View Full Version : Not a union bashing thread
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 13:44
So let's not make it one.
However, after seeing this union campaign to win over gun owners for Obama (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/afl-cio_joins_the_gun_wars_wit.php), what exactly were the unions afraid of in McCain? What did Obama promise them? Why was it worth them spending money on this trash?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/12239905242008-10-14-afl-mailer-guns-1.jpg
Jay Cunningham
02-26-09, 14:10
The unions will support the Democrat candidate every single time (just as mine does) so it's a rhetorical question.
Sorry Mike Day but you have no idea what you are talking about! Suffice it to say that this ad campaign is deceptive at best.
Buckaroo
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 14:25
he's been endorsed by the American Hunters and Shooters Organization.
What a ringing endorsement!
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 14:29
It seems that BHO just signed an Executive Order "encouraging" the use of Union workers for Federal construction projects.
********
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EXECUTIVEORDERUSEOFPROJECTLABORAGREEMENTSFORFEDERALCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS/
Friday, February 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am
EXECUTIVE ORDER: USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 6, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that:
Section 1. Policy. (a) Large-scale construction projects pose special challenges to efficient and timely procurement by the Federal Government. Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed. Challenges also arise due to the fact that construction projects typically involve multiple employers at a single location. A labor dispute involving one employer can delay the entire project. A lack of coordination among various employers, or uncertainty about the terms and conditions of employment of various groups of workers, can create frictions and disputes in the absence of an agreed-upon resolution mechanism. These problems threaten the efficient and timely completion of construction projects undertaken by Federal contractors. On larger projects, which are generally more complex and of longer duration, these problems tend to be more pronounced.
(b) The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 14:31
This is just wrong....
DOBBS (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/25/ldt.01.html): Well, many of the country's labor unions among the largest donors to the Obama presidential campaign. Now it appears the president's returning the favor. President Obama has signed an executive order that encourages federal construction projects be given to unions. Bill Tucker has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Seventeen days after being sworn into office, President Obama signed an executive order encouraging the use of union contractors and union workers on large federal construction projects. It's not a requirement, but it does reflect the desire of the president of the United States of America. Unions could not be happier.
JACOB HAY, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA: Well project labor agreements are a tried and true way to get things done in the construction industry. They guarantee that workers who work on construction projects are paid fair wages with good benefits.
TUCKER: While the unions like to point to projects like the Hoover Dam or Disney World as examples of large-scale projects, successfully using project labor agreements, opponents like the National Right to Work Committee point to the example of Boston's Big Dig, citing PLAs for the reason the project is years overdue with a budget that swelled from nearly $3 billion to $15 billion.
Opponents to project labor agreements object to them. Saying they effectively cut out nonunion companies from bidding and participating in the projects. Not because they forbid nonunion contractors from playing, but because of the cost they impose. They note that all workers, union or not, working under a PLA must pay union dues and 84 percent of construction workers are not union members.
And all contractors, union or not, must pay into the unions health and pension funds for the workers they have on the job. Opponents call PLAs a blatant payback to the unions from the president.
STEFAN GLEASON, NAT'L RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION: Last year, they spent -- organized labor spent over $1 billion on political activities to elect mostly left-wing Democrats and President Obama and state and local officials and yeah, they want something for that money.
TUCKER: Wages are not an issue. All federal projects require that prevailing wages be paid.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now, project labor agreements are something of a political football. They were banned during Bush Sr.'s administration, OK'd in the Clinton administration, banned again during Bush's years in office and now they're back again. One construction official I spoke with today simply asked if PLAs are such a good idea, well then why aren't they in widespread use, because they're not. Lou.
DOBBS: Well there's a lot of stuff that's a good idea that isn't in widespread use. I'm not sure I'm persuaded by that argument. But I am persuaded by the fact that 84 percent of the workers are not union, but everybody has to -- has to pay into the union?
TUCKER: If you're in a project governed under a PLA, you have to pay union dues. You don't have to join the union.
DOBBS: Right.
