Help - my boyfriend is anti Union - can't win any arguments...

[stevans_41902]

My boyfriend works for a company (don't know if I can say the name...) and has become very anti-union as a result of his observations of the workers in the plant. I always thought the unions were a good thing (living wages, health insurance, safety regulations), although I can't say I know a huge amount about them. My boyfriend is always complaining about the union workers and how they can get by with anything and not face any negative concequences (stealing stuff, taking several long breaks throughout the day, making several careless mistakes and not caring to fix them...) Any time I try to argue the benefits of a union, he says i couldn't know what i am talking about b/c i have never worked with one and all of my info comes from things i have read. I point out how anti union companies like wal mart are able to get by paying their workers a horrible wage with no benefts, and he says thats just a few bad companies out there. He points out how his company has plants that are non union and they still pay them a good wage/benefits and the productivity is much higher. I have never been able to come up with anything that has been able to persuade his opinion. I know there are a lot of DUers who can prob give me some more info to hopefully help me out with my arguments. I am most interested in what you guys think would happen to the country if all of the unions were shut down today.

[noamnety]

1. Does your boyfriend have health insurance

through his job?

Does he have paid vacations?

Does he have a pension plan?

[AllegroRondo]

4. Does he work a 40 hour week?

Sick days?

Safe work environment?

[William769]

6. Does he work in a sweat shop?

[Walt Starr]

2. so your boyfriend isn't in a union where most workers are?

That's called being a "scab" and scabs are looked down upon by union members.

Scabs are also treated very badly by union members.

Scabs lower wages and benefits for everybody.

[Dr.Phool]

16. He may be in management

And is jealous that he's making less money and has fewer benefits than the Union people. Where I used to work, they'd hire these imbeciles out of college for a mangement position, and pay them squat.

We were all at the bar on payday, and this one guy (management) saw my pay stub and about shit. It was the first payday in May, and I'd already made more than he would for the year. They also had to pay for part of their insurance, had less vacation, etc.

[0007]

3. If all the unions were shut down today, we be in the sweat shop

mode for sure. We're just about there now.

[stevans_41902]

5. how do scabs lower benefits and wages for everyone? nt

[stevans_41902]

10. yes he is in a work environment where most people are union and hes

not, but i dont think he has a choice to be union even if he wanted to. There are 2 parts to the facility -the plant (union members) and the billing section/office building which is all connected.

[Booster]

57. I worked in a union position for 25 yrs, and before I joined the

Union, I worked in the law office for the same company. While working in the law office for lawyers who negotiated the union contracts I learned that whatever the union members get, management also gets so when the lawyers would negotiate the contract they would decide which proposals they really (secretly) wanted to pass and they would give in on those. Tell your boyfriend the benefits he enjoys just might be because the union asked for them first.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. For starters...

Ask him if he likes getting lunch breaks, sick leave and paid vacations. All workers, including non-union workers, have benefits like that only because of the labor movement. And chances are the main reason any company is not unionized is that it has enough sense to treat its workers fairly so they have had no reason to form labor unions (an exception would be Wal-Mart, which does everything it can to prevent unionization). But as soon as that company starts doing things like cutting wages or jobs, or otherwise doing things the workers consider unfair, there will be talk of unionizing. Guaranteed.

[hfojvt]

33. all of them work pretty hard to prevent unions

One plant where I worked, there was some talk of unions floating around, and the company flew in these people to give a mandatory two hour presentation against unions to their employees. As a temp, I did not goto that presentation, only heard about it before and after. The thing I thought was ironic was that all of those non-temps were so unhappy with management, but they certainly had it better than the temps.

But that is a main point, without the threat of unionizing there would be far more of those bad companies.

[quaoar]

8. The union where he works might very well be bad

There are bad unions just as there are bad companies.

Tell him that he should not condemn all unions because of the one at his plant. Would he condemn all corporations because of thieves like Enron or WorldCom?

[skids]

9. This site may help.

http://www.coshnetwork.org/

It's heavily union affiliated.

[stevans_41902]

15. He will admit that the unions have done good things in the beginning

but "there is no use for them now." Personally I dont trust the companies b/c if it were up to them they would just hire illegal workers and pay them as little as they possibly could because they could get away with it.

[Dr.Phool]

20. I worked on a union railroad

The only thing protecting us was the union. If we had unsafe equipment, we could refuse to use it. Even though locomotives and cars had federal regulations, governing what could and could not be moved. Many a time a supervisor would beg, then threaten you to use it anyway, but I was always backed by my union and the law.

The supervision didn't think twice about breaking the law, but they knew they couldn't get it past the union.

