GM Strike

JRscooby wrote:


You are comparing one union to companies in one industry. Look up the numbers for all corporations vs all unions. Lobbying to say get a judge on the court that thinks a driver should die in a broke down truck, and be fired if he gets a ride to safety, might help a auto company when a worker gets hurt.

ShinerBock wrote:
I have before and in most cases it is the same. Have you? If not, then how can you claim this if you haven't verified it? All I am saying is verify it for yourself because in my experience, a union will lie to you to gain more profits/membership. Not saying that all do or that everything they say is a lie. I am just saying that there are those that do and it is best to verify.

Well, you seam to think I get my info from unions. As a matter of fact, any time a politician is asking for my vote, I look at his donor list. If he is telling me something, check the list. If I see a ad paid for by dark money, I use logic, and the politician's donor list to make a guess about how well that politician will represent me. And when I have a question about the stance my rep is taking, I will ask them for a explanation. What's more, I write down what I need to remember for the next election.

JRscooby wrote:
Well, I have not looked in Texas. But I have studied a little in Ks, (enough to know what I would have to do if I put a driver in my truck in that state) I read repeatedly the law the people of Mo would not let our legislature put in force. I have read the proposed law circulated by ALEC. In every one, if a company has a contract with a union, all employees get paid the rate of the contract. And if there is a dispute worker/management, the union must represent the worker, even if the worker has decided not to pay dues. This is why I always refer to what is sold as "Right to Work" laws as "Right to Freeload"

Well I refer to the non-right to work laws and "forced to pay for something that you don't believe in especially if the money is going to politicians who do not share your values and actually works against them". Shouldn't it be the workers choice or do people not have that freedom to choose what clubs they want to join?

Can you name the union where the rank and file members do not vote to decide who will represent them when it comes times to decide how to spend the money?

Although, in my case and in other instances. I never wanted union help in any of my disputes so I was not "freeloading" anything. Whether the union was forced to by contract or law is a whole other story and discussion, but not the fault of the person who chooses not to join. I and many others who I knew that chose not to join unions would be more than happy to kick the union out of our business and disputes because in many cases it is them that is trying to get you fired for not being in their club, not the management. Maybe this is the whole reason why they are involved and are just telling members it is a law to make them angry.

Bet you only cashed 2 out of 3 paychecks too.

On the macro level, before unions where widespread, maybe the church insisted business close on Sunday, but work 6 days a week was normal, and the best your kids could hope for was a job as "good" as yours. Then there was I time when a man could work 40 hours, and have money and time to enjoy something like a camping trip. After about 30 years of class warfare, we are again to the point when it is very hard for a family to get time off all the jobs needed to spend a weekend camping. But I got mine, you are on your own.