babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » To Unionize is to Organize

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: To Unionize is to Organize
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 02 May 2001 12:31 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Are you in a union? Do you wish you were? Do you wish you weren't? Why?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gayle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 37

posted 02 May 2001 01:15 PM      Profile for Gayle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm not, but my mom's in a union. Her family's been in unions nearly always and she's been a union supporter, but this time she wishes she wasn't in it at all.

The reasons?

To start with, she was cornered into it. Those who organized it kept it from her until it was too late (they'd already convinced nearly everyone else) - even though she's been working there 11 years. They told people who were only there a few months, however.

The whole thing was underhanded and nasty; mostly everyone listened to the poisoned many instead of the informed few (including my mom). The vote was 21-3 (ish).

Next, the reason these women (all except a few are women) organized themselves is because they felt they weren't getting paid enough and that they'd get $11/hour like their counterparts in Ontario.

Um. They're making $8/hr for flipping burgers and making sandwiches in the cafeteria. Cape Breton's minimum wage is ~$5.60. Ontario's minimum wage is what, $8.something? Am I the only one who can do the math here?

Also, they convinced a ton of people that if you voted for the union, you'd get the whole summer off. Um, don't people start unions so they get more work so they can get paid so they can eat?

BTW, only the original organizers are off this summer; everyone else is working shitty rotational shifts - including my mom who now works just enough each week to fuck up her EI and she'll be bringing home less than if she didn't work at all.

Next, each year half of these ladies (including, of course, my mother) are laid off for the summer. What keeps them getting hired back? - Trust. An understanding. No contract. What's stopping the company from saying, "fuck you for starting a union, none of you have jobs come fall"? Nothing, that's what.

Things like banking hours to help out with EI, choosing when to work, everything that the "evil management" was doing to help them out have stopped completely. Of course it has! What did they expect?

There's talk of striking because a) you won't have to work and b) you get $200 strike pay a week! Wouldn't that be fabulous?!

WTF??

The company has 250,000 employees world wide - why would they care about 20 of them in the middle of cape breton?

Basically, the people who started the union didn't think it through. They haven't got two clues between them. They didn't even realize that the supervisors they disliked would not be on the outside, but in the union with them, with a vote just like everyone else.

Sigh. Anyway, neither I nor my family has problems with unions in general, but this one is scary because this is my parents' only source of income (aside from mine); and now my mom's job - and basically, a large portion of her life - is out of her control.

So yeah. The viewpoint of a union from those who voted a useless "No."


From: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
CraigHubley
unregistered

posted 07 May 2001 12:55 AM           Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am not and wish I were. I have a lot to offer a union in terms of organizing people and upgrading skills and simplifying telecom hardware and software to make it useful for ordinary people. I am one of the few people in the world to have done studies of what makes a workforce and region compete successfully for high tech jobs and intellectual property protections to safeguard the commons (e.g. your human genes). Unions should become "Green Guilds" capable of acting on behalf of members in a wide range of situations including negotiations for rights to process improvements that are patentable, portability of benefits, immigration and relocation, support for political activism and sabbaticals for personal growth, child welfare intervention, and ethical dilemmas.


It isn't just about hiring. As long as the employer determines who is in the union, it will not be possible to deploy my work here. Only a full Guild (see the work of Tom Malone at MIT for a good description of the differences between guilds and unions or guilds and corporations or portfolios) can really make the transformation happen. And if it isn't build on a green ethic, forget it, it's more of a problem than a solution.


Anyone know a union that has the will to become a guild?


IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 07 May 2001 03:17 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am a member of a union and glad of it. I like receiving a good wage for the work that I do, need the benefit package and find that it is very helpful to have a contract that both my employer and myself find useful in defining parameters. My job, by its very nature, cannot have job security provisions attached to it so these others are that much more important.

