Right to work.....finally

[3rex]

Don't fool yourself with these great wages...None run parallel with the cost of living. Why do you think husband and wife work today? It takes two to live pretty much above poverty nowadays and in some cases including government funded subsidies IE daycare housing food and so on..I was fortunate my family was one income and that just living with nothing extravagant, and wages then were still not even with the cost of living..That gap has widened a bunch in the last 20 years..Nothing is fair anymore nor was it really then. Look at the cars the company big wigs drive, look at their homes, private schools and nannies for their kids.. Nothing fair about that either.

I am a middle class working guy myself, a conservative, and am for RTW.

That said, I do agree in general with much that you've said here. But some of what you've applied to the company bigwigs can also be applied to the working man. Specifically the cost of living.
There is a difference between "cost of living" and "cost of how I want to live." We want the nice cars, maybe more than one...we want the boat...and the nice house in the nicer neighborhood...name brand clothes, etc. all of that is certainly fine, but we can't do that then talk about "cost of living."

 

[allabouttheUK]

I worked in a facility that had a union presence, and it changed my opinion of unions completely.

Unions are a safe haven for the lazy and unmotivated. It's amazing what you can get away with if you are protected by a union.

 

[TransyCat09]

Can't be done on today's wages without having a second income..

Nonsense. Can't be done =/= is easy

 

[allabouttheUK]

Cost of living IS totally separate from cost of want..Cost of living is being able to sustain livable means..Not poverty, not wealth but livable means..Gas/lights, rent, ( car payment because most have them) insurance ( it's the law) food and so on. Can't be done on today's wages without having a second income..

Not saying you are completely wrong, but I support a house of 4 on 1 income. It can be done, but it is not advisable...it takes its toll on a person.

 

[DSmith21]

Let's use Rupp arena as an example..Look at the seats the company owner's get..( business expense/ tax write off-thanks taxpayers) then look where the working has to sit and that's only if he sells his kids cell phone to afford it..Corporate greed/politics have put this country on it's backside not the unions..

Maybe if you had worked past the age of 50 you could afford whatever seats that you want. You made the choice to give up another 10-15 years of earnings. Instead you prefer to whine this class warfare bull and fret about other people's success. Those people who start and grow businesses typically risk everything to do so. If you wanted to reach that level of wealth, you should have taken the risk yourself. You should also check the tax code, sports tickets are only partially deductible by a business and only if certain conditions are met.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Lol. Jesus, and we wonder why our state is so stupid. You come in to a man's business and demand how he does business by unionizing, and then have the nerve to say " if you don't like it work somewhere else".
And rtw does nothing but give YOU, the employee the Choice of being in the union or not. So yeah, forced unionism is pretty accurate

Exactly. Beyond time its over

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

Low interest rates drive home prices UP because they reduce the cost of buying a home.

To a degree. The main thing that happened is that there were record refinancing of existing home mortgages. The prices of homes was affected much more so by the glut of foreclosures and loan defaults we saw during the 2009-2012 crisis. Home prices were driven down because your neighbor got evicted. Fortunately years later we've recovered and the housing market is moving higher. Lower interest rates are good...and bad.

 

[allabouttheUK]

I agree and have seen it myself but you don't throw away the whole sack of potatoes because one is bad. I have been on the supervisor side as well as union worker. Had a female employee get a medical slip saying needed to be on modified work for a week. This particular product we was running was always a ***** and she didn't want to mess with it so she went modified for a week..she could do anything she wanted to do except her job..(driving a fork truck) Nothing I could do..Happens everywhere

The insane overtime pay they get for working when not many other people are is ridiculous as well. I have seen on many occasions where if they are in the middle of a job and it's their break time, they stop what they are doing rather than finish the task and take their union break...it's bullsht man. I'm not saying it as a blanket statement, but I would say 4/10 are damn near worthless. I have seen some really good ones though that work their butts off, but way too many just along for the ride because they can hide behind the union.

 

[DSmith21]

LOL ..Probably draw more a month pension than you earn..Thanks Union to my 30 and out full pension....Quit whining...

99.9% doubt it as far as earnings. You are the one crying about the big boss man's cars, nanny, vacation home, tickets, etc. If you wanted all that, you should have taken the risk to start your own business or at least continued to work to a normal retirement age.

 

[3rex]

I would almost bet on it..I have three vehicles (paid for) new harley (paid for) built new home (not on wheels either) in 2003 with heated pool (paid for) and 28x38 garage with ac/heat cable and so on (paid for)..Not bragging by no means but very proud that I have what I have because my wife and I earned every dime of it and on a union job..Never not one ounce of help from mommy or daddy, I earned every dime of it because of the hard work I did, and not whining because **** was not fair...It's called life. yeah I could afford the tickets but I won't pay the cost..(my choice)

My home smells of rich mahogany...and I have many leather bound books.

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

Assembly line jobs do shut down for breaks/lunch ..That's not just the unions that's OSHA as well. It's mandatory that after so many hours of work lunch time and break time is to be provided.Chemical plants like I worked at could not just shut down so relief was provided for lunch/ breaks.which meant more employees however when our plant went to 12 hr shifts that cut down on turnover time, vacation, and so on so it was beneficial to the company to have 12 hr shifts..My son get triple time on holidays that he has to work ( which is most of them) and yet to hear him complain..Loves that bank account.

That is a wage and hour requirement. Kentucky law. Required "lunch" or breaks are dictated by Kentucky Labor Cabinet under wage and hour laws. That extends to union and non union, factory or mom and pop store. Has nothing to do with OSHA.

 

[55wildcat]

Lucky you didn't bet. I own a manufacturing business with 100 employees. I have no debt either.

So now we know why your anti union...there ya have it..Company owner and proud for ya..

 

[cball225]

I don't know how you guys argue with 55wildcat. I can't bring myself to read his posts. Looks like one giant run on sentence with really random punctuation.

 

[55wildcat]

I don't know how you guys argue with 55wildcat. I can't bring myself to read his posts. Looks like one giant run on sentence with really random punctuation.

YES..we have it all now....Grammar police in da house!

Reckon this country *** will bow out now. Going back to the D league where I belong..Stay with what you believe in..All this old guy can tell ya....worked for me..

 

[BernieSadori]

Find another job, then. There are hundreds of thousands of examples where changes are made at a company that are completely out of the control of employees. When it's management sticking it to the workers, we just accept it. When it's workers sticking it to the management, it's the end of the world. Totally bizarro concept.

You don't have a right to work. There is no inalieanable right to be employed by someone else. It's a pure propaganda phrase used by large corporate interests to make the lowly laborer think that somehow getting bent over and reemed is equivalent to them gaining some huge victory of basic human rights. And like always, the brainwashed lemmings that champion everything the GOP does (98% of catpaw) lap it up like the useless sheep they are.

Soooko....you are not making any sense.

When it's a Union job and people know it, don't apply if you don't want to be in the union.

But if it isn't a Union job and that changes, still go find anot her job.

Got it.

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

So now we know why your anti union...there ya have it..Company owner and proud for ya..

You are mistaken in your broad-brush belief that just because we own a business or are Republicans that we are automatically anti-union. I am pro union worker....I am not necessarily pro Union boss or union tactics. I think that we on the right share almost 90% of the issues out there that we agree upon. We have A LOT more in common than you believe. The problem is that your union "boss" has demonized "the man" the owner, the corporation as being anti-WORKER. That is not the case at all.

I firmly hope that the GOP and the union WORKERS (psst...secret here, vote GOP despite what they are told) will realize that we are the better option for you. The other side promotes things that are not in your best interest. Such as open borders and the influx of cheap illegal labor.

 

[BernieSadori]

Find another job, then. There are hundreds of thousands of examples where changes are made at a company that are completely out of the control of employees. When it's management sticking it to the workers, we just accept it. When it's workers sticking it to the management, it's the end of the world. Totally bizarro concept.

You don't have a right to work. There is no inalieanable right to be employed by someone else. It's a pure propaganda phrase used by large corporate interests to make the lowly laborer think that somehow getting bent over and reemed is equivalent to them gaining some huge victory of basic human rights. And like always, the brainwashed lemmings that champion everything the GOP does (98% of catpaw) lap it up like the useless sheep they are.