[nyhuskyfan]

26. Given the pro-corporation, anti-worker administration we have now...

Unions are still needed - as much as ever. The working class needs some ability to fight for itself.

[quaoar]

30. I've heard that argument before

about how unions were needed once but not anymore because companies are so much more enlightened now.

Tell him that anytime one side or the other has too much power or control or influence, it ends up corrupting them.

If unions disappeared there would be no brake on corporate abuse of workers other than the government, which is no brake at all these days. Likewise, if unions ran everything, the economy would sink as America became less and less competitive in the global marketplace.

It's a checks and balances equation. Unions and corporations need each other to curb each other's excesses.

[Amelie]

67. No use for them now?

There is always a need to have a check on power.

[Bryan Buchan]

11. Walmart

is part of just a few bad companies? Argh. I'd like to have a piece of him on that debate.

Unions are a guarantee for fair labor practices vs. company profits. You may point out he only has the experience seeing the behavior of union employees at one company, many others are proud hard workers...This is also an attack from those who are jealous of the privledges unions have. If union workers are getting away with stealing it doesn't mean unions are bad...policy and enforcement is bad. It is just another attack that lumps many petty problems together and blames it on the "big fish".

I'd suggest doing a google search or reearching the benefits to labor unions in regards to company profit and productivity.

Sure they can pay similar wages to non-union employee's but they can also fire them for any reason under the sun and union people are protected. Which would you want to work under?

Bryan

[earth mom]

12. He needs to read some history as to where the workers of this country

were a 100 or more years ago. He needs to read about the horrific working conditions and slave labor pay. How can he understand the reason for Unions without knowing the history of them? Once he does, he will see that this country is slowly bit by bit creeping back to those deplorable and unworkable standards and that this is what U.S. government wants and is allowing it to happen. :grr:

[Dr.Phool]

27. A good place to start is Howard Zinn's

"A Peoples History of The United States, 1492-present".

You'll find that the first strikers in this country were children working in sweatshops, in deplorable conditions.

[Sandpiper]

13. Ask your Boyfriend if he enjoys any of the following...

40-hour work weeks
Employer provided Medical Insurance
Employer provided Dental Insurance
Employer sponsored retirement plans
Weekends off
Paid Vacation
Paid Holidays
Paid Sick Leave
Workplace Safety


If the answer is yes to any or all of these, tell your Boyfriend that he has Unions to thank for all of the above.

[Siena]

14. well there's always a bad seed

I have done a lot of work with unions and yes, there are the people that say I'm not going to do anything more than I have to do. Oops it's exactly 4PM, I'm leaving unless you want to agree to pay me overtime, regardless of what work must be done. But I have also worked with unions that did not treat their jobs in that fashion. The difference usually came in the way they were treated by upper management.

[mzteris]

17. there are good and bad

people of all stripes...... union and non-union.

Unions serve a very good purpose. But some people abuse their position - period. Whether or not they were union - these same people would be abusing the system through another form of "cronyism" - but ONLY they would "benefit" at all. At least your BF is getting a decent wage and working conditions.


"He points out how his company has plants that are non union and they still pay them a good wage/benefits and the productivity is much higher."

Point out that this is due to the fact they are trying to keep that plant from BECOMING Union!

I grew up being "anti union" but after having worked in HR for most of my adult life - in both union and non-union settings - I can tell you that companies treat their non-union plants better - because they are afraid of being unionized. Without that fear - they would srew them six ways from Sunday.


"what you guys think would happen to the country if all of the unions were shut down today."

If they were to all shut down - and be banned - we would very quickly slip back to a time of sweatshop working conditions. There would be no threat of strike to keep companies from completely abusing their employees (more so than some do now, of course.)

That some Unions have lost sight of the fact that they are pricing themselves out of jobs is also true.....

If people behaved altruistically - there would be no need of Unions. The sad fact is - that most companies don't give a rat's patootie about their "human resources". There's always another warm body to replace that one. And without some kind of safeguards in place, they would pay less, have fewer benefits, and job security would be a thing of the past.

[stevans_41902]

21. "Point out that this is due to the fact they are trying to keep that

plant from BECOMING Union!" - Thanks, thats a good one. I know the company itself is probably VERY anti union b/c they give 90% of their contributions to the Rethugs. How can you explain the higher productivity at the non union plant? Is it b/c the workers are treated better for fear of becoming union?

[mzteris]

37. How can you explain

the higher productivity at the non union plant? Is it b/c the workers are treated better for fear of becoming union? **

I do think that some Unions have "bogged down the process" by being a bit overzealous in the "this is MY job" department.

