ROSEN: Will labor overplay its hand?
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published April 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Labor unions are playing chicken with Colorado's economy. In a bald-faced attempt to intimidate supporters of a right-to-work ballot initiative in 2008, unions are threatening to introduce a barrage of their own initiatives if the right-to-work campaign isn't aborted.
The difference between the two camps is that right-to-work measures, while controversial, are perfectly reasonable. They simply protect the rights of individual workers by not forcing them to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. Such laws are already on the books in 22 states. Conversely, the threatened union proposals are economic suicide.
One would require all employers in the state to give indexed cost-of-living increases to every worker each year, over and above regular pay increases, regardless of the economic health of the company. In the past, cost-of-living adjustments during periods of high inflation were negotiated between individual companies and their labor unions, often to the ultimate detriment of both.
Such policies, based on the false assumption that businesses can pass their costs on to customers without consequence, did irreparable damage to the auto and steel industries.
This is idiotic, especially in today's highly competitive global economy. To impose such a requirement on all Colorado employers would be insane. No such radical legislation exists anywhere in this country. It's a formula for mass layoffs, business failures and an exodus of capital and jobs from our state. Think Detroit.
Another of labor's poison pills would require any business with 20 or more employees to pay the full cost of health insurance for workers and 50 percent of the cost for all of an employee's dependents. So, every worker in the state who now pays a share of his employer-provided group health insurance would pay nothing at all. How nice, but unless your boss is Santa Claus, this is an economic impossibility and a business and job killer.
Gov. Bill Ritter and Sen. Ken Salazar have intervened to "mediate" the dispute. They've called on business leaders to kill the right-to- work initiative in exchange for the unions dropping their proposals. But this so-called compromise isn't a compromise at all. It's exactly the capitulation intended by the union ploy. I have faith that most Coloradans wouldn't be so foolish as to vote for the unions' preposterous initiatives. If the unions actually went ahead with their threat and put these proposals on the ballot, the backlash by a majority of rational voters might propel the right-to-work proposal to victory.
This is all symptomatic of a bigger problem. In Britain, the left-center party calls itself, straightforwardly, the Labour Party. We also have a left-center party in this country beholden to labor unions, its most powerful organized constituent. It's called the Democratic Party. With Democrats controlling both houses of the state legislature and the governor's office, unions in the state are flexing their muscles, expecting payback for all the money they've invested in the party for years.
They've had success leveraging the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver to win concessions from private sector and government employers. They're on a roll and they're cocky. Democratic union activists on the Denver City Council recently appeared to exceed their authority by meddling, behind closed doors, in negotiations over a new parking contract at DIA. The unions' bare-knuckled assault on the right- to-work initiative is just the latest example.
But Colorado isn't a union state. Union membership is concentrated among public employees, 15 percent of the state's work force accounting for 44 percent of the state's union members. Yes, most of them are Democrats, but of the 85 percent of Coloradans who work in the private sector, only 5 percent are union members. If the unions and their Democratic enablers continue to overplay their hand, we might well see voters restore Republicans to power.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Holiday movies
Check out our movie page to read reviews and see your holiday options.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Broncos-Jets Action
Visit our photo galleries for some hard-hitting action photos from Sunday's game.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Jets.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Stein's View
Editorial cartoons by Ed Stein
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
April 11, 2008
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
American unions need to re-invent themselves if they want to remain viable. My dad was a union man for years - until he was promoted to management, which caused him to worry as his "buddies" now viewed him differently. The unions did some great things for the working people of America. No argument. But they have not changed much as the world around them has changed dramatically. 11% of US workers are now union - and that continues to fall. Not because of union busting or corporate "greed", but because they are not needed or wanted as they once were. Their attitude of protecting the worst of their members at the expense of the best and "one size fits all" pay scale, and seniority and tenure for longtime members flies in the face of the new global economy. Merit pay and performance based pay tied to job skills, ongoing worker training, job "flexing", and worth to the company are now the benchmarks required for a modern and vibrant workforce. Unions HATE these things and fight them every step of the way. They are unwilling to embrace change or very resistant to it at best. I hope this changes - for their sake and for the workers they say they represent.
April 11, 2008
7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Spoken like a true conservative. As big oil and insurance companies and all other big business gouges the hell out of us and the middle class gets squeezed out of the picture Mike is only concerned that the little guy might do something to survive. And it will be the unions that will hurt our economy. Mike you should look what gas prices alone is doing to us. WHAT A MORON!!!!
April 11, 2008
7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Michael:
You are as stupid as Rosen. I'm in a good paying management job and my wage increase this year was chewed up in gas price and health insurance cost alone. The unions although I'm not a big fan of is needed big time today. Now it may not be the need of unions but the working class today need to make a stand and do something because at the rate we are going our children will be living as a third world country.
April 11, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Dilligaf,
Calling someone stupid? Sheesh.
They hold an opinion and should be allowed to express it without the insults.
I happen to agree. Do you think that “big business” (I love that phrase) isn’t impacted by the higher cost of healthcare and fuel too?
You act as if “big Business” can simply grow money on trees to pay for the unions unrealistic demands. That’s crazy.
“Big business” WILL leave the state and it would become a third would country if the union thugs got their way.
Of course, I won’t call you an idiot for thinking otherwise.
Do you really want Colorado to go the way of Detroit? How about the steel industry in Western PA?
Do you really want to have to duck the bullets aimed at those that dissent with the union?
I’ve been there and seen their tactics first hand. It isn’t pretty.
April 11, 2008
7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
dilligaf, you want to pick examples like health care to counter Rosen's argument. These costs have soared not from a lack of union activity but because of all government programs (Medicare, Medicade, free health care to non-US citizens, etc) that you and I have to pay for. Oil is a whole other gorilla that is so complex it needs a thread of it's own.
But let's address two of Mike's examples - steel and auto industries. Do you not agree that expensive labor and the associated benefits have driven these two industries in the ground long before the high cost of oil? Mike did not even address the airlines where labor has already had to give back to allow the planes to continue to fly. Yes, the price of fuel is a huge part of this. Again, the solution to oil is not unionization.
Another example is education. Longmont just announced the layoffs of multiple teachers in an atmosphere of larger classroom sizes. Here I believe teachers are underpaid, but they earn what the market will bear in the form of mill levys. The unions have contributed to the layoffs by their increasing wage demands.
Unions only look at the short sighted issue of "what is best for me, be damned the effects". We need to look at all the issues as they relate to the big picture.
April 11, 2008
7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
I know I will be called names and such but foro a man that worked a non-union position in a union dominated company I have a few things to say. Unions have no more power. they used to protect the workers rights but now there are so many laws that the government has taken that over, I was on-hand for the UFCW strike in Calafornia a few years age (Ralphs, Vohns, and Albertsons) I was so bad they setteled for less than the origional proposal. They did nothing to protect the workers they were trying to gain more for them selves. The union heads were getting paid a full salary while the employees they were "protecting" went on and on without their salary. I like the right to work states and I will not be forced to join a union, and how does this always tuen into a political thing we want to protect the worker but we do also need to protect the small buisness because if the small buisness goes away the where do those workers go.
April 11, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
dilligaf- Thank you for illustrating and validating Michael and Mr. Rosen's points. Perfect!
April 11, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
uncledave writes:
Gee, it's only April and already the name calling starts. I'm afraid this may be an issue about which intellegent debate is impossible. Plenty of morons to go around I suspect. Mr. Rosen has articulated the issue quite well, I think. Labor is assuring their own defeat with their outragous ballot initiatives. Bad old "big business" can just sit back and not even get their hands dirty. Labor is assuring the success of right-to-work. Ironic, isn't it?
April 11, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
CO voters turned out the Republicans in '04 and '06 largely because Bush is unpopular. Doing so achieved nothing regarding Iraq, of course, but it did let in the ugly underside of Ritter's base: The anti-business far left of Labor Unions, Radical Environmentalists, and Trial Lawyers.
What we got was a squandering of the Ref C money (supposed to be spent on education), stealth property taxes without voter consent, payback to labor with restrictive laws, and a bunch of new regulations.
All this makes me wistful for the days of the "do nothing" governor.
April 11, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
PajamaPulitzer. It was not labor unions who destroyed those industries. It was deregulation started by Carter and put on steroids by Reagan. It was the US lifting teriffs on import goods produced by practically slave labor. It was those industries you speek of not reinvesting in capital when they were profitable like they were encouraged to by conservative and liberal economists alike. I ask you, has the cost of a non union produced car i.e.(Honda, toyota) in this country gone down in price because they use non union labor. You know the answer. The business model you have fallen in love with does'nt seem to be producing cheaper goods but rather higher profits for the stockholders. You conservatives want to blame labor unions for companies going over seas. It's not unions. Everything is driven by profit and greed. These companies will go were the highest profit can be obtained. The high tech industry is non union but they keep shipping those jobs overseas in droves. Is that a unions fault, or is it profit and greed on the part of the companies obligation to the shareholder to maximize profit based on US law. Yes that is right, companies who are publicly traded are forced to maximize profit to kep the value of their stock as high as possible based in law. It is not enough to make a profit but they have to maximise the value of their stock. The easiest way of course is to find cheap labor which helps maximise profit in the short run rather than invest in capital for long term gains. Get a grip. We are not talking about mom and pop companies here. We are talking about large corporations who it seams the government will bail out at every turn at your and my expense. They call it corporate welfare. I know what a big fan you conservatives are of welfare. Get a Grip PajamaPulitzer.