TUCKER: But you do have to pay the union dues and if you're a contractor...
DOBBS: So this is a massive windfall for organized labor...
TUCKER: Exactly.
DOBBS: ... at taxpayer expense.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Which in effect whether labor -- whether union labor or not, the taxpayer is picking up the bill.
TUCKER: Right.
DOBBS: Well, this isn't -- this isn't fiscal responsibility. Didn't we just have a summit about that? My goodness, what's going on? He asks, tongue in cheek. Thank you very much, Bill Tucker, appreciate it.
SecretAgentMan
02-26-09, 16:38
I think they meant to print: "Mike Day, Useful Idiot"
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-26-09, 17:31
"The unions will support the Democrat candidate every single time (just as mine does) so it's a rhetorical question"
This guy nailed it my union preached this guy but I never bought it the Dems allways promis the unions a lot but never come through!
Ironworkers #33
i actually left my union because of the fact they supported that guy in the white house, i think of him as a stuart, not a president, like in Lord of The Rings
toasterlocker
02-26-09, 22:19
READ MY WHOLE POST CLOSELY BEFORE YOU JUMP DOWN MY THROAT:D
I think this a good example though of some glaring problems with the Republican Party and gun rights organizing.
There are many people outside of the standard "always vote Republican crowd" who support gun ownership. However, they often aren't willing to support a Republican candidate who is too polarizing on other issues they may see as slightly more important. Like stuff related to economics polices, religious matters, etc. Or maybe they believe that candidate to be less competent than other choices.
I'm NOT saying McCain was that type of candidate (although the Obama campaign did do a good job of unfairly painting him as "just like Bush"), but I definitely think Palin was.
Keep in mind people, I'm not talking about REALITY or COMMON SENSE. I'm talking about PUBLIC PERCEPTION, which is usually the basis for who wins elections.
i actually left my union because of the fact they supported that guy in the white house, i think of him as a stuart, not a president, like in Lord of The Rings
I think you mean Steward not Stuart.
Buckaroo
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 22:48
You mean there's some that agree with the candidate on man issues but he candidate's stance is too polarizing one one or two issues? Sounds like every election I've seen :D
READ MY WHOLE POST CLOSELY BEFORE YOU JUMP
DOWN MY THROAT:D
I think this a good example though of some glaring problems with the Republican Party and gun rights organizing.
There are many people outside of the standard "always vote Republican crowd" who support gun ownership. However, they often aren't willing to support a Republican candidate who is too polarizing on other issues they may see as slightly more important. Like stuff related to economics polices, religious matters, etc. Or maybe they believe that candidate to be less competent than other choices.
I'm NOT saying McCain was that type of candidate (although the Obama campaign did do a good job of unfairly painting him as "just like Bush"), but I definitely think Palin was.
Keep in mind people, I'm not talking about REALITY or COMMON SENSE. I'm talking about PUBLIC PERCEPTION, which is usually the basis for who wins elections.
The unions will support the Democrat candidate every single time (just as mine does) so it's a rhetorical question.
Yup, same here. IATSE
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 22:56
So, wht does everyone think about the unions' new close relationship with Obama and having been basically written into federal contracts?
So, wht does everyone think about the unions' new close relationship with Obama and having been basically written into federal contracts?
i'm trying to hold to the spirit of the opening post and not bash unions, so i'll be brief. as a contractor that doesn't work with unions, seems like a load of crap and unfortunate for public works projects. unions employees are paid on seniority. my guys are paid on merit. who's gonna do better work? who's gonna be more efficient?
I think you mean Steward not Stuart.
Buckaroo
Stuart, as in the House of Stuarts that line of absolutist monarchs and pretenders to the throne in the United Kingdom during the 1600s.
;)
Jay Cunningham
02-27-09, 04:19
The unions will attempt to do what is in THEIR best interest. They will protect their membership up to the point where the business actually collapses or folds, and then they'll just sort of look around and walk away. This is how it works.
The rank and file deserve what they get if they insist on voting the union position on everything.