Those are the practical reasons why I am glad to be a union member. On a philosophical level, the sense of community and solidarity is very enriching and benefits me, my family, my community, my union, etc. I know this sounds simplistic but there are many layers involved. As someone engaging in collective action, I feel empowered in my place of work which has a ripple effect in the rest of my life. Like this bulletin board, I have a venue for discussion with other people. As well, I believe that my children are learning a great deal about the power of collective action - my daughter of 17 has been involved in organizing a gay-straight alliance at her school, for example.

If I had the choice, I would not choose the union to which I belong. There are many reasons for this but I know there are other unions that better represent my values. Having said that, I support my union by participating in their processes to the best of my ability, by educating myself around the various issues, by acting as a shop steward, etc. I find union membership to be invaluable in my life.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 226

posted 08 May 2001 01:26 PM      Profile for NP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am not a member of a union, and my job is such that union membership is not possible, but some day I hope to either participate in a union or represent one.

My Grandfather has been a member of the United Steelworkers for 45 years now, and he and I share a deep respect for the gains that union membership brought him (namely safety, job security, a pension after the FTA took his job away etc.).

Unions get a raw deal in the media today. People forget that close to 40% of Canadians are unionized... Without the labour movement, Canada would not have much of its current social safety net and civil rights that we presently take for granted...


From: The city that rhymes with fun | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 10 May 2001 03:24 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have no problem with the concept of unions, but in practice I've been disappointed by them.

I worked for a unionized organization for a year. I never received any information from the union I was a member of. They never approached me to explain what they do and why I should support them. That really bothered me.

When there was a strike among support workers, we didn't get any information on what the strike was about. So when they picketed our building, we didn't know what was going on. The picketers got very belligerent towards us when we tried to walk into the building, shoving us and hurling vicious insults. But we didn't have any idea what was going on!

That's just one example. I can't speak for others' experiences with unions.


Right now I am not a member of a union, and I don't see that my life is any worse for it. In fact, I get along a lot better with my bosses here than at the unionized workplace. That may, of course, be a coincidence.

My main complaint of unions is the lack of choice. If a group of employee want to pool their resources to get a better contract, that's fine. But I don't like the idea of being forced to join (and pay dues to) an organization like a union if I don't want to.

But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

[ May 10, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marsin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 443

posted 12 May 2001 06:24 PM      Profile for Marsin   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I love my union -OPSEU -
From: Perth, Ontario | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 30 May 2001 01:31 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Marsin says that Opseu is loved. For What?

When Harris came to power this was the first union he attacked. They could not defend.

Their strike fund had $17 million in contributions but when they went looking it only had $1 million in cash. Even though their own charter said that the money could only be spent on strikes.

$16 million of it was spent on their new headquarters in Toronto. One year after being built it was appraised at $1 million.

Either they stole the money or their incompetence should be world renound.

If you like OPSEU then please send all your cash to me. If you like what OPSEU did with your money you'll just love me.

Unions are great but they should be held accountable. Since they receive taxpayer money in the form of deductable union dues then their finances should be open to all of us.

CAW's strike fund has been overflowing for years. Do you think they'd return that money in the form of lower dues or higher strike pay. NEVER.

These unions are more greedy and financially motivated than any corporation I've seen. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

UAW in Pontiac and all across US is under Federal investigation for violating RICO statutes for prolonging a strike so their relatives and stewards could get better jobs and overtime pay for time not worked.

Unions are great but holding them accountable shouldn't be considered an attack.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 30 May 2001 02:15 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm with Markbo on this one. If you are off sick for a while, they still come knocking for dues, even if you haven't been working. They were originally for protection, but now unions are more interested in how much they can squeeze out of people.
From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 30 May 2001 02:33 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, since I've never worked for a union I can't really say what their intentions are. I'm sure plenty of the people in charge are committed to the well-being of their members, and truly want to do a good job. Just like how I have a general belief in the good faith of politicians and corporate leaders.

That being said, it is also true that many unions do have a lot of problems (lack of member choice, poor communication with the members, lack of accountability).

Many unions have a double-standard when it comes to human resources. I have a buddy who's an HR consultant for a large union, and the way their treat their employees is terrible compared to how they demand that their members be treated by employers.

Still, I don't think it's a question of "Unions good - Corporations bad", or vice-versa. The question is, "how do we make sure these organizations function as efficiently and as ethically as possible?"

Accountability and choice are what I'd like to see. If I'm a member of a union, I want to get good value for my dollar, and if I'm not satisfied, I'd like to be able to take my business elsewhere.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 30 May 2001 03:16 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
mediaboy:
"Just like how I have a general belief in the good faith of politicians and corporate leaders."

OUcH. I just...can't...do it...try...to...be...nice...
This is the most naive and sweet thing posted all day? *Sorry!* There won't be many people out there agreeing with you on this one.

Also, most people MUST be in a certain union to work in their profession...there is no choice of unions.


From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 30 May 2001 03:18 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obviously, I should have added a to denote sarcasm.

Still, I'm skeptical of the belief that all corporate big-wigs are intentionally out to hurt the people. The majority of them, IMHO, truly believe that their actions benefit society. It's just that their world-view is so terribly far removed from the life of the average person. I don't believe that corporate leaders are genuinely sociopathic.

Are there exceptions? Of course there are. I don't think Phil Knight is terribly concerned about the common man. OTOH, Andrew Carnegie was being quite sincere when he wrote The Gospel of Wealth. You may disagree with his actions and his opinions, but his intentions are pretty sound, IMHO.

[ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 30 May 2001 03:32 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NO, of course not. Insurance isn't parasitic, it's to provide in case of emergency!
Those sweat shop workers have a job, don't they?

From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 30 May 2001 03:45 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I really believe we can't paint all corporate leaders with the same brush, just like we shouldn't paint all union leaders (or "lefties" or feminists or men's activists) with the same brush. Is The Body Shop the same as Nike? Is Ballard Power Systems the same as Union Carbide? Is your local convenience store the same as Exxon?

Over 95% of corporate assets are owned by less than 5% of corporations, so how come people are so afraid of all corporations?

Do we really believe that corporations cannot be socially responsible? That sounds awfully paranoid to me.

Of course the people have to be vigilant in monitoring the use of economic power, but I think we should be very careful that we don't cross the line to witch-hunting.

[ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 30 May 2001 04:45 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm all against big corporations and for small and medium ones.

My conspiracy theory:

Many small businesses are being wiped out by large corporations. ei.. chapters killing small bookstores, future shop or home depot.

I think the government's taxation policy INTENTIONALLY endorses this. Small bus tax rate capped at $200,000. The next amount you make is treated the same whether it's $10,000 or 100 million. Except when it gets over a million or two you can actually afford a person whose full time job is to look for corporate welfare.

I think the government does this because they know that small business people do cash business while the big corporations declare all income. This means a Chapters doing 4 million in sales will provide the government with more revenue than 20 small bookstores each doing $200,000. This is irregardless of the fact that the 20 small bookstores will provide better paying jobs for 5 times the population.

There should be a separate tax rate for big companies who make over 2 or 3 million in profit. The ones who make in the middle should be lowered. Jobs will be saved

I think the government believes that by killing small business they will increase their revenues sacrificing jobs. They are evil for doing this.

[ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 30 May 2001 05:50 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obviously, I should have added a to denote sarcasm...
From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 May 2001 10:45 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo: First sensible idea you've posted, IMHO.

The tax system needs to be massively rejiggered and we really need MORE brackets, not less. Marginal tax rates for corporations should scale like those for individuals, but I would eliminate the argument over double-taxation of capital gains by permitting the deduction of dividend payouts from gross revenues along with the other expenses permitted to be deducted before assessing tax on the remainder.

I would also sharply restrict the use of loss carry-forwards to a three-year horizon, and they would be "non-renewable", in the sense that if you lose money in year 0, you cannot take that loss forward into year 4 even if you have not exercised your loss carry-over against any taxes assessed in the previous years.

As for individuals, the minimum income subject to tax should be $20,000 per year. Anyone who makes under that should pay no tax except for the payroll taxes (EI and CPP). The top marginal tax rate (in my proposal, 50%) shouldn't kick in until someone makes well over a million a year. Right now the ~50% federal-provincial marginal tax rate kicks in once you hit about $200k, but there's so many deductions and such you can take advantage of that your effective rate on all income is much less, usually.

Ax all the deductions, shift the brackets sharply upwards, and the T1 General can then literally be the size of a postcard.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 31 May 2001 12:47 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We are in full agreement
I believe in trickle up economics. Stop taxing the little guy and he'll spend more on my products. But don't treat me the same as the damn 100 store chains that are reeling in 100 million a year

BUT, The day you show me where all these deductions are I'll fire my accountant and pay you thousands (I mean it) take me up on my offer and give it to a good cause.

I don't get f*** all deductions that you speak of My effective tax rate on income is over 41% and that includes my low tax rate on the first $60,000. I pay the full rate on any income over. No deductions.
Find me one thats legal (besides RRSP) and I'll split the savings with you.

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 31 May 2001 02:27 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Labor-Sponsored Venture Fund Tax Credit, for one. (I might have gotten the name wrong, but Jim Stanford worked out that after all the subsidies that get piled onto this one a guy who's in the top marginal tax rate only gives up about 50 cents in tax on every hundred bucks he puts into the fund.)

I wish I had my T1 guide in front of me, since there's other credits that exist (mineral exploration/oil depletion credits, for example, that apply to INDIVIDUAL taxes and not corporate as you would think).

And finally, dividend and capital gains monies are both taxed differentially.

The inclusion rate for cap gains now is just 50%, which can drop your marginal tax rate in half in some cases.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 31 May 2001 03:02 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Labour sponsored funds are a pyramid scheme. 1st THey cant invest the money fast enough so it sits in bonds. 2nd the investments they choose fail more than most.
I'm just waiting for the bottom to drop out on those. I know it hasn't happened yet but it basically like the dot coms. When people realize there are no assets behind those funds they'll lose their write offs to the fund loss.

Those write offs are write offs for a reason. The moneys invested in them are usually lost

You know what kills me, you claim that all these special treatment write offs exist and the first one you give as an example is a damn left wing special interest labour sponsored capital fund that unions lobbied for. Now please, I am begging for someone out there to see the irony in this.

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 31 May 2001 03:20 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I pulled that one out because the LSF's are often manipulated especially in BC and Ontario for purposes far removed from what the unions originally intended them for.

In Ontario, for example, it's possible to hit up a union to lend its name to a LSF for the sole purpose of creating a tax break for some rich guy.

In BC, the WOF (Working Opportunities Fund) is often used as a vehicle by rich people to get around the foreign content restrictions on RRSPs.

Funny you should call them pyramid schemes, since my understanding of how they operate is more or less analogous to how mutual funds themselves work. Besides, they've been around for longer than dot-coms.

Oh wait, didn't you say dot-coms created wealth? Gee, where'd all that "wealth" go when they collapsed?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 June 2001 11:41 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I really believe we can't paint all corporate leaders with the same brush, just like we shouldn't paint all union leaders (or "lefties" or feminists or men's activists) with the same brush. Is The Body Shop the same as Nike?

Yes, and just as bad because they are hypocrites too. Check out this site for an interesting view on the Body Shop. Read the opinions of the people who made the site about Body Shop's claims to be cruelty-free and good to third world people who supply their products (not to mention the ingredients in their products).