On the other hand - some work harder because they are in fear of losing their jobs without cause. Also, non-union companies do things like working off the clock and cutting other corners that cost money/productivity - but save things like finger and toes and lives.......

[marbuc]

18. There are definitely some problems with labor unions,

the primary of which being they seem to have lost touch with rank and file members. However, I belonged to the UFCW for 7 years while in high school and college, and generally had a great experience with them, and believe in collective bargaining.

First of all, I witnessed none of the negative consequences your boyfriend speaks of. Union membership does not make one immune to termination for just cause. During my time, if people stole, they got fired. If they used drugs and/or alcohol on the job, they were fired. If they were lazy on the job, they were fired.

What unions do is ensure workers will be treated fairly. We got health insurance, regular raises (according to the schedule as determined by the CBA), and didn't have to worry about being fired for anything but just cause. Oh, and we also didn't have to worry about being locked in the store after hours, forced to work off the clock, or question whether we'd get overtime pay. Also keep in mind that benefits paid by the private sector are not paid by the public sector (medicaid).

Your b/f seems cynical. I think people generally want to maximize ability, regardless of whether they are incentivized to do so. Lazy people will be lazy with or without labor unions.

[Jackpine Radical]

24. I HAVE seen situations where union membership prevented

someone from being fired when they should have been fired. But on closer examination, this was mostly because the contract specified some sort of due process in the firing & the management was too stupid to follow their own procedures.

[marbuc]

35. you are correct

we had a "three strikes" policy on most issues. First=warning, second=suspension, third=termination.

[SoCalDem]

19. Off topic.. Why 4-19-02 (your name) ?

:)

[stevans_41902]

32. The date on my username is the date of our anniversary

(i'm kind of a romantic.) Although he has a lot of good qualities and there are many issues we agree on, I don't think he is able to see the big picture on many things and has a cynical attitude towards people in general. It is odd because he reminds me of my grandfather in many ways - my grandfather worked at the exact same plant & the exact same position as my bf and my grandma says that he also complained a lot about the union there. My dad is a union member for the railroad and my mom is part of a teachers union.

[Hubert Flottz]

22. Tell him to watch out for trolls!

And FReepers!

[stevans_41902]

38. His best friend (and person we share a house with) is a huge

Freeper so it doesn't help my case. Last weekend i got into an argument with his friend about wal mart - he thinks wal mart is good for america b/c it gives the american people the lowest prices and its just amazing how wal mart is able to name any price they want and get it and pass the savings on to the customer. He didn't seem to care that they are able to do this by closing down companies in the US and buying from overseas. I get along with the guy most of the time b/c he is smart enough not to bring up politics (at least when he is not drinking.) After he has had a few drinks, it lowers his inhibitions and he feels comfortible talking politics although he knows he's going to get what he is asking for b/c most of the people i hang out with are dems.

[Booster]

60. Tell the Freeper his taxes subsidize Walmart by providing health

care for all of their employees - bet he won't like that thought. When a Walmart employees gets sick and has to go to ER, they go to a County hospital and tax payers pay for that.

[hfojvt]

23. Again I hearken back to the 19th century

I am not sure how much affection I have for a Gompers-type of union. It should not just be about wages and benefits, it should be about respect. My own experience has been with employer after employer after employer who made this hard worker feel like a piece of toilet paper and a sucker. They use you to wipe up some crap and then they flush you away.

I can only imagine that unions would at least be an advocate for workers, but I have little actual experience with them. I did not notice alot of slacking at a unionized plant where I worked as a contract janitor and a temp, but I was not there for very long. I did notice alot of slacking at a non-unionized plant where I worked as a temp, actually two. So I think it is unfair to let a few bad union workers taint all the rest. I had a union worker do some community service work at my job, and his attitude, ability, and work habits were much better than most of the people I have worked with who were getting paid over $10.5 an hour and benefits.

[Another Bill C.]

25. I worked non-union for 20 years

and, as long as there was a chance of workers opting for union representation, the benefits were just as good as a union shop. Eventually (during the Reagan years) the threat of unionization became less and we began losing benefits. Sick leave was the first to go. Seniority ceased to be a consideration in job transfers. Pay raises became rare. Flexible hours got tossed. And so it went.... All that while the CEO and his cronies were getting "golden parachute" salaries and bonuses. Eventually, my job went overseas and I was let go.

By that time, my age became a hiring consideration and I had to settle for something much less than what I had.

In starting over, I wouldn't get into an occupation that didn't have union representation. Ideally, it would be a building trade since I think those will be the last to go overseas.