Brainwashed GOP?

It must hurt your soul to know Trump has been credited for saving so many union jobs.

 

[DSmith21]

That is a wage and hour requirement. Kentucky law. Required "lunch" or breaks are dictated by Kentucky Labor Cabinet under wage and hour laws. That extends to union and non union, factory or mom and pop store. Has nothing to do with OSHA.

You are right about wage and hour being the enforcers of breaks and lunches. However, if you are under a collective bargaining agreement or have a mutual agreement with your employees you can have a non-standard (shorter than 30 minute) lunch break period. Note: wage an hour has deemed that 30 minutes is a reasonable period for lunch.

KRS 337.355 Lunch period requirements.
Employers, except those subject to the Federal Railway Labor Act, shall grant their
employees a reasonable period for lunch, and such time shall be as close to the middle of the employee's scheduled work shift as possible. In no case shall an employee be requiredto take a lunch period sooner than three (3) hours after his work shift commences, nor more than five (5) hours from the time his work shift commences. This section shall not be construed to negate any provision of a collective bargaining agreement or mutual agreement between the employee and employer

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

Brainwashed GOP?

It must hurt your soul to know Trump has been credited for saving so many union jobs.

Yup. Its amazing but the Mexican media is publishing stories blaming TRUMP for stealing MEXICAN jobs.

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Ford Motor Co.'s cancellation of plans to build a $1.6 billion auto manufacturing plant in San Luis Potosi has sounded alarms across Mexico.

Even as the country is being rocked by rowdy nationwide protests against a Jan. 1 gasoline price hike, the Ford news led the front pages of Mexico's most influential newspapers Wednesday, and they tied the development directly to President-elect Donald Trump.

"Trump leaves Mexico without 3,600 jobs," read the headline on El Universal. "Ford's braking jolts the peso," said Reforma, referring to the Mexican currency's nearly 1 percent slump following the news.

Mexico is PAYING for that wall already. This is an example of the deposit.

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

You are right about wage and hour being the enforcers of breaks and lunches. However, if you are under a collective bargaining agreement or have a mutual agreement with your employees you can have a non-standard (shorter than 30 minute) lunch break period.

KRS 337.355 Lunch period requirements.
Employers, except those subject to the Federal Railway Labor Act, shall grant their
employees a reasonable period for lunch, and such time shall be as close to the middle of the employee's scheduled work shift as possible. In no case shall an employee be requiredto take a lunch period sooner than three (3) hours after his work shift commences, nor more than five (5) hours from the time his work shift commences. This section shall not be construed to negate any provision of a collective bargaining agreement or mutual agreement between the employee and employer

You are right. Contracts do make a difference in law. But in general the collective contract is much "richer" than what a non union worker will have as his rights under wage and hour. I was not clear in what I wrote.

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

I wanted to say that I am enjoying the conversation in this thread. I don't normally post on the Paddock but if this thread is any indication I may hang around.

Go big blue!

 

[DSmith21]

You are right. Contracts do make a difference in law. But in general the collective contract is much "richer" than what a non union worker will have as his rights under wage and hour. I was not clear in what I wrote.

You are right that Wage and Hour assumes the CBA will require a richer/longer lunch. I know several non-union work places, where employees voted (from that mutual agreement language) to have a 20 minute lunch instead of 30. The reason is that lunch is unpaid time. The employee would rather get 10 minutes of extra pay working than 10 minutes of extra unpaid break each day. Wage and hour blessed this arrangement after a temporary employee complained and caused an investigation.

I only mention this as a matter of interest. Not trying to argue.

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

You are right that Wage and Hour assumes the CBA will require a richer/longer lunch. I know several non-union work places, where employees voted (from that mutual agreement language) to have a 20 minute lunch instead of 30. The reason is that lunch is unpaid time. The employee would rather get 10 minutes of extra pay working than 10 minutes of extra unpaid break each day. Wage and hour blessed this arrangement after a temporary employee complained and caused an investigation.

I only mention this as a matter of interest. Not trying to argue.