I see these craft guys at nuclear plants voting democrat every time, wearing stickers on their hardhats, carrying signs outside the gate - all pledging allegiance to the party that wants to eliminate the industry that employs them.
And on gun rights they are mostly Elmer Fudds, believing no one will ever come for their deer rifle.
It's almost funny - almost.
CarlosDJackal
02-27-09, 11:45
So, wht does everyone think about the unions' new close relationship with Obama and having been basically written into federal contracts?
It'll be interesting to see how well it stands up to legal scrutiny. IMHO, forcing an individual to pay into an organization that they are not a part of just to ensure employment is probably not going to sit well. I'm on watch and see mode right now.
On a positive note: 1 down only 47 to go!! :D
Littlelebowski
02-27-09, 12:31
The rank and file deserve what they get if they insist on voting the union position on everything.
I see these craft guys at nuclear plants voting democrat every time, wearing stickers on their hardhats, carrying signs outside the gate - all pledging allegiance to the party that wants to eliminate the industry that employs them.
And on gun rights they are mostly Elmer Fudds, believing no one will ever come for their deer rifle.
It's almost funny - almost.
That's a good point. PA is coal country and Obama has pledged to get rid of coal one way or the other yet PA still went for Obama. It just doesn't make sense how people literally ignore the very obvious issues right in front of them.
Now Wyoming is coal country and there's no confusion there :cool:
When the unions dissolve, B.O.'s gonna have a ton of new "jack boot" recruits for his glorious civilian national force. That's how Bammy's protecting their gun rights! Armed sheeple! Imagine that! :eek:
So let's not make it one.
However, after seeing this union campaign to win over gun owners for Obama (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/afl-cio_joins_the_gun_wars_wit.php), what exactly were the unions afraid of in McCain? What did Obama promise them? Why was it worth them spending money on this trash?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/12239905242008-10-14-afl-mailer-guns-1.jpg
Recruit #1.
Littlelebowski
02-27-09, 12:59
I suppose they were trying to show that Obama has the support of the common, gun owning people. I like this pic of a hard working conservative gun owner who did not support Obama and was actually informed on the issues; my old man :D He's a cattle rancher
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h251/baxshep/camera131.jpg
Jay Cunningham
02-27-09, 13:22
The rank and file deserve what they get if they insist on voting the union position on everything.
I see these craft guys at nuclear plants voting democrat every time, wearing stickers on their hardhats, carrying signs outside the gate - all pledging allegiance to the party that wants to eliminate the industry that employs them.
And on gun rights they are mostly Elmer Fudds, believing no one will ever come for their deer rifle.
It's almost funny - almost.
I am a craft guy at a nuclear power plant.
Littlelebowski
02-27-09, 13:33
I am a craft guy at a nuclear power plant.
Precisely. Thanks for the setup :D
http://samueljscott.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/homer_simpson.jpg
The unions will attempt to do what is in THEIR best interest. They will protect their membership up to the point where the business actually collapses or folds, and then they'll just sort of look around and walk away. This is how it works.
HELLO, UAW!!!! :mad:
Want to save the American Auto industry? It's so simple... GET RID OF THE UNIONS. The parasite that is killing the host.
Instead, Ali Bama wants to build green cars and shit. Ali should just put a DUNCE cap on his head and sit in the corner.
I am a craft guy at a nuclear power plant.
And your point is?
Do you lap up all the union BS and vote for anti-gun, anti-freedom liberal dems?
Littlelebowski
02-27-09, 14:41
And your point is?
Do you lap up all the union BS and vote for anti-gun, anti-freedom liberal dems?
No, hes one of us. Let's get back on the original topic.
Stuart, as in the House of Stuarts that line of absolutist monarchs and pretenders to the throne in the United Kingdom during the 1600s.
;)
Ahh, thank you for the clarification. Yes, that fits better than steward.