[Dr.Phool]

36. I remember a steel mill, that had it's own security force.

Long-time employees, who were paid a range similar to the Steelworkers Union. And similar benefits. They had a union representation vote to join the steelworkers, and they turned it down.

It wasn't 30 days later the mill fired them all, and outsourced their jobs to minimum wage rent-a-cops. If that vote had gone the other way, they'd still be there today.

[Hubert Flottz]

28. Tell him this is how it was in America before the unions.

[warrens]

29. That's the downside to unions

The upside is so great, though, that whining about it is like black people pining to be sent back to the cotton fields.

He's cutting off his nose to spite his face.

[tuvor]

31. Like anything else, there's good and bad in unions. n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

34. Little kids didn't get to go to school when the robber barons had

total control.

They went to work!

[Sandpiper]

39. Yep, here's another photo of what childhood was like in Pre-Union America

Unless your family was wealthy enough that you didn't need to work.

[Hubert Flottz]

43. Growing Up on Cabin Creek

An Interview with Arnold Miller (Former UMWA president)

snip>

When l first knew Arnold Miller some ten years ago he was involved in an awesome campaign for the presidency of the United Mine Workers of America, against the entrenched establishment of Tony Boyle. In those days, if you could get a word with Arnold, it usually had to do with some strategic detail of the hectic race. But I caught enough sketchy anecdotes about his past to realize that his life had been forged in struggle, that this controversial would be president was in many ways the embodiment of coalfield experience, and I resolved to find time someday to hear the whole story.

When I visited with Mr. Miller at his apartment on Ruffnet Avenue in Charleston last September I found him relaxed and reflective. We spent a whole afternoon talking about his early life, and I asked him to concentrate on those details of the story which preceded his presidency. Excerpts from that taped interview have been pulled together in this article.

Arnold Miller was born in Leewood, on Cabin Creek in Kanawha County on April 25, 1923, just two years after The Battle of Blair Mountain, which broke the union effort in southern West Virginia until 1933. But union spirit and determination ran deep in his family psyche on both sides. He began by telling about his father.

Arnold Miller: My daddy was born in Bell County, in Pineville in East Kentucky, and was forced to migrate out of Kentucky to West Virginia at the age of 14, ostensibly for his organizing activity. He was a veteran miner at the age of 14, had five years in the mines. It's not common for people to understand today that years ago they worked children in the mines. I had a group picture I could show you somewhere here in Charleston. Showed about 30 miners, only two of which were adults. It's odious from looking at the picture that children did work in the mines in the early days. They worked them like slaves. They didn't pay them but damn little, and they dogged them around. Mining is far different today than it was then. More.....

http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvcoal/miller.html

[chaska]

40. I once knew a very smart girl from Lawrence, Kansas...

She was smart enough to get out of Lawrence, Kansas. You should too.

No offense, I come from a similar place.

[ironman202]

41. he sounds jealous

[stevans_41902]

42. whats wrong with lawrence? its a pretty liberal place (at least as far as

the midwest goes its not that bad) I'm in college right now (in state tuition) but I hope to get out of Kansas within 5 years.

[wli]

44. the last place I worked where unions were a question...

... had an answer: fire anyone caught breathing the word "union" on the spot.

That was 1995. In Dubya's reign of terror, it must be far worse.

[driver8]

45. Sounds like your boyfriend is management-- they hate unions.

Some people take advantage of things...that will always be true. In this case, it sounds like a few "bad seeds" have set the example for your boyfriend.

I will always believe that unions are best for the workers of this country. I am in a union and am thankful every day that I am! I earn a decent wage, I am compensated well for over time, and the benefits my family and I have are very good. It is a sad thing that all American workers cannot say the same thing.

If your boyfriend is management, you will never change his mind.

[stevans_41902]

48. He used to work in the billing dept. but he was offered a new position

where part of his job requirement is to raise productivity in the plant.

[driver8]

62. Raise productivity?? A-ha...that explains a lot...

[Hubert Flottz]

46. Events in U.S. Labor History

Most citizens of the United States take for granted labor laws which protect them from the evils of unregulated industry. Perhaps the majority of those who argue for "free enterprise" and the removal of restrictions on capitalist corporations are unaware that over the course of this countrys history, workers have fought and often died for protection from capitalist industry. In many instances, government troops were called out to crush strikes, at times firing on protesters. The women and children were often targeted as a means to force male workers back to the job. And often forgotten are the many times that the women and children were the ones being forced to work. Often too are forgotten the many social benifits we, as Americans take for granted, won by labor unions and the workers that had the vision of a better life for all. Presented here are a few of the many incidents in the too often overlooked, labor history of this country.