April 11, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Shame on those unions for trying to get a small portion of the 123 billion dollars in profit. What has caused problems in Detroit is not unions but greed and bad management. The unions don't design the junk they make in Detroit. I suppose when you read about CEO's making millions a year and giving themselves millions in yearly bonuses and doing insider trading which leaves workers without their retirement it is because of those damn unions. As far as name calling when I read people that defends the greedy millionaires in this country and bash the small guy that is trying to make ends meet it makes me puke. YOU MORONS!!!
I saw a comedian not long ago and he was from England. The funniest thing he said to the audience was HOW IS THAT TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION WORKING OUT FOR YOU? Now that is changing the subject but it is still shows how the little guy in this country takes it up the "A".
April 11, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Coco writes:
A big THANKS to Marshdale for a superb reality check. Don't forget the millions in salaries & perks the CEOs are collecting - seems to be plenty of money for that.
April 11, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
I lived in Michigan for 20 years and watched its economy go to hell in a union handbasket. Employers in all industries (even those with non-union employees) are leaving the state in droves and laying off thousands. That's why my family moved to Colorado.
While the unions are a big drain, so are short-sighted stockholders, which insist on consecutive quarterly profits or they'll bolt. The largest stockholders hire directors who play the short-term game, who in turn hire CEOs (and structure their pay packages) to run the company for short-term gains. The only way to meet the insane short-term goals is to continually cut costs--increasing sales takes too long! Eventually the customers lose value and quality; employees lose jobs. That's also why my family moved to Colorado.
Returning to extortionist unions is not the answer, nor is rewarding short-term investment. If stockholders and corporate leaders get some gonads and insist on long-term growth strategies, perhaps we can turn the tide back toward a balance of product/service quality, decent employee wages, and corporate profit.
April 11, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
dilligaf, when you lose on specif logic you then move to broad generalizations and name calling. So much for a debate. You are so fixated on the evil corporations you fail to realize it is the corporations that provide most of the jobs in the country. They can only provide jobs if they are profitable. Some are more profitable than others. Do you think Microsoft and Bill Gates are evil? How many jobs and related jobs has he provided? Is he evil because he is now the richest man in the US?
April 11, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
I was conversing with someone the other day on these blogs who said "labor provided the jobs in this country". A completely backward way of thinking, but unfortunately, that is the way labor thinks. It is actually the business man looking for a profit that provides the jobs. This is one of the major differences in the parties. The GOP is pro-business, providing jobs, generating more revenue and reducing taxation on *all* people. The Dems are pro-labor and want government to be in control of who gets the money and how to spend it with more give away programs that labor likes. There is about a 50-50 split on this thinking, hence, Dems are in power sometimes and GOPs at other times.
April 11, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"I ask you, has the cost of a non union produced car i.e.(Honda, toyota) in this country gone down in price because they use non union labor. You know the answer. The business model you have fallen in love with does'nt seem to be producing cheaper goods but rather higher profits for the stockholders." - Marshdale
No, the price of my 2007 Acura TL (Honda) made by American auto workers in Marysville OH is not low compared to US automakers products. In fact, it is quite a bit higher. However, my Acura TL has the highest resale value, one of the highest safety ratings, and performance ratings. It is a high mileage car that is also classified as a ULEV - Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. What Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, etc (all have US factories) have embraced is Lean manufacturing that produces great designs, HIGH quality, reliability, and VALUE for the consumer. It has also driven sales for these companies higher and therefore made the shareholders happy with a higher stock price. Everyone is getting what they want - WIN/WIN. Detroit has killed itself - management and the unions have been so focused on kicking each other's a$# that the foreign auto makers have ended up kicking their's!!
April 11, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
dilligaf, Auto unions' power extends into product development, design, and the entire supply chain. If an innovative new product requires fewer workers to assemble it, guess what? No one gets laid off until the new contract is negotiated, which could be in 2-3 years. Then anyone laid off gets to go to the great "jobs bank" (GM), where they are still paid full wages and benefits for DOING NOTHING. The company has saved ZERO. That sure is motivation to innovate.
Or let's say the company comes up with an innovative design of an auto part that saves manufacturing time and materials. However, the new part won't be used because the reduction of labor hours violates the union contract. The company has saved ZERO. That's also a big motivation to innovate.
Yes, unions have a BIG hand in the junk built in Detroit.
April 11, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
kathyM - Excellent observation which ties into my comment on Lean manufacturing. When innovative new ideas are developed that save time and money in the manufactuuring process, UNION rules and contracts will kill that baby in the crib. So yes, that does effect the desire to innovate and look to new ways - like Lean. Unions HATE Lean manufacturing because it demands of them that they be flexible and take ownership of their work. Toyota workers are encouraged to stop the line when a defect is found. The entire plant will stop until the cause is discovered. This is how Toyota creates such incredible reliability and customer loyalty - and how it has surpassed GM in sales and as the world's number 1 car maker.
April 11, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Michael, That's why my family owns Toyotas.
April 11, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
fcatalina writes:
Go to Mississippi and see how working people are doing there if you like right to work. Right to work states have low pay, poor healthcare and high poverty rates. Sounds great.
Nobody is forced to join a union. They may have to chip in for the services a union provides them if the employees vote to have that type of arrangement.
Saying its reasonable to allow workers to reap all the benefits a union provides without paying for it is ridiculous. People who don't contribute to their union are freeloading off their co-workers who pay dues.
"They simply protect the rights of individual workers by not forcing them to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment." - Rosen
Let's apply this reasoning to another area where a common community chips in for services that benefit all of them. Imagine a "right to own a home" law that made it optional to pay property taxes. I know it sounds absurd, but it's the same thing - asking your neighbors to pay for the common services you receive. I guess this is how Rosen would describe such a law:
"They simply protect the rights of individual [homeowners] by not forcing them to [pay property taxes] as a condition of [receiving municipal services]."
Right to work forces unions to spend money representing employees who don't contribute anything for those services. It makes no sense. There is nothing reasonable about asking your co-workers to pay to carry your weight.
April 11, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
fcatalina, Your argument would make sense if Mississippi weren't one of the lowest-wage states in the country to begin with.
Unions are also corporations, with fat staffs of fat cats who put themselves first.
April 11, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
fcatalina,
I think you may have just move to co. We have been a right to work state for many years. We have one of the highest annual income Per capita and pouplation wise (a percentage) we have more millionairs in colorado. This "chip"in is crap. all this means is you pay full membership dues, and lose your right to vote in the union, but you do this so when you cross the picket lines during a strike you dont get fined by the union. quite a service I say. oh yes and if you get fired then yuo get a union rep. how about dont put your self in the position to not get fired. All unions do is keep bad workers good jobs. Oh yea and by the way I you own a buisness wouldnt you want to maximise profits....I would thats why I would own a buisness. I dont want to own a buisness, break even, pay the workers a good salary and then have nothing for me. I want to make as much as I can and get out.
April 11, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
The manufacturing company I work for (based in Colorado) has over 40 plants nation wide. Half are union, half are not. The "cost of doing business" in them is roughly equal. In the union plants, the wages are slightly lower, but the benefit package is slightly more costly. It's the opposite in the non-union plants, so the total cost per employee is about the same.
The difference comes in productivity. The union plants are no where near as productive as the non-union. Union contracts make it very difficult to discipline and terminate poor workers. Labor boards side with the workers, and tend to keep them on the job. It takes only a few slackers in the workplace to negatively affect many others.
So, when demand for our products slows and we need to close a plant, guess which one we will consider closing first? Again: it's not a cost of labor issue -- it's strictly based on productivity.
By no means am I saying that all union employees are poor workers -- quite to the contrary. The overwhelming majority are high-quality craftsmen. But the union makes it hard to "weed the garden" and that results in (relatively) higher-cost goods, due to productivity issues, versus a non-union plant.
April 11, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
P_denver
Great point I bet every union person will come up with the same things. "they only pay the non-union workers as good as they do so the workers wont vote in union reps."I have been told this a million times. Unions have lost thier placr in america, people have learned to stand up and fight for themselves. They dont need knee breakers. Oh yea unions had power back in the day because the consumer would also be affected, today the compitition is so hihg that if a company does go out on strike the others just go to wal-mart.
April 11, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Please support the right to work initiative. We already know that our governor received financial contributions from the unions in his campaign. You don't suppose that there may be "paybacks" in mind from those supporters, do you?
I have, firsthand, seen what labor unions do and it is the most disgusting form of blackmail, cronyism, back-door dealing and, many times, out and out physical threats (Oh yeah, sometimes legs were broken, or worse), beatings and sometimes death for those who opposed the lucrative contracts coerced by this type of "negotiation."
The idea that labor unions create anything but another way of skimming $ from workers is ludicrous.
Thank-you Mr. Rosen for your, as usual, insightful and pragmatic presentation of the facts regarding the right to work issue!
April 11, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
holekeeper:
Before you blog try to know what your talking about. COLORADO IS NOT A RIGHT TO WORK STATE.
April 11, 2008
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
factalina, using Mississippi in the argument is rather a poor example. Miss has many huge problems going back a couple of hundred years and are still trying to catch up with their ignorant behavior even into the 1960s. I am a conservative, but thank God for LBJs foresight in civil rights. Let's not get into his war effort.
April 11, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Sorry, LBJ may not have done what he did with out MLK,jr. Mr King is one of my heroes. This is from a white conservative.
April 11, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
GWM:
You are right about MLK but it was JFK & Bobby that was the first to address civil rights. It was Attorney General Bobby Kennedy who sent the feds to the south.
April 11, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
dilligaf, thanks for the further clarification. It did indeed start with Jack and Bobby, but LBJ is the one that addressed Congress and pressed for and won the Civil Rights Bill. It would have gone no further without LBJ's insistence. But you are correct, he should not get all the credit.
And, therefore, Vietnam was not Johnson's nor Nixon's war it was Jack's war. I prefer to call it Johnson's war because he did so much to escalate rather that withdraw. But that is *entirely* off thread and Monday morning quarterbacking.
April 11, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
bxwatso,
[on Ritter's election]"...What we got was a squandering of the Ref C money (supposed to be spent on education), stealth property taxes without voter consent, payback to labor with restrictive laws, and a bunch of new regulations."
Don't forget selling out state employees with Colorado WINS. State employees have many protections under the state classified personnel system. The salaries and benefits are based on revenue, spending priorities, and tabor restrictions. Colorado WINS can do nothing to help state employees beyond what already exits. However Ritter is paying back the AFL-CIO by increasing their membership and dues by selling out state employees in a promise of better benefits...if this was true, then why didn't Ritter increase pay and benefits over the past two years. Additionally, why did Ritter have the state employee strike prohibited. I am sick of this guy's games.
I don't think Ritter can make a decision without first graveling to Sweeney and Cox!
April 11, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"Unions are usually formed when people are held down so stop holding people down and unions will disappear." - Big_D
True statement. That is why only 11% of all US workers are in unions. They don't need to be in unions because MOST companies do pay a fair wage/salary for services rendered. And has already been pointed out, the US Govt now mandates most of what unions fought for over the years. The areas impacted are the low end, unskilled, uneducated jobs that illegals are indeed taking away from the Americans that used to fill them - construction, fast food, restaurant, hospitality, landscaping, janitorial, etc. Secure the borders, enforce exisiting immigration laws, allow "self-deportation" to take hold (as it has started to), and then watch as the wage rate/benefits for those jobs rises as employers raise the wage paid as the market will demand. This might also mean higher prices on these items and services, but that is the cost we all pay.
April 11, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dirtchief writes:
"But Colorado isn't a union state. Union membership is concentrated among public employees, 15 percent of the state's work force accounting for 44 percent of the state's union members. Yes, most of them are Democrats, but of the 85 percent of Coloradans who work in the private sector, only 5 percent are union members"
This statement by Mr. Rosen proves that this initiative is nothing more than another way for big business to thumb it's nose at the middle class. If Union membership is so low why do we need a Constitutional amendment to address this so called problem? The answerer is we don't. I am a proud Union member and just like everything in life you have to take the good with the bad and I believe the good of the Union far out ways the bad. And who is behind this bogus ballot initiative? John Coors. This 28 year old son of privilege has never had to work a day in his life and yet he wants to take away from all of us who have had to earn everything that we have. Why is it OK that corporations give millions to the Republican party but it's bad and unfair that the Unions support Democrats? If the company I work for were to bust my union do you honestly think they would lower their prices? No they would pocket the difference and all of you business sympathizers know it. And one last item, If you like your 40hr work week and your paid holidays and your paid vacations THANK A UNION.
April 11, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Dirtchief, without giving away too much, what has your union done for you that has helped both you and your employer?
What is the good and bad you are talking about?
John Coors may not perform work that you find beneficial, but how can you judge him on what work he does? You know him personally and know he does nothing of value? OH, his work does not benefit you, right? Got it.
