I work in a RTW state, and it's nothing like the unions say it is. We are all just held accountable as individual employees.

that dog is in the union

Not all unions are bad. The larger they become, the less effective for workers they tend to be.

Got any examples of unions with forced dues which aren't bad, Arbolio3?

You've got no examples in many decades of good unions have done. Standards of living have skyrocketed while the vast majority of Americans are not in unions. The fact is, unions are no more responsible for middle class expansion than government. Nobody's even trying to argue otherwise here, just ignore the harm they do and pretend 'well some are good.' Good how? Good where? No examples.

A unions downfall is when they forget they fight for the working man, and not the union itself. Unions have their place, and shouldn't be in all working environments.

>>They also showed on record, that they ran as slim a department operating cost as possible, and the surplus they had from their budget they would turn back into the general fund each year instead of spending it on things they did not truly need. <<

... why'd they wait for layoffs to come up wtih that?

@ Yell

They didn't just do it one year, they did it every year my father ran that department. They just showed it on the books as proof that there was no "fat" to trim in their department in comparison to others.

@Spock

I provided example on showing how unions CAN work with employers to make themselves survive and be in a better position to compete. My point was, the smaller the union, the more likely they are to make changes and strive to compromise with their employers to reach a suitable goal, unlike large unions. Large unions only have their strike power and money paid from dues to invest into buying candidates to protect them. The union at Crane, knew that it was better to take a pay cut, because they could afford it and still make a decent wage for their cost of living environment, than to strike in protest of such a cut, and get every one of their 200 approximate employees laid off from work permanently, unlike the case with Hostess. Were they overpaid in the first place? In my opinion, possibly. Their working environments are hellish though, so I would take as much pay as they would give me also. But I also have enough common sense to know not to cut off my arm just because i broke a finger.

The union still has it's bargaining power, and ability to help protect all those that work in the plant. They also kept their Crane logo on every part they produced. If you worked in a manufacturing facility, you would realize the pride that comes with that. (that may sound like an insult, but it is not. I just assume you do not work in manufcaturing)

I am not sure how Union bargain power works positivitly when compared to the power of supply and demand.  U.A.W almost sunk the big three by using there bargaining power to force automakers to pay union janitors extremely high wages and benefits. If a job is only worth minimum wage... how is it healthy for the unionized shop to force the shop owner to pay 2-3 times the wages as the ununionized shop down the road?  Sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

FDR, 8/16/1937

The Port of Los Angeles

You knew this coming Chris.

The Port of Los Angeles has an office workers Union.

The Union is paid rates 2 times the private sector level. Additionally they get 1/3, yes 4 months, of a year off.

The Union forced the contract to read that if a temp worker was ever hired a full time Union worker must replace the temp worker. If there was ever a number of workers under a certain limit that the Port must hire more Union Workers to cover the gap.

Their benefits package ain't a cadillac. It's a Testerosa.

Wow really dont blame the union why dont u blame people like ur selfs for collecting goverment aid food stamps welfare sitting on unemployment for 2 years