers arrived at their decision together.

Except as a member of a union try to make a free will choice. You don't have that right to chose, you do what the union tells you.

If you don't like it, they either ignore you or shout you down.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except as a member of a union try to make a free will choice. You don't have that right to chose, you do what the union tells you.

If you don't like it, they either ignore you or shout you down.

You made your choice when you joined the union to follow the majority. It's like if you join a team, you follow what the coach tells you, if you don't like it move along. Also unions aren't a dictatorship, you can work to change things. You're making the same mistake as most here and labelling unions as all the same. Some could be corrupt, some could be stupid but there are a lot that have made and continue to make the working man a better life.

If you are alluding to the 'Right to Work" when you are talking about the right to choose, it's bull and a way for big business to break up a unions strength of being united. Check out the average wages of 'Right to Work' states in the US and you'll find their wages are lower because the unions are weaker. Any union member knows it's a laughable argument put out by some big businesses to lower wages and get rid of health and safety regulations, so they can operate in whatever manner they like.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You made your choice when you joined the union to follow the majority.

That's just it- any union job I have ever had; there was no "choice" to join the union. That was usually a condition of employment.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by ken0042

That's just it- any union job I have ever had; there was no "choice" to join the union. That was usually a condition of employment.

There are all kinds of conditions of employment put on you by your employer and perhaps outside regulations. This is just one put on you by your fellow worker which in the end should be for your benefit.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well for any worker if it gets to the point that he isn't making a livable wage, there is no sense in carrying on. I don't know the details of their situation but they made their choice and the company made theirs. Who says they are going to repeat the process, that's just your own fantasy?

It's not my fantasy, it's theirs!

[Devils'Advocate]

Well, being part of a union is often a condition of employment, but the CHOICE of union belongs to the employees. Or you can do what I did and got involved with my union, so I can help steer what direction it goes in. Most union membership don't get involved and let the active members dictate their lives. My union had its general meeting last week and there was a motion to raise dues. I stated to a co-worker that it didn't make sense. The vast majority of membership are struggling financially, but those that attend the general meeting are the hard liners. So if the general membership wants say they have to get involved, show up and vote, get their voice heard over the hard liner.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, being part of a union is often a condition of employment, but the CHOICE of union belongs to the employees. Or you can do what I did and got involved with my union, so I can help steer what direction it goes in. Most union membership don't get involved and let the active members dictate their lives. My union had its general meeting last week and there was a motion to raise dues. I stated to a co-worker that it didn't make sense. The vast majority of membership are struggling financially, but those that attend the general meeting are the hard liners. So if the general membership wants say they have to get involved, show up and vote, get their voice heard over the hard liner.

You can see in this dispute the much larger, more professionally run Teamsters did their due diligence with third party, unrelated forensic accountants and other business experts who came back with the determination this was no bluff and jobs were at risk. The Teamsters took that advice and voted for concessions to keep the jobs active.

The bakers winged it.

Everybody lost their jobs.

Your description above sounds a lot like the NHLPA actually.

Cowperson

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well the workers agreed to an all for one, one for all system. Maybe it didn't work out this one time, so it's news but if you check your history, it works way more than not.

A big chunk of the workers were with different unions and they didn't agree. From news reports there were also members of the bakers union who crossed the line so they obviously didn't agree. If people were crossing the line then you can bet that there were others who wanted to work but were afraid to cross.

[CaramonLS]

I wonder how the balloting was done when they voted on the contract. I have known Unions who have a "secret ballot", but have two booths. One for Yes, one for No.

So when it is your turn to vote, you go to the booth where you would like to cast your vote.

I find it utterly shameful that some unions can blatently disregard democratic processes without fear of reprisal.

Oh, and the process to attempt to decertify or break away from the union is a pretty bad one in itself. It is very difficult even for workers to try to do this. Massive legal fees and labour boards make it tough to even consider this.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

With the increase in parody of the Canadian dollar to the US dollar, various manufacturing operations in Canada are taking huge hits. While not every plant is in the same situation, margins have significantly decreased in a lot of areas.

Parity?

parity 1 |ˈparitē|
noun
1 the state or condition of being equal, esp. regarding status or pay : parity of incomes between rural workers and those in industrial occupations.
• the value of one currency in terms of another at an established exchange rate.
• a system of providing farmers with consistent purchasing power by regulating prices of farm products, usually with government price supports.

parody |ˈparədē|
noun ( pl. -dies)
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect : the movie is a parody of the horror genre | his provocative use of parody. See note at caricature .
• an imitation or a version of something that falls far short of the real thing; a travesty : he seems like a parody of an educated Englishman.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

A big chunk of the workers were with different unions and they didn't agree. From news reports there were also members of the bakers union who crossed the line so they obviously didn't agree. If people were crossing the line then you can bet that there were others who wanted to work but were afraid to cross.

I was replying to another post and I was referring to the Bakers union. Other unions don't always get along and are often rivals, nothing new. So some crossed the line, you won't get 100% agreement with any group, but the basic philosophy is still there and judging by the result, right or wrong, they held together.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I was replying to another post and I was referring to the Bakers union. Other unions don't always get along and are often rivals, nothing new. So some crossed the line, you won't get 100% agreement with any group, but the basic philosophy is still there and judging by the result, right or wrong, they held together.

Seriously?

The bakers union represented 30% of the workers, clearly there was not unanimous support within that union. So basically, lets guess between 15% - 25% of the employees, "held together" and cost the other 75% - 85% of the employees their jobs. You have no problem with that because sometimes it works?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Parity?

parity 1 |ˈparitē|
noun
1 the state or condition of being equal, esp. regarding status or pay : parity of incomes between rural workers and those in industrial occupations.
• the value of one currency in terms of another at an established exchange rate.
• a system of providing farmers with consistent purchasing power by regulating prices of farm products, usually with government price supports.

parody |ˈparədē|
noun ( pl. -dies)
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect : the movie is a parody of the horror genre | his provocative use of parody. See note at caricature .
• an imitation or a version of something that falls far short of the real thing; a travesty : he seems like a parody of an educated Englishman.

Yes... but you knew what I meant.

Stop being a DB FDW.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Seriously?

The bakers union represented 30% of the workers, clearly there was not unanimous support within that union. So basically, lets guess between 15% - 25% of the employees, "held together" and cost the other 75% - 85% of the employees their jobs. You have no problem with that because sometimes it works?

I'm not defending their decision, I'm defending their right to organize, to bargain and to strike. As I said this is newsworthy because things went bad. There are countless times when both parties reach a mutually profitable agreement and it ends up on the back pages, if reported at all.

[valo403]

They've agreed to mediation, so those jobs might not be gone.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,2355592.story

[afc wimbledon]

Unions certainly arn't perfect but if we didn't have them (or the threat of them) we would still be putting kids up chimneys.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Unions certainly arn't perfect but if we didn't have them (or the threat of them) we would still be putting kids up chimneys.

Past tense sure, but that's not really the case today. Unions don't do more to improve the general health and safety of workers than strong workplace safety legislation.