I thought I could thank my employer for TWELVE paid holidays and TWENTY-FIVE vacation days and THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE PAID SICK DAYS and not a union. My company has never been unionized and I have been taken care of very well. BTW, I used 150 of those sick days in a row with full pay and a job when I came back.
April 11, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
EdArcuri writes:
Two observations:
1) dilligaf you are mistaken. President Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock to ensure the enrollment of black citizens at the High School when then Governor Orval Faubus stood in the schoolhouse door. That predates the sainted Kennedys.
2) This discussion has morphed from an analysis of the proposed policies into one discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of labor unions generally.
Right to Work laws allow each worker to decide whether to join a labor union. Unions which have merit and a good story to tell will enjoy membership. Those that don't will not.
American citizens should be able to attend nearby schools without regard to their race or ethnicity. American citizens should be able to decide whether to join the Elks Club, the local church, or a labor union.
Cheers.
April 11, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Although I agree that unions today have some problems that need addressed badly, if more companies where union you same people out there that cry about the illegal workers would not have a place to work. These union companies have a contract that they have to follow. It is your nonunion companies that hire these people and pay them peanuts under the table.
April 11, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
EdArcuri writes:
Dirtchief - please advise concerning "corporations that give millions to Republicans." That practice has been illegal in this country for nearly a century, though it is an article of faith among those whose only source of information is the DNC.
Take a look at the top ten sources of political donations to the political parties as set forth on the Federal Election Commission website.
The last time I checked it out 9 of the top 10 gave all their money to the Democrats. The 10th split its donations evenly between the Republican and Democratic parties. None of them was a "corporation."
Cheers.
"It ain't what folks don't know that's the problem. It's what they know that just ain't so." Josh Billings
April 11, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Typical union mentality:
My church group's return from Glenwood Springs on an Amtrack (Amtrap) train hit a little snag. The train came to a screeching halt, and everything was turned off. My paster proceeded to move forward in the train to find answers. When finding an employee of Amtrack, he was told that the train staff hit its 12 hour window. My pastor asked for an explanation. The employee became very hostile and explained that union rules prevented any further work; the crew was tired. My pastor asked if the employee could announce the problem so the passengers knew the issue. The employee became even more hostile and said, "...I don't think you understand, we are done." Well, the passengers on the train were finally rescued by a replacement crew several hours later.
Dirtchief - did you buy a lemon from Detroit in the 70s or 80s or did you go for something else?
Dirtchief - do you support the docs union mentality in WWII when war supplies were delayed by the thugs on the docs?
Dirtchief - do you support the Daley machine?
Dirtchief - should I keep going?
Dirtchief, if you wish to be a part of a union and support the spawn of Hoffa, that is your choice I would rather be dead! I would not wish to put one penny in their political agenda...your so-called dues.
April 11, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
mark79trans:
Did you try praying?
April 11, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I think Mikey just went a whole week without getting called out on some lie or ridiculous statement
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...
well done rosecoloredglasses
April 11, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
What groups want right-to-work laws passed?
Why?
April 11, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Hey there is a report out today that (NON-UNION) Frontier Airlines has file chapter 11. I suppose some how this is a unions falt too or maybe those union oil people that is gouging us with gas prices. Maybe we could get the oil industry to maybe take the 123 billion dollars that they made in profit last year that contributed to the airlines failures to help. OH I forgot we were bashing the unions. Sorry didn't mean to change the subject.
April 11, 2008
2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Protection, from a trade standpoint, of the steel industry is what put the big hit on the American auto industry. Expensive and inefficiently made steel being the only option, American cars became more expensive too, and the Japanese and Europeans were better able to compete. The unions made both industries fail because they were protecting jobs, and the fact that auto couldn't use foreign steel didn't help auto either. Labor unions had their places, but because of government regulations (and sometimes unwarrented interference), their existence is moot. They do nothing but drive up production costs and pay for democrats to get elected. Thank goodness they are sliding uncontrollably out of the picture.
April 11, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Dill,
Creative destruction, not that this particular airline is in all that much trouble anyway, if you followed the details.
One of the reasons that unions are falling off the deep end is because they are driving their businesses out of business. The other is that government is picking up the torch on the more reasonable issues such as OSH. They are a drag, and any good function they once held is now moot.
April 11, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
"Posted by MGD on April 11, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What groups want right-to-work laws passed?
Why?"
Those of us who think the Davis Bacon prevailing wage laws are wrong, everyone wonders why road construction is sooooo high....hmmmm!
Those of us who think the Federal Work Rules provide sufficient protection.
Those of us against the extortion of money for organized crime, pocket lining, and political action to protect organized crime and pocket lining. The union officials became very rich at the expense of the rank and file.
Those of us who think it is important to protect American Industry and Business...we are no longer able to do what we did in 1941. ...don't forget that if these aren't successful then there are no jobs and no consumer goods; I am not too comforted by are transition to a service based economy. Unions too often suck the life out of a business and industry and then wonder why there is such a push to outsource. It is simple supply and demand. If goods cost more to cover higher wages, then fewer goods are sold resulting in a layoff of workers...unions are a driving force of inflation. Well, that is unless you're the government, the prevailing wage laws soak the taxpayer for heavily inflated wages on public works projects.
April 11, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Dilligaf, I thought I was in a discussion with a viable sane person until you said this:
"Although I agree that unions today have some problems that need addressed badly, if more companies where union you same people out there that cry about the illegal workers would not have a place to work. These union companies have a contract that they have to follow. It is your nonunion companies that hire these people and pay them peanuts under the table."
I WILL NOT SPEND ANY MORE MIPS WITH YOU. There is no facts that can change an opinion as ignorant as yours. I do not say that often to a person I have had a discussion with. That last paragraph was one of the more uniformed comments I have seen from you. Best wishes.
April 11, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
I guess my question was more about who is lobbying for the bill, which groups? I know there are individuals who are for the bill just as their are individuals who are for the union sponsored bills. The unions are the biggest group in support of the union bill, who is the biggest group supporting right-to-work?
I haven't formed an opinion on this yet. On one hand I see employers shipping jobs overseas, reducing benefits, replacing a full-time person with two part timers who get no benefits. I see layoffs numbering in the hundreds from the company I work for.
I also see unions protecting jobs in an almost socialist method. I am not and have not been in a union so I can't say for sure but it seems like time in service is all that really matters.
So, my starting point here is to follow the money. I can see unions benefit the most from the proposed union legislation. I want to see who benefits (MONEY) from the right-to-work.
Also, thanks for taking the time to answer if you have answers. Something with some reference and not just an opinion.
Peace
April 11, 2008
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
MGD,
Go to the NFIB site = http://www.nfib.com/page/homeCO.html (small business is the biggest supporter of a right to work law)
You will find your information there.
Also: look at some of the bigger issues. The best place to start is the automotive industry. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have fought the union over the past few years. Their business model and benefit package are not sustainable based on the market. It has been a real mess.
Also: do some research on some of the points I made, Davis Bacon, State Prevailing Wage Laws, and the links between unions and organized crime...this is all stuff you can look up on the net.
A business can only provide services or goods if there is a market for them. If the cost outweighs any return, then that good or service will not exist thus neither will the job. The only alternative is to outsource. (there can certainly be abuses...I don't deny that)
April 11, 2008
5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dirtchief writes:
GWM wrote:
I thought I could thank my employer for TWELVE paid holidays and TWENTY-FIVE vacation days and THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE PAID SICK DAYS and not a union. My company has never been unionized and I have been taken care of very well. BTW, I used 150 of those sick days in a row with full pay and a job when I came back.
Your employer gives you these benefits because Unions fought for them. Your job may not have a Union but because Unions fought to get these perks for their members your employer chose to offer these benefits to you. Why? because if they did not either nobody would work there or the employees would threaten to form a Union. Do you understand? Unions raise wages and benefits for all working people not just Union members. As far as John Coors goes I never said he did nothing of value. I said he is unaffected by Unions. He is the CEO of Coorstek. (A job I am sure was giving to him by his Daddy) There are no Unions at Coors or Coorstek so unions have no control over his business dealings. That is the point I was making.
April 11, 2008
5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dirtchief writes:
EdArcuri here are the facts:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries...
I know you conservatives hate details like facts but if you look at the industry sectors on this site that gave to politicians 9 out of 13 gave the majority to Republicans and yes the totals added up to more than 1 million dollars. So I guess its not illegal. Yes labor gave millions to Democrats I never denied that but why is it OK for one group and not another? And as far as you clever little quote heres one for you.
"People in glass houses should not throw stones"
April 11, 2008
6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dirtchief writes:
mark79trans:
This is a federally mandated law not a union rule.
http://www.utu.org/depts/RESEARCH/HOU...
Either way you would probably be the first to sue when your train engineer was involved in an accident after operating a trains for 30+ hours straight. As to your question about what I drive. Like most union members I buy only American made cars and it is not a lemon thank you. My Jeep and all of my previous U.S. made cars have provided me with years of reliable service.
April 11, 2008
10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
In 1961 the Soviet Union was the only nation to orbit a man around the Earth. The average weekly wage was 98 dollars a week. Minimum wage was 1.15 under new regulations..