The roots of our country's trade unions extend deep into the early history of America.
Captain John Smith, who led the ill-fated settlement in 1607 on Virginia's James River, pleaded with his sponsors in London to send him more craftsmen and working people.
Several of the Pilgrims arriving at Plymouth Rock in 1620 were working craftsmen.
Primitive unions, or guilds, of carpenters and cordwainers, cabinet makers and cobblers made their appearance, often temporary, in various cities along the Atlantic seaboard of colonial America.

http://work4life.home.att.net/history.html

[tigersumtin]

47. union

does your boyfriend work 70+ hours a week in 100 degree heat? does his health insurance cost, equal more than 5 days pay? does his employer change his pay plan every month? is he belittled by his managers and threatened that he will be fired? does he survive in adverse working conditions? If two or more of the above conditions exist, a union might not be such a bad idea, if not keep on pluckin. I am aware of several situations that people are involved and trapped in, with all the conditions listed above and worse. Unions have there place, in the past, future, and present. Unions are a check and balance, without checks there is no balance. if all else fails get a new boyfriend, one that listens to ya.

[sadiesworld]

52. Welcome to DU, tigersumtin!

It's definitely nice to see another labor supporter--happy posting.
:hi:

[tigersumtin]

59. Thank ya

us TEXAS boys aint all, open shop. we need some checks down here bad. sometimes things that carry on for long periods of time are hard to change. but not impossible thanks for the welcome TT.

[Hubert Flottz]

58. Great First Post!

Welcome to DU... :hi: :toast:

[BurtWorm]

49. Unions are meant to equalize the asymmetrical relationship

between capital and labor, meaning, without them, capital can pay pretty much whatever it wants because, presumably, there's always someone more desperate than the next person. Capitalists think this is a great arrangement, of course, because it lowers production costs. But lower costs for capital result in higher costs beyond the workplace. In some communities where Wal-Mart has decimated local businesses by undercutting their prices, they've driven higher paying jobs out, so the tax base has been undermined. Low-wage Wal-Mart workers with no health care or other benefits put a burden on public services that outpaces the amount of tax revenue Wal-Mart puts back into the community.

Here's a Website that explains what destruction Wal-Mart wreaks better than I can:

http://walmartwatch.com/home/pages/annual_report_2005


PS: I forgot my main point: unions aggregate labor so it can negotiate from a position of strength with capital. This means income goes up, tax revenue goes up, and wealth is redistributed more efficiently.

[Hubert Flottz]

50. Progress and Conflict in the New Industrial Order

Dozens of great links here...

http://timmer.org/HISTORY_17B/Links/Industry.htm

[Hubert Flottz]

51. Joe Hill

Commemorating Labor Day 2000, PBS presented the biography of Joe Hill. This online story of the labor organizer explores the history of the nation as it struggled with issues of justice, opportunity, and the American Dream.

http://www.kued.org/joehill/

[Hubert Flottz]

53. Mother Jones

From 1912-1913, some of the most violent labor battles in American history took place in the Kanawha-New River coalfield of West Virginia. The most forceful strike leader was eighty-four year old Mother Jones, a veteran labor leader who had worked on behalf of all kinds of industrial workers in the United States. She was especially known for her work on behalf of coal miners; in West Virginia, she worked during five major strikes, the most significant of these being the Paint Creek-Cabin Creek strikes. Her three month imprisonment during these strikes focused national attention on the working conditions of coal miners and helped elicit public support for their cause.

The Kanawha Valley miners had been organized during a 1902 strike with the assistance of Mother Jones, but in the intervening years the union had been driven out of Cabin Creek. On April 1, 1912, the contract for the union Kanawha miners expired, and they tried to negotiate a new contract to improve their working conditions. Their demands were rejected and union miners throughout the Kanawha district went on strike on April 18th; eventually all the demands were met, except those of the Paint Creek miners who wanted wages equal to those paid in other area mines. Rejecting this, the Paint Creek operators instead began hiring guards from the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency to intimidate, harass, and even physically assault miners and their families. As large contingents of these hired gunmen began to arrive in May, and violence between miners and guards became a daily occurrence.

The guards evicted miners from their rented houses and began to fortify coal company property, in preparation for the arrival of replacement or "scab" miners. Living in tent camps, hunger and sickness became endemic among the miners and their families. Mother Jones arrived in June and began to rouse the miners to act against the guards and the operators. Late in July, the union turned towards the non-union miners on Cabin Creek, attempting to persuade them to join the strike. Mother Jones made her way through armed guards to speak to the Cabin Creek miners at the town of Eskdale, and they went on strike shortly thereafter. They demanded that the mine operators recognize basic rights such as the right to organize and the right to free speech and assembly, as well as an end to the blacklisting of discharged miners, safeguards against cheating of the miners by the companies, and the removal of the mine guards.

As pitched gun battles between miners and guards broke out, Mother Jones' verbal attacks on the operators and the guards became ever more virulent and militant and she soon brought strikers to the state capitol. As Jones recounted in her autobiography, she "got three thousand armed miners to march over the hills secretly to Charleston, where we read a declaration of war to Governor Glasscock who, scared as a rabbit, met us on the steps of the state house. We gave him just twenty-four hours to get rid of the gunmen, promising him that hell would break loose if he didn't. He did. He sent the state militia in, who at least were responsible to society and not to the operators alone." Governor Glasscock did not send in the militia until two weeks later, however, when violence on a massive scale was imminent.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/DOE_dedesignations/Jones.htm

[Hubert Flottz]

54. Matewan

Matewan

In the early spring of 1920, unorganized coal miners in Mingo County, West Virginia began seeking to join the UMWA. The coal operators became alarmed by the organizing activity and locked out the miners. On May 19, 1920, twelve men were killed at Matewan, West Virginia in a gun fight in which the local police and the people of Matewan faced a group of hoodlums hired by the infamous Baldwin Felts Detective Agency at the behest of the coal operators to unlawfully evict miners from their homes.

In the Matewan battle, Albert Felts, wearing a badge as a "deputy sheriff" of Harlan County, Kentucky, fired the first shot but was killed by Matewan Chief of Police Sid Hatfield. Hatfield had warned the thugs that they had no legal warrants to evict the citizens of Matewan and that he would not permit eviction without proper legal procedures. Felts then attempted to forcibly arrest the Chief of Police. Felts had been one of the chief gunmen used by the coal operators in the Ludlow, Colorado massacre in 1914, in which twenty persons were killed, including twelve women and children who were burned alive in their tents.

http://www.umwa.org/history/matewan.shtml

[Hubert Flottz]

55. Ludlow Massacre

Labor unrest in the United States in the years preceding World War I was particularly tense in the West. When a union activist was killed in the fall of 1913, workers at the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation's (CF&I) coal operations and other Colorado coal mines went on strike. The miners evacuated the coal mining camps on September 23 to protest low wages ($1.68 a day) and poor working conditions.

Contrary to state law, miners were paid in scrip, which was redeemable only at the company store, where prices were high. Miners were cheated at the scales where the coal they dug was weighed. Many mines maintained two separate systems of weights: one for the miners' transactions, and another for the coal buyers.

In Colorado mines, "dead work" was not paid. Dead work included timbering the mine for safety. The death rate of Colorado miners was approximately twice the national average.

Miners frequently complained that company mules were treated far better than their human counterparts. Years after cave-ins or mine explosions, miners' anecdotes recount the first words of the coal operators when a mine collapsed: did the mules get out? More...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

[Hubert Flottz]

56. The battle of Blair Mountain...Nation's largest union uprising

On four separate occasions between 1919 and 1921 the United States Army was ordered to intervene in labor disputes between miners and coal mine operators in West Virginia. Federal military interventions to maintain or restore civil authority threatened by unrest or riots originating from labor disputes was not unknown duty to army personnel. Between 1877 and 1920 several presidents had called upon the army to assist civil officials in quelling domestic disorders under authority of the Constitution and congressional statutes. In the vast majority of federal military interventions prior to 1917, regular army troops succeeded in restoring order quickly, with a minimum of injury and bloodshed, in strict adherence to orders issued within legal parameters set by the Constitution, federal statutes, and army regulations. Although questions of army neutrality were constantly raised, especially by labor groups and workingmen who were most often the focus of federal military interventions, historically United States Army actions during American domestic disturbances were amazingly non-partisan and non-violent when compared to the record of National Guard forces while under state control.

Although intervention in labor disputes was a relatively routine duty for army personnel by 1920, the interventions in West Virginia represented a watershed in the history of the army role in suppressing domestic disorders. The Constitution and Revised Statutes of 1874 clearly defined the procedures for state authorities to gain federal military assistance and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1874 prevented the misuse of federal military power by local and state civil authorities before and after regulars had been deployed. Secretary of War Newton D. Baker suspended these legal procedures in 1917 for the duration of World War I when National Guard forces, traditionally the first recourse for state officials needing military forces to maintain order, were federalized for wartime service in France. With the absence of state military forces, the United States Army was called upon to fill the void under a policy developed by Secretary Baker known as direct access. A wartime expedient, the direct access policy allowed local and state civil officials to summon directly federal troops for quelling disorders without resorting to the complicated pre-war procedure involving the state legislatures, president, and the War Department. Without pre-war legal procedures, numerous state and local officials, at the behest of local businessmen and patriotic groups, took undue advantage of the easy access to federal troops to crush labor unions or suppress radical groups and dissenters. The years 1917-21 saw an unprecedented number of federal military interventions in domestic disturbances and labor disputes.2

The first army interventions in the West Virginia coal mine wars were carried out under these wartime policies. In the final federal intervention in West Virginia in 1921, however, the federal government moved to restore the procedures that existed before the war, having come to fear potential abuses of federal military power by overzealous, inept, or corrupt state or local officials. The West Virginia disturbances were significant as they closed a chapter involving extraordinary extra-legal procedures in the domestic employment of federal troops and in effect restored the provisions of the pre-war statutes and the Posse Comitatus Act. In other respects, however, the deployments in West Virginia resembled other wartime interventions in labor disputes as federal regulars were sent in to suppress what were deemed by local, state and federal officials as radical and foreign-inspired labor uprisings and challenges to legally constituted civil authority. The army, therefore, closely cooperated with state and local officials and mine owners and operators. In this respect, the West Virginia interventions more closely followed the labor disputes of the 1890s than those of the Progressive Era when federal neutrality was more strongly emphasized. Within the army itself, duty in West Virginia, following a four-year period of extensive civil disturbance intervention, gave impetus to army leaders to make significant preparations to systematically deal with expected future radical disorders of even greater magnitude.

While army and federalized National Guard units were on nearly constant call between 1917 and 1918 to suppress strikes and labor disorders in vital war industries, one sector that witnessed surprisingly few such difficulties during World War I was the coal industry. The wartime calm in the coalfields, obtained through federal mediation efforts between management and labor, was an exception to the normally turbulent labor situation that had plagued the coal industry during the previous forty years. The industry, however, had many unsolved labor problems from the pre-war years, which by late 1919 had developed into a potentially explosive situation, due to new unionization efforts. More...

http://www.geocities.com/MadisonAvenue/Boardroom/4278/wvh.htm

If you and your boyfriend run out of things to read, I'll be glad to post some more information. Hope this helps him out...

[Hubert Flottz]

61. Ford had some NASTY ideas! (battle of the overpass)

Snip>

Dearborn was the home of Henry Ford and the car company named for him. As the major employer in Dearborn, Ford possessed tremendous political and economic clout. His cousin was Mayor of the city and the Chief of Police was a former Ford security officer. Ford tried to nurture an image of himself as a benevolent father figure. In an attempt to set his company apart from the other auto makers, Ford claimed that no union was needed at the Ford Motor Company to take care of the needs of his workers; his personal control and management of the company would best serve his employees.

The Ford Service Department was established to maintain control over the company’s assembly line workers and to keep unions out of the plants. Ford appointed Harry Bennett to run this portion of the business and he was given a free hand to do so. Bennett was a Navy veteran, a talented boxer, and he enjoyed the company of athletes, particularly wrestlers, football players and boxers. Bennett was also confrontational, always ready to assert himself physically. In addition, Bennett’s lack of an education and management experience matched Ford’s general distrust of formal education and position in society as benchmarks of success. As head of Ford’s Service Department, Bennett was arguably the most powerful man at Ford Motor Company with the exception of Ford himself.

Bennett employed many techniques to control the company’s industrial workers. He hired and fired employees in a capricious manner. Union sympathy or activity meant immediate dismissal, and with poor wages, no paid holidays or vacations and no job security, employees were very vulnerable. Intimidation and attacks by his “Servicemen” were commonplace, and a spy network within the factories kept Bennett well-informed. Inside and outside the plants, his men observed union meetings, followed suspected unionists and lurked outside their homes. They also eavesdropped on conservations on the shop floor and in taverns, groceries, restaurants and other public places. Bennett recruited his men among former convicts with violent criminal histories, street thugs and other assorted ruffians that he could find. He maintained connections with the criminal elements in Detroit and the “Down River” suburbs south along the Detroit River as well. The Service Department also kept UAW Local 174, the unit charged with organizing the Rouge Plant under constant surveillance. This made organizing an uncertain and dangerous proposition.

Both Miller Road and the overpass itself were considered public thoroughfares, yet when Reuther and his colleagues arrived, a large group of Ford “Servicemen” approached the four UAW members. Reuther and his companions were told to leave, allowed no time to respond or withdraw and immediately attacked by the Ford thugs. They were punched, kicked, and picked up, slammed to the ground repeatedly, and after a severe beating, tossed down the stairs to the road below. Although the number of attackers is disputed--possibly as many as forty--their vast numerical superiority overwhelmed the union members who were caught by surprise. Once down on the road, Reuther and his companions were able to get to a car and leave the scene. The ladies passing out the organizing materials on Miller Road were also attacked and forced to flee to their waiting buses for safety.

http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/exhibits/battle.html

Ford was one of Mr. Hitler's friends and admirers too.

[JNelson6563]

63. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"

If that doesn't help him along you need a new boyfriend.

Oh yes, tell him to enjoy his weekend, a concept brought to life by organized labor. :toast:

Julie

[msongs]

64. get a NEW BOYFRIEND :-)

[IdaBriggs]

65. Unfortunately, unions can be used to "protect" corruption.

My father spent 30 years working in law enforcement at one of the automotive companies, and his biggest complaint was about "union workers" who committed crimes (theft being a biggie) who had their jobs "protected" because of their union standing. Other problems he had included folks who clocked in, and then went to nap (leaving their co-workers to do their jobs!), and (my personal favorite), the union rep who had other people "clock them in" while they never bothered to show up for work. (My dad finally got that one proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by videotaping the guy mowing his lawn while he was supposedly at work!)

The thing that really got to my father was how the "Union Reps" used their status to protect THEMSELVES instead of the workers; the "mow the lawn guy" kept his job -- by giving away an "install lights in the parking lot" request that would have made the parking lots safer for everyone.

My father-in-law is a Teamster, and he will only vote Republican (with the "unions are hypocrites" being a big deal for him, too).

I support Unions as a concept, and believe they have (and continue) to do a lot of good for this country. I also know that "corruption" can and does occur, and its terrible when it becomes so endemic that it is accepted as "normal" by all involved.

I wish I had a better answer for you, but human nature is what it is: power corrupts, and lazy, greedy people will take advantage of the system when they can -- its true for Unions sometimes, AND its true for Management, too.

:(

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

66. STOP sucking his cock!

Explain to him that this is a STRIKE.

[jaysunb]

70. not a very nice post, but

spot on ! :evilgrin:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

71. If you didn't like that one...

wait 'til I talk about the kitchen bargaining table.


:D

[jaysunb]

72. Ha ha ha ha !!

followed by :" how do you feel about us dating other people "
:dilemma:

[Ready2Snap]

68. The only arguement you need -

is that without the union he'd be out on his ass, replaced by someone who would work cheaper.

[Zen Democrat]

69. The non-union plants get good wages and benefits BECAUSE

of the union shops. Because of unions we have public education, child labor laws, worker safety laws, a minimum wage, the standard 40-hour work week with overtime, and the unions single-handledly created the vibrant middle class that prospered during the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Women who wanted to stay home with their kids could do so because union wages could support a family -- and the family to could afford a vacation in the summer.

The union wage set a standard that brought up the wages and living standards of all workers.

With the unions all but gone, the middle class is being squeezed out, people don't have health insurance, it takes two workers per family just to put food on the table, and overall our standard of living is deteriorating.

[LibertarianVoice]

73. Unions, like business, can bring both good and bad to a society.

What most people don't know is that workers unions, are in fact, an example of free market capitalism at work.
It is the people collecting together, on their own accord, to ensure that they are getting fair market value for their labor, and safe working conditions, all without the need for government intervention.
This process is natural, and necessary, to the health of a capitalistic society.

However, as with everything in a free market system, problems arise when unions establish what is effectively a monopoly over a certain sector or type of labor supply. At that point unions can get greedy, putting unreasonable demands on their employers.

It's usually not the higher wages or benefits that are unreasonable, but the mentality they take with regards to trying to establish total parity and job protection among all it's members.
Wages and advancement are usually determined based on seniority rather than merit.
Individuals don't get rewarded for working harder than others, and loafers don't get punished or let go.
Unreasonable job protection makes it impossible to change up lazy workers or incompetent workers for more productive ones; And it can also stifle technological and production progress, because the unions will resist any kind of advancement that could mean replacing or laying off workers.

It frankly doesn't work in the long run, because eventually the company is going to be overtaken by someone who is more efficient or capable of embracing new technology, at which point all those workers who tried to create a bubble within their own company are going to find that they no longer have a company at all.

In short: Unions that monopolize labor can be just as bad for an economy as corporations that monopolize a resource.
But having said that, unions are every bit as important to the process of the free market as the corporation is.