Buckaroo (who's real name happens to be Stuart)
The unions will attempt to do what is in THEIR best interest. They will protect their membership up to the point where the business actually collapses or folds, and then they'll just sort of look around and walk away. This is how it works.
Most accurate statement I've seen about how unions actually behave. They can be very self destructive.
am a craft guy at a nuclear power plant.
In the last union thread, you said you were a bus driver. Which is it really, or is it something else?
Back to the topic:
I heard those commercials on the radio and I couldn't believe the blatant lies. Obama's Illinois record on gun control speaks for itself.
Littlelebowski
02-27-09, 18:03
He glows in the dark.
It'll be interesting to see how well it stands up to legal scrutiny. IMHO, forcing an individual to pay into an organization that they are not a part of just to ensure employment is probably not going to sit well. I'm on watch and see mode right now.
On a positive note: 1 down only 47 to go!! :D
Depends.
Iowa is a right to work state.
Unless you're a teacher, then you WILL be a member of the Iowa State Education Association.
Which WILL take your dues and give them to the left.
Has withstood legal challenge so far.
Same thing in nuclear as the rest of the crafts, these idiots deserve what they get.
Jay Cunningham
02-27-09, 20:27
In the last union thread, you said you were a bus driver. Which is it really, or is it something else?
I drive a nuclear bus.
I drive a nuclear bus.
The small nuclear bus.
Jay Cunningham
02-28-09, 07:27
To all of you who "hate" unions:
Don't hate the players - hate the game.
Nathan_Bell
02-28-09, 08:01
To all of you who "hate" unions:
Don't hate the players - hate the game.
The issue with a lot of the union members I know is that they are so indoctrinated that having a conversation about politics with them is painful. You talk to them and they agree that the border should be tightened up, that you are responsible for your actions and failures, that you have the right to self defense, that you have to plan ahead; but when asked why the voted D which as a national party is against all of those things. bam out comes the Republicans are the party of the rich and they are trying to destroy the middle class.
Rebutt that with facts and figures, get them to follow the causes and effects through, and they still fall back on that line. Most of them are much more conservative than average on almost all things than the average person on the street, but they have that "Get the management" mentality that seems to short circuit all other issues when it comes to voting.
Is this the case with all? Nope, but a large enough percentage that you are almost the exception that proves the rule Jay.
Littlelebowski
02-28-09, 08:26
I don't like state or national unions. Local level, that's fine if needed.
Anyway, more thoughts on how Obama is in the pocket of the unions? Or thoughts on that lie of an ad put out by the unions? Does any of our union members here buck the grind and speak out against the union's BS?
The issue with a lot of the union members I know is that they are so indoctrinated that having a conversation about politics with them is painful. You talk to them and they agree that the border should be tightened up, that you are responsible for your actions and failures, that you have the right to self defense, that you have to plan ahead; but when asked why the voted D which as a national party is against all of those things. bam out comes the Republicans are the party of the rich and they are trying to destroy the middle class.
Rebutt that with facts and figures, get them to follow the causes and effects through, and they still fall back on that line. Most of them are much more conservative than average on almost all things than the average person on the street, but they have that "Get the management" mentality that seems to short circuit all other issues when it comes to voting.
Is this the case with all? Nope, but a large enough percentage that you are almost the exception that proves the rule Jay.
It seems to be split among age groups where I work, a lot of the younger guys are less interested in who the union tells them to vote for. Although that does seem to vary from department to department. Yesterday, there were 4 guys from my department buying AR stuff after shift at the same gun store. T_K, Greg bought a S&W M&P 15X. I bought a non Kool Aid lower, just because it was there.
Where I work, most of the union guys that are still employed are in their 50's due to layoffs of all the lower seniority employees.
The UAW made a big push to get Obama elected. Many went along, but I know some that went their own way. Usually they were socially conservative, and hard workers who took pride in their jobs. Seems to have a lot to do with the values they were brought up with.
The greatest irony is that while taking union money and claiming to be out to save union jobs, Obama is doing everything he can to kill many of those jobs. Carbon taxes will raise energy costs, hurting many coal and petroleum industry jobs, and further eroding auto sales. Defense cuts on the "cold war weapon system we don't need" means cutting the F22 and JSF aircraft programs. There are a lot of UAW employees at Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis (formerly GM Allison Gas Turbine) who will lose their jobs if those programs are cut, not to mention the union workers at the airframe manufacturers.
The gun ad in the OP is aimed at Fudds. Obama, Biden, Holder, Pelosi, Reid, et al are not going to take away pump action deer shotguns, or single shot rifles, lever action rifles, or probably even bolt action rifles (though they may require magazine limits). The average hunter or trap shooter is not going to be affected, which follows the whole "legitimate sporting purpose" argument the Democrats love to throw around.
So, wht does everyone think about the unions' new close relationship with Obama and having been basically written into federal contracts?
i belong to the IUOE (intl. union of operating engineers)..i didnt vote for obama. my local endorsed mccain. mccain promised my local's business manager funds for infrastructure improvements in my state. obama didnt. the unions and democrats have a symbiotic (you scratch my back, ill scratch yours) relationship. federal contracts have always been union friendly. union pay scale on a heavy/highway pla is 28 dollars pay and 10 dollars benefits hourly. nonunion contractors have "prevailing wage", based on wage rates for union contractors, and it can vary job-job or region or state. most non union contractors pay the benefit pay with the hourly pay, and have to prove it weekly. there fore the non union labor costs are actually higher than union, as the union benefit pay isnt taxed, it isnt considered income. very few non union contractors try to bid prevailing wage projects for that reason.
The unions will attempt to do what is in THEIR best interest. They will protect their membership up to the point where the business actually collapses or folds, and then they'll just sort of look around and walk away. This is how it works.
dues paying members. thats what the unions want. the more members in a given local, the more bargaining power they have. my iuoe local is one of the stronger ones. the only personal benefit i like about being in a union is the pension plan. the company i work for went union to save labor costs. we all had to sign up or work elsewhere. some guys had 15-20 years with the company. when a company pays prevailing wage to an employee, it costs more per hour than paying according to a union agreement, the benfits arent payd directly, and arent taxed as income. some agreements are due to be renegotiated soon. i dont know how the democrats are going to implement their ideas into it.
unions cant guarantee the solvency or work for a contractor, they basically negotiate labor contracts....doing what is in their best interest.
by the way, not one gun owner in my company voted for obama. we werent fooled by the campaign ads. i also think the UAW has ruined the idea that unions are good. i think skilled trade unions are different, though
Looks like the unions might be getting a lot more for their money than anyone expected.
Current card check legislation reportedly tasks a gov't agency to arbitrate disputes between employers and newly unionized labor forces. If the two cannot agree to a contract, then the gov't arbitrator steps in and imposes a 2 year contract. Job descriptions, pay, benefits, all of it. It is binding, and the entire process does not appear to be optional.
As the OP says, this is not a union bashing thread - but this is absolutely disgusting.
A little here -
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/02/28/card-check-not-as-bad-as-thought-worse.aspx
Maybe they can fix the actors issue and some of us can get back to work.:D
Yeah, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" is nothing like the name implies. It will allow unions to intimidate employees into voting yes by depriving them of the secret ballot. Then there's all the government arbitrator stuff on top of it.
But you know what? If it passes and more shops get unionized, companies will either find a way to make it work, or they will go elsewhere. Manufacturing has already been doing that for a long time...
The big force behind this is the goal to organize service sector jobs that can't be outsourced. Imagine how many dues paying members a service workers' union could bring in by organizing Wal-Mart? Or how about nurses at large medical providers?
Honestly, I don't think this is likely to pass both houses. The southern reps and senators with all the non-union transplant facilities aren't going to let this happen because then they could lose the advantage that is sending lots of manufacturing jobs to their states.
Yeah, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" is nothing like the name implies.
What legislation actually does live up to its name?
It's hard to drum up support for the "Butt**** the American Public Act of 2009" in the press.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.