The average cost of gasoline was .25 cents a gallon. Homes cost below 20K unless they were grand mansions.
Computers were massive machines with no practical applications available or even considered. The majority of households had one income. Clothes were dried on outside lines and microwaves were available only in high class restaurant kitchens and cost thousands of dollars..
Blacks were subject to Jim Crow rules and justice for many people was a joke. The right to vote was barred to non-whites via poll taxes, complicated tests and intimidation.
There was no OSHA, no Equal Rights Offices or Statutes and no legislation preventing the mandatory attendance of children of color in sub-standard schools which were further from their homes than the schools for white children where they were not permitted to attend.
I don’t think Martin Luthor King would be in favor of unions that managed to deny local black workers and businesses in the areas devastated by Katrina the contracts to repair those damages. It is also too much union nonsense that is destroying the automobile industry in this country. The only auto manufacturers making a reasonable profit are those where the workers have consistently rejected unions.
Time to grow up and enter the Twenty First Century. The best thing we can do for our economy and the workers is to encourage new businesses to open and prosper. If we allow unions to force themselves on workers and destroy the profitability of businesses, we will lose jobs as businesses either close or move to states without bad laws that will, if the pass a court test, cost businesses so much in both money and flexibility that they will have to leave the state or close.
The unions themselves admit it. These provisions are the equivalent of a threat to pay up or else delivered in a letter made up of individual letters cut out of a magazine or a newspaper and pasted in place. Let the people decide about Right to Work.
I doubt they want that. It is too likely to end up like the votes for union representation with the unions losing. Their fear drives them. Don’t let it infect Colorado with unemployment and destroyed or lost businesses.
April 11, 2008
11:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Democrat enablers - I love it!
April 12, 2008
12:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Let's not forget what other elements the unions attract: mafia. Hoffa Sr. may have started the Teamsters, but the wiseguys took it over. And when Hoffa tried to maintain his power, they offed him.
The same thing happened to my uncle. He started a shipmasters' union in the 1940s. It was extremely successful and attracted the mob. One day some thugs showed up at his door and told him if he didn't step aside, they'd kill him and his family. They gave him the option of "retiring" and moving across the country so he couldn't influence the union. Once the mob took over, that union started screwing its own members out of their pensions.
What happened to my uncle and to Hoffa probably wouldn't happen today. Organized crime still has a stranglehold on unions. They just do it much more quietly.
April 13, 2008
9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
As someone stated earlier on, a lot of the things that the unions fought for 50 & 60 years ago have been turned into law. So a lot of the unions are not relevant anymore. It was posted by more than one person that the unions are for mediocracy. I agree.
I have 4 vehicles. A Ford made in Mexico, a Chev made in Canada, a Dodge made in Japan and a Mazda made in the USA. Go figure.
If the employer can't make a profit he will outsource or go out of business. I guess Ford, Dodge and Chevrolet found a better solution than the UAW. So did Mazda. They pay over union scale and expect better than union scale committment and work. Fair enough.
April 14, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Interesting dose of reality:
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
April 14, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Rosen...just once I'd like to see you defend one of your positions without all the smoke and mirrors:
"In his Rocky Mountain News column promoting a proposed "right-to-work" initiative for Colorado's November ballot as "perfectly reasonable," Newsradio 850 KOA host Mike Rosen inaccurately claimed that the measure would "simply protect" workers by "not forcing them to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment." However, as Colorado Media Matters has pointed out repeatedly, federal law already bars compulsory full union membership."
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
April 14, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
Posted by holekeeper on April 11, 2008 at 11:06 a.m.
I am sorry, I did misspeak on this post, I am sorry dilligaf will you ever forgive me for typing fast. Man I will never ever make a little mistake again, Please dont beat me up!
April 17, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay's posting links to stuff he didn't read again. From your own link, jay:
"Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment UNLESS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOUR EMPLOYER AND YOUR UNION CONTAINS A PROVISION REQUIRING ALL EMPLOYEES TO EITHER JOIN THE UNION OR PAY UNION FEES."
Emphasis is my own of course.
April 17, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Houstongolfnut writes:
Those who are not interested in thinking for themselves will join a union. And nobody has ever become wealthy working for union wages. So, there you go, the endless do loop that means security for union bosses and Democrats.
April 17, 2008
7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Fred: "“Big business” WILL leave the state and it would become a third would country if the union thugs got their way."
A third world country, eh? You mean, like a country where child labor, 16-hour work days, no weekends, and no basic worker safety standards are the norm?
In other words, the way it was in America BEFORE the unions.