Go in there sometime and notice the way they tell their sales staff to push for an average $20-25 sales record for every customer, and the aggressive selling techniques they use to try to get you to buy more than what you came in for. Now, probably every retail store does that (after all, "do you want fries with that" is legendary) but for a chain that bills themselves as "different" - well, that's especially annoying.

So we're going to save the world by buying as many unnecessary products as possible? I'm skeptical.

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 01 June 2001 12:13 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow - didn't read it all, but I got the picture. I don't buy Body Shop because I have been suspicious of their policies - it just sounded too much like a scam, and I'm glad to have my paranoia proved correct. Advertising is disturbing.
From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 04 June 2001 04:22 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am in complete agreement yet again Dr. Conway. Tiny point: I don't think unions are easily led into having their funds manipulated with out their endorsement.

Back to the discussion, there are so many cases of union corruption that are not pursued. If they were it would restor legitimacy to unions that they are currently lacking. Construction unions control of pension funds. There is huge graft in this. If you ever figure do the math of a construction general labourors' pension contributions compared to his pay out, you would be astonished. They are getting ripped off huge
Also whenever construction companies want to end grievances they are told to make a contribution to the pension fund as a gesture of good faith. This is common knowledge but no one has the will to do anything.

Question: Is a union right to pursue political policies that most of their members are against?

Do they have any obligation to represent their members on political issues and take an active role to find out what their members views are?

It kills me when yo hear Buzz Hargrove acknowledge that most of his own members don't agree with CAW's Political policies but they have a social obligation to follow them anyhow. WHat about their obligation to represent their members?

[ June 04, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2001 10:14 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Buzz Hargrove, interestingly, has spoken out politically for people in my shoes -- the downsized and outsourced -- when a narrow interpretation of his "interest" and that of his members would expect him to regard my forsaken crew as a threat.

To me, that makes him unusually principled, and thus admirable, and always worth listening to. Is that his "responsibility" as head of his union? Is that his responsibility as a citizen of a democracy?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 05 June 2001 12:17 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote
------------------------------------------
To me, that makes him unusually principled, and thus admirable, and always worth listening to. Is that his "responsibility" as head of his union? Is that his responsibility as a citizen of a democracy
------------------------------------------

Hey he can speak out on social issues all he wants. On his own time and his own dime. When uses union funds to promote causes the union members are against then he is betraying them. If he want's to use union funds to pay for this then the members who don't agree should have the option to opt out on this PORTION of the dues.

The CAW's reluctance to refund the portion of the dues going to the strike fund now that their strike fund is full or increase strike pay shows that have no accountability. This fund has been capped for like the last five years. This issue alone should be enough to spark outrage. But all we hear is "Baaaah, Baaaah" from the sheep. Solidarity sucks when it means you have to let your own representatives rob you.

You should read whats going on at the UAW rackateering investigation. If you think that this kind of behavior is relegated to the U.S. you ar mistaken


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
beachcomber
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 678

posted 05 June 2001 10:59 PM      Profile for beachcomber   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I used to be against unions. I really thought that they had been useful once, but their time had passed. I used to think they were actually more obstructive than constructive. Then my husband landed a union job. For the first time in my adult life, I have access to benefits. BTW, I'm 30. I've been earning money as an adult for almost 15 years. And this is the FIRST time I've been able to enjoy the benefits. So, let me say this: unions are the only way we can ensure that employers take adequate responsibility for the welfare of their employees. In this day and age, it's passe to hire full time employees. That gets employers out of coughing up for benefits. I'm tired of being last in line when it comes to perks and first in line when it comes to layoffs. I'm glad unions are out there.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 10 June 2001 09:28 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unions are great. But I think it is more of a crime when the person hired to protect you, robs you. Its a betrayal of trust.

In order to support unions you do not have to try to conceal their crimes. Union members just have to forgive them as all too human WHILE forcing them to make reforms.

It's too bad that instead of that, union members just keep uttering 'baaah', 'baaaah'.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca