[Rhodes22-list] Warning - Brad's download takes 17 minutes - Political - very controversial

[Brad Haslett]

Herb,

That's a good story about the collective bargaining process - there
has to be good faith bargaining.  PATCO (air traffic controllers) sure
enough had the collective part down but refused to bargain and got
fired by a former union President (Reagan).  Some companies and unions
do a good job in the airline industry of working together, Southwest
Airlines for example, and others (both sides) have hard bargained
their way into bankruptcy.  There has to be a balance.  As far as I
know, all the auto plants located in the Sunbelt are still UAW, but
unlike in the Peoples Republic of Michigan, they don't hold a gun to
their employer's head.

This idea by The One is bad for employees, bad for companies, bad for
the nation.

Brad

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> I worked a union job several years back, working at a cement plant. I
> saw issues on both sides of the union debate.
>
> There was a job at the plant, a valve operator. The job was one of the
> highest paying jobs at the cement plant, and dated back to the early
> 1900's, when a worker would have to climb a ladder up a silo, toting a
> great big wrench, and manually adjust valves to redirect the flow of the
> powdered cement from the mill to the right silos. It was a nasty job,
> because no matter what the weather was like, 100f + in the summer, and
> knock ice off the 150ft ladder in the winter (we get both here), it had
> to be done when the mill changed what it was milling, or a silo filled.
>
> Because of that, like I said, it was a high paying job.
>
> It was also written into the contract that no jobs could be eliminated,
> or even downgraded, because of new techonology. So, when the plant
> install elevators so folks didn't have to climb the ladders, the job
> remained in the second highest paying hourly category.
>
> When they installed pneumatic switches, so you no longer had to tote a
> wrench to change the valves, you merely pressed a button, the job
> remained in the second highest paying category. They even eventually
> installed air conditioners in the control room, and yes, it remained in
> the second highest paying job category.
>
> Since (in the early days), they were regularly on top of the silos, part
> of the job was to measure the amount of cement in each silo at least
> once every hour. This was to ensure that the cement was going into the
> silos that everyone thought it was going into. In other words, as a
> check to make sure that pumper had routed them directly.
>
> As the new technology at the plant evolved, the job basically consisted
> of pushing some buttons during the day, and taking the elevator to the
> top to measure once an hour.
>
> Pretty easy work overall, but not easy enough for some people. Some of
> the workers figured they really didn't have to leave the air conditioned
> office. They could just write down the amount of cement that was
> supposed to be in the silo. After all, we knew where it was supposed to
> be going, and how much was supposed to be in there.
>
> One guy did that, and got busted. Unfortunately, the way he got busted
> was expensive for the company. They made a special hardened cement
> (imaginatively called "Type H") for oil wells. We pumped some normal
> cement to a company that was supposed to be getting type H. When it
> cracked into pieces in their well, they sued the company. The company
> tracked back, and fired the pumper because he had 1) Pumped the wrong
> type of cement into the H silo, and 2) had falsified company records
> when he documented the fill.
>
> He fought the firing, and sued (with a union paid lawyer) for 6 months
> back pay. The settled in arbitration.
>
> That was back in the late 80'. The plant is located in Mexico now. It
> eventually got cheaper to pay transportation here than labor costs here.
> Score one short term victory for the union though.
>
>
> Robert Skinner wrote:
>> Agreed!
>> /Robert
>>
>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>>
>>> Ed,
>>>
>>> I'm attaching (below) another article about an issue I have a great
>>> deal of experience with.  I am a proud union member.  In the early
>>> 80's, I helped organize a union at my employer, not once, but twice,
>>> because the first union vote was thrown out in a law suit.  I studied
>>> labor law in grad school under a labor lawyer. I've been through three
>>> unions with my current employer (the same one twice) and went through
>>> a ten year process to get the first contract.  This "Employee Free
>>> Choice" concept is a perfect example of Orwellian speak.  It is
>>> anything but free choice.  It is easy to intimidate fellow workers
>>> into signing a "right to act" card - I know, I was one of the better
>>> ones at the process.  The worst position a group of employees can be
>>> in is to have a union on the property with only lukewarm support.
>>> Collective bargaining is just that, a collection.  With barely 60%
>>> support (I've been through that twice) you are in the worst of all
>>> conditions of union v non-union.  Obama has been bought, lock, stock,
>>> and barrel by labor unions. Anyone who truly believes in the value of
>>> collective bargaining and has experience with it should know how awful
>>> this concept is.  For a good read on labor organizing, read
>>> "Confessions of a Union Buster" by Feldman.  Again, I'm proud of my
>>> union, I'm proud of their efforts, I support organized labor.  But,
>>> this is a horrible idea.
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>> ---------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Obama's Payoff to Unions
>>> by Mark Skousen (more by this author)
>>> Posted 10/06/2008 ET
>>>
>>>
>>> "We're ready to play offense for organized labor. It's time we had a
>>> president who didn't choke saying the word 'union.' A president who
>>> strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize
>>> our workers. . . . I will make it the law of the land when I'm
>>> president of the United States. . . . " ~ Barack Obama
>>>
>>> "We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a
>>> secret-ballot election." ~ George McGovern
>>>
>>> If Obama is elected president, which is highly likely according to the
>>> latest political futures market Intrade (now a 65% chance of winning),
>>> get ready for a unionized America and the end of the worker's right to
>>> a secret ballot.
>>>
>>> If he gets his way, Obama is ready to force millions of Americans into
>>> unions by eliminating, for all practical purposes, this fundamental
>>> American right.
>>>
>>> This betrayal of a bedrock principle of U.S. democracy can only mean
>>> one thing: America will go the way of Europe, i.e., higher
>>> unemployment, slower GDP growth, a higher cost of living, and no new
>>> job creation. That's the history of highly unionized states like
>>> Michigan. Since the end of World War II, America has steadily moved
>>> toward a more dynamic, flexible labor market, which has resulted in
>>> huge job creation and a higher standard of living for all workers. But
>>> -- if Obama and the unions have their way -- that is about to change.
>>>
>>> Obama is a strong supporter of the falsely-named "Employee Free Choice
>>> Act" (also known as the Card Check bill) sponsored by Ted Kennedy. It
>>> almost passed Congress this year and is certain to become law if Obama
>>> becomes president. Obama told the AFL-CIO this year, "I will make it
>>> the law of the land when I'm president of the United States."
>>> (President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation.)
>>>
>>> What's so bad about the "Employee Free Choice Act"? The name is
>>> positively Orwellian: instead of preserving workers' ability to make
>>> the decision to unionize by secret ballot, it does just the opposite.
>>> The bill makes it much easier to create a union at a business -- the
>>> union bosses can publicly pressure a majority of workers to sign union
>>> authorization cards (thus, the name "card check"). There is no secret
>>> ballot -- workers sign the cards in front of other employees and union
>>> leaders, and union officials keep the signed cards until they obtain
>>> the required number. Under the watchful eyes (and arm twisting) of
>>> union organizers, workers will be intimidated into signing.
>>>
>>> Union supporters deny that the secret ballot is eliminated. Once the
>>> union leaders are accepted as the exclusive bargaining agent for the
>>> workers, employees can then freely vote for or against the union in a
>>> secret ballot.
>>>
>>> The problem is that the card check process creates heavy peer pressure
>>> to support the union publicly, even if workers have misgivings
>>> privately. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized, "Unable to
>>> organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to
>>> expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public
>>> intimidation."
>>>
>>> Congressman John Klein (R-Minn.) has warned, "It is beyond me how one
>>> can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone -- your employer,
>>> your union organizer, and your co-workers -- knows exactly how you
>>> vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee 'free choice.'....
>>> It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker
>>> is 'free to choose' is to ensure that there's a private ballot, so
>>> that no one knows how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to
>>> sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker's
>>> democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it
>>> 'Employee Free Choice.'"
>>>
>>> The potential for abuse is enormous. Even long-time Democrat George
>>> McGovern is opposed to the Card Check bill: "To my friends supporting
>>> the Employee Free Choice Act, I say this: We cannot be a party that
>>> strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We
>>> are the party that has always defended the rights of the working
>>> class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and
>>> coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always
>>> championed."
>>>
>>> Happily, Sen. McCain opposes the pro-union bill. "I am strongly
>>> opposed to H.R. 800, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act of 2007.
>>> Not only is the bill's title deceptive, the enactment of such an
>>> ill-conceived legislative measure would be a gross deception to the
>>> hard-working Americans who would fall victim to it."
>>>
>>> Business leaders should especially be alarmed about another aspect of
>>> H. R. 800. It gives unions the option to have federal arbitrators
>>> write the terms of a binding contract, setting wages, benefits, hours,
>>> work rules, and all other terms of employment if negotiations between
>>> the employer and union fail. And this contract has the force of law
>>> for two years.
>>>
>>> Bernard Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, warns that this legislation
>>> is so harmful that it is nothing short of a "hostile takeover" of
>>> American business and will result in making the United States
>>> uncompetitive in the global world and will ship millions of jobs
>>> overseas: "When I asked CEOs if they had heard of this attack on
>>> principles that form the bedrock of our democracy -- secret ballots in
>>> elections -- only 7 out of 100 raised their hands. And yet, this plan
>>> has the potential to redraw the political and economic landscape of
>>> America. CEOs, and for that matter all Americans, need to know how
>>> this legislation would jeopardize our system of free enterprise."
>>>
>>> Spread the word: An Obama victory means a unionized America, higher
>>> cost of living, more unemployment, a static economy, and a lackluster
>>> Wall Street.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brad posted this web site:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1
>>>>
>>>> It takes 16.5 minutes to watch.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it has been several years since I saw similar material.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I know how real it is.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Brad for finding this current edition.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, this election cycle has shown a dramatic increase in
>>>> acceptance of Marxism by sheep, remember this:
>>>>
>>>> "In Germany they first came for the Communists
>>>>    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
>>>>  Then they came for the Jews,
>>>>    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
>>>> Then they came for the trade unionists
>>>>     and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>>>> Then they came for the Catholics
>>>>     and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
>>>>  Then they came for me
>>>>    and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>>>>
>>>>  --The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church
>>>> who spent seven years in a concentration camp.
>>>>
>>>> Ed K
>>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Warning---Brad%27s-download-takes-17-minutes---Political---very-controversial-tp19838114p19838114.html
>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>