Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 This will be interesting. This "dissident" group seems to be far more interested in organizing non-unionized workers than in maintaining the status quo. Other large unions are said to be following suit. I for one cannot understand why unions have not taken a more militant stance against Wal-Mart for instance. A national boycott would hit them where it hurts, and might actually force them to pay their employees a wage high enough to keep them off medicaid, food stamps, etc. Union membership is declining, so I view this as a positive step for the labor movement. I wish success to Andy Stern of SEIU, and the other unionists and congratulate them for having the courage to try a new approach. Time For A Change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 This will be interesting. This "dissident" group seems to be far more interested in organizing non-unionized workers than in maintaining the status quo. Other large unions are said to be following suit. I for one cannot understand why unions have not taken a more militant stance against Wal-Mart for instance. A national boycott would hit them where it hurts, and might actually force them to pay their employees a wage high enough to keep them off medicaid, food stamps, etc. In the first paragraph, you complain that the Teamsters biggest problem is they don't focus on current members. In the second paragraph, you complain that they should focus on a boycott of Wal-Mart. Umm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 In the first paragraph, you complain that the Teamsters biggest problem is they don't focus on current members. In the second paragraph, you complain that they should focus on a boycott of Wal-Mart. Umm. 389326[/snapback] What are you talking about? SEIU and tht Teamsters are breaking ties with the AFL-CIO. One of their major reasons is because the AFL-CIO leadership is not placing enough effort/funds into organizing workers. Who said anything about current members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 What are you talking about? SEIU and tht Teamsters are breaking ties with the AFL-CIO. One of their major reasons is because the AFL-CIO leadership is not placing enough effort/funds into organizing workers. Who said anything about current members? 389345[/snapback] Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought you were, maybe, making sense in suggesting that Unions should focus less on recruitment, and more on fixing what shreds of credibility they still have, if any. Do you think that Unions should be focused on organizing more workers? Like those at Wal-Mart (one of the biggest companies in the world) and Toyota (soon to be the largest auto-maker in the world)? And they should do this, instead of trying to change their relationship with companies like Ford, GM, and Chevy (the Bloated 3), each of which is in crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought you were, maybe, making sense in suggesting that Unions should focus less on recruitment, and more on fixing what shreds of credibility they still have, if any. Do you think that Unions should be focused on organizing more workers? Like those at Wal-Mart (one of the biggest companies in the world) and Toyota (soon to be the largest auto-maker in the world)? And they should do this, instead of trying to change their relationship with companies like Ford, GM, and Chevy (the Bloated 3), each of which is in crisis? 389370[/snapback] I see nothing wrong with attempting to do both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I see nothing wrong with attempting to do both. 389374[/snapback] Do think that unionizing Wal-Mart and Toyota (whose workers have rejected UAW overtures before) might have an adverse effect on them? State of Ford, GM = BAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 oh no, not another Unions and Wal-mart thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Do think that unionizing Wal-Mart and Toyota (whose workers have rejected UAW overtures before) might have an adverse effect on them? State of Ford, GM = BAD 389446[/snapback] No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I see nothing wrong with attempting to do both. 389374[/snapback] That's like saying 'Our house is on fire! Quick, let's build a new addition!" Howz about unions trying to fix their current disorganization before attempting to grow into new areas? Methinks the unions are so scared about becoming irrelevent they want to get into Walmart (and Toyota,etc) simply to get more union dues so they can keep the bloated behemoth on life support another decade or two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Good one!! 389642[/snapback] Dude, we have already leapt WAY across the line of boring others. Why don't you run by us how great it is to work at Walmart, and how happy you feel about paying taxes to provide food stamps and medical care out of your tax dollars to WalMart employees, while they abuse their workers, pay them virtual slave wages, and lose law suits for discrimination, denying overtime, etc. Sure, they would be worse off as teamsters, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 That's like saying 'Our house is on fire! Quick, let's build a new addition!" Howz about unions trying to fix their current disorganization before attempting to grow into new areas? Methinks the unions are so scared about becoming irrelevent they want to get into Walmart (and Toyota,etc) simply to get more union dues so they can keep the bloated behemoth on life support another decade or two... 389656[/snapback] Well, I respectfully disagree. There are still plenty of construction workers, police officers, and others who are afforded a better lifestyle and more dignity because of their respective labor unions. Gavin, I am not a labor radical. I believe in a union/management environment where both parties can achieve a better lifestyle. That said, you will be hard pressed to convince me that workers at WalMart are better off without union representation. If you disagree, please state your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I was a manager in a plant represented by the U.A.W., and was a member of two unions when I was a younger man. Lots of things to talk about. This union/no union stuff has been going on for years, but in my view, many folks who critize the weak points of unions seldom realize how (crushingly, If I may add) different their own work life would be today if not for the struggle of people before who fought the battle for many things we take for granted today. I realize there are many issues - for me, the combination of civil service protection and union protection is a very toxic thing. But all in all, I look for the "union label" as far as I can when I purchase items or services. If that means I'll go down with the ship - well, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Wal-Mart employees are ***willing*** - not forced or coerced- to work at Wal-Mart. Despite your assertions to the contrary, Wal-Mart employees are not slaves. If they won't work for their wages, they can leave. 389677[/snapback] Not to change the topic, but has anyone ever told you that you are an a-hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Not to change the topic, but has anyone ever told you that you are an a-hole? 389692[/snapback] Lots of people have told me that. Of course, I'm super sensitive to such criticism. You have a point to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Not to change the topic, but has anyone ever told you that you are an a-hole? 389692[/snapback] Of course. Depending on who is delivering the review, it can be a badge of shame or honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 Of course. Depending on who is delivering the review, it can be a badge of shame or honor. 389726[/snapback] As Rod Stewart said, "You Wear It Well." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 The AFL-CIO is way too interested in signing up illegal aliens than protecting their current members. Also, they are spemding tons of money in Washington. Try using some of that to improve the pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 The AFL-CIO is way too interested in signing up illegal aliens than protecting their current members. Also, they are spemding tons of money in Washington. Try using some of that to improve the pensions. 389753[/snapback] Do you think that the split is a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 As Rod Stewart said, "You Wear It Well." 389744[/snapback] Dude, we have already leapt WAY across the line of boring others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Here's a novel thought. Have the splinter unions set up shops to compete with AFL-CIO for members. Why should a union have a monopoly on the workplace? If they're so concerned about the poor WalMart workers, then give WalMart workers a choice of a union to sign up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts