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

Mon Oct 6 23:56:17 EDT 2008

Herb,

Yup!  That's a huge reason why some professions are almost 100%
unionized.  In the early days of air mail, pilots would be fired if
they didn't take-off in bad weather. My association has a good record
of working with the company on safety issues and visa versa.  We fight
over economic issues but "usually", not always keep safety neutral.

Brad

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> Just so folks won't think I'm anti-union, I've got a personal story from
> the same plant, that demonstrates the other side of the coin.
>
> But first, my opinion. The unions have bypassed an opportunity, and
> unless they retrace their steps, they will take the same route to
> obscurity that so many other organizations have taken. Even legislation
> by the government won't help, as we become more and more a "world wide
> workforce".
>
> Unions should position themselves to be less an organization that fights
> for each and every employee, and more of an organization that fights for
> all of their members, and is very selective about their membership. Only
> good employees should make it into the unions. When they become groups
> that represent quality workers to employers, employers will seek them
> out to provide workers, rather than fear and fight them.
>
> That said, here's my personal story.
>
> I had only been working at the plant for a few weeks (I only worked
> there a year, before I'd had enough), and was working as an "oiler". We
> oiled the machinery (they really were imaginative with names there), but
> it was really an all-inclusive laborer job. I was working in the finish
> mill, which was considered overall a decent place for an oiler to work
> (the kilns were the worse, greasing a piece of machinery that's 1500
> degrees on the surface, requiring you to wear an asbestos suit, ain't
> fun). I had a supervisor tell me that a cooler was clogged, and needed
> to be cleared.
>
> These coolers are small silos that the finished cement goes into to cool
> down before going to the silos. Basically, they are about 5 ft tall and
> 20 feet wide, with cone-shaped bottoms leading to conveyors to move the
> cement to the pump stations. They had a "trough" running a spiral
> several loops around the outside of the silo. Water ran through the
> trough, the intent being to act as a cooling agent for the cement prior
> to going to the silo (the cement got pretty hot from the grinding process).
>
> Obviously, the moisture from the water would sometimes be a problem,
> mixing with the powdered cement, causing it to clog. It was 150-175
> degrees inside the silo, but the only way to clear the clog would be put
> on overalls and boots, jump in with a big steel bar, and poke the hole
> in the bottom until it all cleared out. I had done it a few times
> before, and though it was hot, it only took about 5 minutes, so was no
> big deal.
>
> This time though, when the supervisor (management = non-union) asked me
> to clear it, and I let the miller  know so he'd know I was in the silo
> (non-management = union), he quietly told me I should ask for a spotter.
> He said if the supervisor turned me down, I should ask for my rep (for
> you non-union types, that means my union rep, you're allowed to ask for
> one anytime you feel it's necessary).
>
> The conversation went something like this:
>
> Me: I understand I'm supposed to ask for a spotter
> Super: Sorry, I don't have anyone free right now to spot for you. I'd
> have to have the miller do it, and I don't want to shut down the mill
> and stop production.
> Me. I understand I'm supposed to ask for a rep if you say no.
> Super: G-ddamned motherfuckin union assholes. You sons of bitches are
> going to cost me an hour's production for your stupid fuckin rules. Go
> tell the G-ddamned miller to shut the motherfucker down and spot for you.
>
> When we were dressing at the end of the shift, the miller came over and
> told me "the rest of the story". Though it normally only takes about 5
> minutes to clear the problem, if you pass out from the heat of the silo,
> it only takes about 10-15 minutes for a passed out worker to cook to
> death in the silo. MSHA (we were covered by MSHA instead of OSHA because
> we had a quarry) requires a spotter for any worker working in those
> kinds of conditions.
>
> The supervisor knew that. He knew he was risking my life to save himself
> having to shut production down for an hour. He didn't care, it wasn't
> his life he was risking. When faced with the possibility of a grievance
> and a fine, it suddenly became worth it to him. Without a union, that
> wouldn't have happened.
>
> I bet they, at least on occasion, don't have spotters at the plant in
> Mexico.
>
>
> Brad Haslett wrote:
>> 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
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> 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
> __________________________________________________
>