That is interesting. I was not aware that Wage and Hour would allow employees to vote to essentially violate the law. If you are a union member you are bound by the existing CBA. A business that over time hires and fires and replaces the workers who initially voted to shorten their lunch break do not legally speak for the new hire who was not asked his opinion on it. Frankly what you tell me shocks me. I certainly wouldn't allow my employees to do that without wage and hours blessing and a method to bind new hires to that policy. Maybe in the employee manual and a slip signed by the new hire and placed in his file does the trick.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

Yup. Its amazing but the Mexican media is publishing stories blaming TRUMP for stealing MEXICAN jobs.

Listening to NPR last night, amused that they were interviewing the Mexican workers affected to get their negative opinion of Trump. If there is a negative slant to any news story regarding Trump, the liberal media will go to great lengths to run with it.

Similarly, NPR story last night sung the praises of the TPP, how a peanut farmer in Georgia would be positively affected, how China will take the lead on opening trade if we don't, how America has never walked away from any agreement that opened up trade until now. Didn't hear that storyline when Hillary opposed the TPP during the elections, but now...

 

[qwesley]

Cherrypicking actual numbers? When you can't defend, name call.

yes, your post was Josh Ernest-ish..... benchmarking against the very bottom that was caused by more liberal policies than conservative ones, using the deficit number that included the one-time stimulus as if that was the real operating deficit, ignoring that the CBO is projecting that the deficit is going back up by $100b this year, ignoring that his tenure has led the the largest turnover in legislative seats across the country ever, overlooking his best deficits are not as good as normal Bush years, ignoring the interest rates being kept down and the extra cash infusion into the economy via debt, ignoring the drop in labor participation rates spiked even after the recession....the list is endless as the electorate has judged.

 

[KenTucker]

Unions should have no government protections. If the skill demands for a job are not high, a business should not have to pay a high wage for the service.

In nongovernmental influenced realationships, airline pilots would be able to have a strong union because the skills required for the job are tremendous and the pool of available pilots is small, for example. Conversely, the skill set for food service employees is minimal and the pool of workers is enormous. Businesses should be left to deal with the hiring and firing of employees in the same manner they purchase materials, or don't, based on the prices they encounter in the marketplace. Employees are just another resource in the operations of a company.

This natural relationship is abrogated by government involvement. This drives up prices for the goods produced by private companies.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

Soooko....you are not making any sense.

When it's a Union job and people know it, don't apply if you don't want to be in the union.

But if it isn't a Union job and that changes, still go find anot her job.

Got it.

Yes. Why is that difficult to understand? If it's a job that is M-F and then they change it to T-S, you either deal with it, or find a new job. But if it's a job that is non-union and then switches to union, you all whine like bitches to the nanny government to save you.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Those people who start and grow businesses typically risk everything to do so. If you wanted to reach that level of wealth, you should have taken the risk yourself.

Thank you. It's *stunning* how many people don't understand this.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Yes. Why is that difficult to understand? If it's a job that is M-F and then they change it to T-S, you either deal with it, or find a new job. But if it's a job that is non-union and then switches to union, you all whine like bitches to the nanny government to save you.

I feel like you put on quite the whining session when you showed your jealousy of people having jobs w/401k plan options...deal w/it or find a new would be a nice piece of advice for yourself.

 

[krazykats]

Yes. Why is that difficult to understand? If it's a job that is M-F and then they change it to T-S, you either deal with it, or find a new job. But if it's a job that is non-union and then switches to union, you all whine like bitches to the nanny government to save you.

Funny!

So asking the govt for less control is seen as bad while running to unions for protection like they are your mafia daddy is ok!

Got it.

 

[BernieSadori]

Yes. Why is that difficult to understand? If it's a job that is M-F and then they change it to T-S, you either deal with it, or find a new job. But if it's a job that is non-union and then switches to union, you all whine like bitches to the nanny government to save you.

Nobody is crying on here other than you, tough guy......and your response is a deflection.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

I feel like you put on quite the whining session when you showed your jealousy of people having jobs w/401k plan options...deal w/it or find a new would be a nice piece of advice for yourself.

How do you all not understand this? Criticizing the 401k tax code and criticizing RTW are one in the same. My problem is the government getting involved in private business and predetermining winners and losers. Are you capable of understanding this?

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

Funny!

So asking the govt for less control is seen as bad while running to unions for protection like they are your mafia daddy is ok!

Got it.

What the hell are you talking about? RTW is about more governmental control. The government should not at all be involved in dictating how people structure perfectly legal contracts between one another. You have to have an IQ in the 50s to argue that RTW is about less government control.

 

[krazykats]

Am I wrong in thinking that if it wasn't for unions RTW wouldn't even be a thing? Probably just be the way it was naturally?

Or am I confused on the principles of the policy?

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

Nobody is crying on here other than you, tough guy......and your response is a deflection.

How is my post a deflection? Maybe if you all could comprehend the fact that you don't have a say in how businesses operate, and that includes legislating that they cannot enter into a fully binding CBA, then this argument wouldn't keep going in circles.

I am arguing that the government shouldn't be able to dictate how a business is run. You all are arguing that the government should be able to dictate how a business is run (all while directly contradicting yourselves by saying that a union shouldn't be able to negotiate fully binding contracts with management/ownership) and are too dumb to see the irony.

You all want complete restriction of free enterprise but have been blinded by the stupidity of a nonsensical term like "right to work" because it's been pumped into your feeble little brains by daddy warbucks and you all lap that **** up like the sheep you are.

 

[krazykats]

What the hell are you talking about? RTW is about more governmental control. The government should not at all be involved in dictating how people structure perfectly legal contracts between one another. You have to have an IQ in the 50s to argue that RTW is about less government control.

Says the guy all for unions controlling a business by threats of strike!

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

Am I wrong in thinking that if it wasn't for unions RTW wouldn't even be a thing? Probably just be the way it was naturally?

Or am I confused on the principles of the policy?

Did you really just post that? I mean, this is what I'm arguing with. What pure lunacy... On my part. Should have realized what I was dealing with 3 pages ago.

 

[80 Proof]

Soooko....you are not making any sense.

When it's a Union job and people know it, don't apply if you don't want to be in the union.

But if it isn't a Union job and that changes, still go find anot her job.

Got it.

We're about to become a right to work state, those that don't like it can move to another state that isn't right to work.

 

[krazykats]

Did you really just post that? I mean, this is what I'm arguing with. What pure lunacy... On my part. Should have realized what I was dealing with 3 pages ago.

RTW is being voted in and the only people pissed are stupid union idiots.

So yea I'm curious how one is in place vs the other and why? I assumed along time ago a bunch of pussies not smart enough to get their value in pay from employers were happy the mafia was ready to take a cut of their pay to protect them.

Somewhere along the lines I assume people smartened up and a policy had to be formed in order to protect people wanting to keep a job at dominant union shop but not wanting to join the union, and it was labeled RTW.

Wrong or right, in general?

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

How is my post a deflection? Maybe if you all could comprehend the fact that you don't have a say in how businesses operate, and that includes legislating that they cannot enter into a fully binding CBA, then this argument wouldn't keep going in circles.

I am arguing that the government shouldn't be able to dictate how a business is run. You all are arguing that the government should be able to dictate how a business is run (all while directly contradicting yourselves by saying that a union shouldn't be able to negotiate fully binding contracts with management/ownership) and are too dumb to see the irony.

You all want complete restriction of free enterprise but have been blinded by the stupidity of a nonsensical term like "right to work" because it's been pumped into your feeble little brains by daddy warbucks and you all lap that **** up like the sheep you are.

The union is not a business. Currently through its contract with the company, the union forces a new hire to join the union and to pay it dues.

The company certainly should be the one in the position to either agree and force its new hire (Ford hires...not the union) to join the union or to allow its employee the option to opt out. I am fine personally with the private company making that decision. Are you? If not you are just a hypocrite. You are fine if the force comes from the union. RTW simply allows Ford to make that call.

In the real world, if joining the union is a better option for the new hire...why would the new hire not want the better gig? It sounds like the union knows that freedom of choice is not better for their members.