General Discussion

erinlough

(2,176 posts)

80. Generally, it is about following the contract, not how hard you work. Let me explain.

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:09 PM

Dec 2012

When you are working under a contract both sides are given specific rules and conditions that are to be followed, this is due process and this is what unions and employers set up. Each side is responsible for following these rules. When a worker has a grievance it has to be connected to the fact that they believe the employer did not follow the contract. Likewise when a worker gets in trouble the employer is saying the worker did not follow the rules. Someone can be a "hard worker" but still have trouble following the rules.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

110 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I Am Surprised That Michigan Defeated The Pro Union Amendment. [View all] TheMastersNemesis Dec 2012 OP

Michigan politics is a little strange xoom Dec 2012 #1

It seems that way... underoath Dec 2012 #65

The anti-union propaganda is very effective for some reason gollygee Dec 2012 #2

I agree -- the anti-union propaganda has been very effective. LisaLynne Dec 2012 #4

I dunno Union Scribe Dec 2012 #8

I want to watch the channel you watch. It was intensely anti-Prop 2 here. Barack_America Dec 2012 #11

I saw them all the time. Union Scribe Dec 2012 #21

I don't blame the unions. I blame the Supreme Court for allowing endless $... Barack_America Dec 2012 #24

Endless SECRET $. So one wonders what kind of deals have been bought with the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ patrice Dec 2012 #28

BUt clearly, they weren't effective. nt LisaLynne Dec 2012 #12

That's because people here are anti-union. Period. Union Scribe Dec 2012 #19

I'm hoping someone tries to collect that naturalistic information about "WHY?" patrice Dec 2012 #32

This message was self-deleted by its author putitinD Dec 2012 #88

Actual union corruption hasn't helped Recursion Dec 2012 #18

Go gloat somewhere else. nt Union Scribe Dec 2012 #20

WTF? That's what I'm talking about Recursion Dec 2012 #25

Full story for linemen nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #26

Yes, I know that, but optics are important Recursion Dec 2012 #27

Unions do nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #30

Please see #32. I'm not sure the WHOLE thing can be explained as ir-rational hate. & It does NO patrice Dec 2012 #33

Your claim about Sandy line workers has been falsified. longship Dec 2012 #39

I was one of the first ones to point that out in the original thread; you're missing the point Recursion Dec 2012 #44

Nice straw man there. longship Dec 2012 #51

Well, non-union workers *were* turned away, but not for being non-union Recursion Dec 2012 #53

So I expect you will edit your earlier post to reflect that fact. longship Dec 2012 #56

No. I said "alleged" and I meant it Recursion Dec 2012 #57

Alleged by FOX News, and their fellow travelers. longship Dec 2012 #58

This is a pretty good example of the anti-union propaganda gollygee Dec 2012 #41

Really, which part? Recursion Dec 2012 #46

neither of these things are facts Triloon Dec 2012 #62

Sorry, non-"union members", not "non-union" members. (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #63

What about the corruption geardaddy Dec 2012 #103

Republican governor - Help needed from DNC & Act Blue fadedrose Dec 2012 #3

LOL, just checked out Candice Miller on Wikipedia, her daughter is a member of thr Fla Dem Dec 2012 #6

And she was endorsed by the Teamsters. ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #29

If Democrats were only 1/2 as much Pro-Union... Teamster Jeff Dec 2012 #5

+1 Union Scribe Dec 2012 #7

Absafreakinglutely!!! I am sick and tired of scaredy-cat Dems!!! In our state they're so WEAK patrice Dec 2012 #35

This latest assult in Michigan makes me sick to my sufrommich Dec 2012 #9

Citizens United. The ad campaign against Prop 2 was intense. Barack_America Dec 2012 #10

I watched all day, I was a union member all my working life. erinlough Dec 2012 #13

We also have gerrymandered districts drawn by sufrommich Dec 2012 #14

It was a huge mistake to push for collective bargaining in the Michigan Constitution. Romulox Dec 2012 #15

I think the push was because the word got out that the GOP sufrommich Dec 2012 #16

The result was sort of an "anti-referendum", imo. It gave the Repubs the cover needed. Romulox Dec 2012 #17

They didn't need cover. They strong-armed it in one day. Union Scribe Dec 2012 #22

Could it be any clearer that this was Snyder's plan from square one? Romulox Dec 2012 #23

Yup. I knew the repukes were going to pull a fast one... frostfern Dec 2012 #48

$$$ krhines Dec 2012 #31

Such as? Recursion Dec 2012 #34

In Grand Rapids krhines Dec 2012 #36

I post this a lot krhines Dec 2012 #37

OK, so where is the propaganda she paid for? Recursion Dec 2012 #38

From my first reply krhines Dec 2012 #40

watch this video krhines Dec 2012 #42

I hate videos (they're an awful way to make an argument) but I watched it Recursion Dec 2012 #47

you win krhines Dec 2012 #49

Who? Recursion Dec 2012 #52

ok krhines Dec 2012 #54

Yes, I mentioned ads for specific ballot initiatives Recursion Dec 2012 #45

if you haven't noticed the 40-year-anti-union campaign, you've been in a hole somewhere. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #67

Then it should be very easy to give me an example (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #68

it is. 30-second google: wsj 2012: "Overpaid Public Workers: The Evidence Mounts" HiPointDem Dec 2012 #70

I don't have a WSJ subscription Recursion Dec 2012 #73

disingenuous HiPointDem Dec 2012 #75

No, I seriously and sincerely don't think there's been any sort of propaganda campaign Recursion Dec 2012 #77

i agree krhines Dec 2012 #83

I got a TON TON TON mailed to me before the election gollygee Dec 2012 #43

I guess I live in the wrong place Recursion Dec 2012 #50

disingenuous -- you yourself passed along a piece of anti-union propaganda in this very thread. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #64

Ah, so when you say propaganda you're including urban myths Recursion Dec 2012 #66

of course someone paid someone to spread that story. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #69

No, really, nobody made money off of that (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #72

Union Red Tape in N.J. Causes Alabama Recovery Crew to Head Home HiPointDem Dec 2012 #86

As long as it is illegal Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #55

I'm afraid you're right PD Turk Dec 2012 #59

That's always the way with people Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #102

what does this do to Unions in Michigan? underoath Dec 2012 #60

We'll see but having worked in a school without a union shop erinlough Dec 2012 #71

do the freeloaders not work as hard as the other Union workers? underoath Dec 2012 #74

Generally, it is about following the contract, not how hard you work. Let me explain. erinlough Dec 2012 #80

so who are the freeloaders you are referring to? underoath Dec 2012 #81

People who refuse to join the union who represents them. erinlough Dec 2012 #82

what if a person doesnt want a union to represent them? underoath Dec 2012 #85

If the place of work has negotiated with a union for a contract then erinlough Dec 2012 #87

can a non-union worker get hired into a job with a union? underoath Dec 2012 #89

See my last post. The place of work erinlough Dec 2012 #90

so its still up to the business and its workers to decide if they want to unionize, right? underoath Dec 2012 #93

There are big companies with partial organization, plus there are some "two-tier" industries Recursion Dec 2012 #95

The people they should be persuading but insist on calling "freeloaders" and "scabs" Recursion Dec 2012 #84

Free loaders might not be the right term. "Free riders" is a real economic term for people who Squinch Dec 2012 #106

wont this let the business and its workers decide if they want to be Union or no? underoath Dec 2012 #61

It means that union workers who pay thier dues, subsidize scabs who go to work there SoCalDem Dec 2012 #78

but the business and its workers still have the right to decide to unionize if they want to, right? underoath Dec 2012 #91

They always have and they still do erinlough Dec 2012 #94

thanks for you help and understanding!!! underoath Dec 2012 #96

not for long.. SoCalDem Dec 2012 #104

That question is more about card check. RTW is more about dues withholding Recursion Dec 2012 #79

but under this law, unions will still be able to organize, right? underoath Dec 2012 #92

Yes, this is an attack on already-existing unions. The attack on forming new unions... Recursion Dec 2012 #97

ahh ok. thanks!!! underoath Dec 2012 #99

Where is the EFCA? They never voted, right? Is it still somewhere in Congress? Killed in committee? patrice Dec 2012 #100

Stuck in the Senate Recursion Dec 2012 #101

But the free rider problem becomes a very large one here: Squinch Dec 2012 #105

Yes. This is totally fucked and its only purpose is to weaken unions Teamster Jeff Dec 2012 #108

Not weaken unions, eliminate them. Squinch Dec 2012 #110

By making union dues non-mandatory, it is effectively killing the union. Squinch Dec 2012 #107

As a Michigan resident I have to say Shadowflash Dec 2012 #76

Citizens' United. It can fund unions too, so as all of this crap about jobs works itself through patrice Dec 2012 #98

The Amendment was a classic case of having a good idea, but dramatically over-reaching. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #109