i_am_the_swammi Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 So as a hotel owner and asset manager, we are preparing for the enactment of the "Employee free Choice Act", which will allow union reps to solicit/pressure/badger employees into forming unions. Up til now, all employees had the right to vote via blind ballot....after this law goes into effect, all employees' votes will be on open ballot for all to see. What this essentially means is that if you vote against forming a union, all those who voted for it will know. Many beleive there will be mental/physical coercion to those that do not go along. Moreover, many will vote in favor f unionization so as to not face this persecution from their co-workers What this means to owners of hotels: potential insolvency in the face of the economy today. Hotel profits are off by 30-40% from their highs in 2006, and in 2009, 1 in 5 properties are expected to face foreclosure. The nail in the coffin for many of these assets will be payroll and benefit increases that some believe will approach 15-20% if properties are indeed able to unionize. I am no labor expert, but it seems the cost to the employer of unionization is substantial. The auto industry is reeling from it....many other's, in the face of this new legislation, will soon follow. What is the upside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 What is the upside? none really that I can see If I were an employee, I would also be concerned about retribution from an employer if I voted for a union and the union didn't get enough votes to pass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 they had a purpose once. not anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I have limited experience in this area, but some intimate knowledge of how unionization took place and the effects on a sister facility of mine on the east coast. Fighting the process in court has cost the company plenty, but saved us in labor. High wages are not a given when unions move in. What is certain is that unions are more than happy to collect dues, regardless of their bargaining effectiveness (or lack thereof). Like many things in politics, the Employee Free Choice Act is anything but that. It effectively takes away the vote of some workers. Secret ballots will be a thing of the past, opening the door to coercion and intimidation of pro-company employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Just one more thing the government shouldn't have gotten involved in. Lord help us if we federalize the banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 they had a purpose once. not anymore. This is largely true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I just joined the Motion Pictures Studio Mechanics Union (Local 495) and I am still forming opinions of the pro's and con's. Of course, if you are NOT union, you don't work on any of the big Movies/Television shows..period. You HAVE to be union to work those gigs so it wasn't a choice for me. Not really sure what my post contributes to this thread. ..just thought I'd share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 +1 Forget whether unions are good or bad, open voting is bad period. How did this get passed? Isn't open voting some sort of denial of first amendment rights? Or privacy act? Seems that this is somehow illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I just joined the Motion Pictures Studio Mechanics Union (Local 495) and I am still forming opinions of the pro's and con's. Of course, if you are NOT union, you don't work on any of the big Movies/Television shows..period. You HAVE to be union to work those gigs so it wasn't a choice for me. Not really sure what my post contributes to this thread. ..just thought I'd share. so unions are supposedly formed to assist with work place conditions and wages. and if you dont join them, you are blackballed. wow, unions sound so nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Just one more thing the government shouldn't have gotten involved in. Lord help us if we federalize the banks. The interesting thing is you've got people like Greenspan and Lindsey Graham saying we need to nationalize the banks, and Obama and Schumer saying we shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm largely democratic, but I don't get this at all. It is too-far in favor of labor, and in today's economic climate, could further push businesses already struggling over the edge. This was one of Obama's main items when he began his candidacy back in 2006, and promised lots of exisiting unions that he'd push this thru if they voted for him. But economic times have changed since then, and it needs to be re-evaluated. And yes, the fact that it is no longer a blind ballot is baffling.... Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights by James Sherk and Paul Kersey Backgrounder #2027 Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in public better reveal a worker's true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority. Recently, unions have switched the focus of their organizing operations from private balloting to publicly signed cards. These so-called card-check campaigns make it much easier for unions to organize workers, but most companies strongly resist the idea of denying their employees a vote. Unions now want the government to take away workers' right to vote and certify unions after only a card-check campaign. The Employee Free Choice Act would do this and more. First, it requires the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union after a majority of a firm's workers has signed union cards, putting an end to almost all organizing elections: "if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations...the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization."[1] Second, the EFCA requires companies and newly certified unions to enter binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations.[2] Neither companies nor employees could appeal the arbitrator's ruling, and the contract would last for two years. Third, H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organizing drive.[3] Union activists contend that the act would protect workers' freedom to freely choose to join a union. However, workers' best defense against harassment and intimidation by either a union or an employer is a secret-ballot election in which neither knows how any individual worker voted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 The interesting thing is you've got people like Greenspan and Lindsey Graham saying we need to nationalize the banks, and Obama and Schumer saying we shouldn't. I don't care who's for it, it will screw up this country faster than damn near anything. If Obama is against it, I will gladly support him in that. Greenspan is pretty much apolitical, and his monetary policies are part of the reason we are in this mess. Graham is an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 The interesting thing is you've got people like Greenspan and Lindsey Graham saying we need to nationalize the banks, and Obama and Schumer saying we shouldn't. I'm not sure that Obama is saying that we shouldn't--I believe he has been more saying that it isn't something that they would want to do if they don't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Not really sure what my posts contribute ..just thought I'd share. Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Fixed Thanks for the grammatical fix. p.s. **whispers -- "crack kills" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 they had a purpose once. not anymore. Given the power of our military, one could certainly make the same argument about the Second Amendment. Seeing as companies knowingly sell poison peanut butter or tomatoes or jalapenos or dog food; record $47,000,000,000.00 in profits on the back of Americans; screw employees out of overtime like Walmart just got nailed for doing; won't pay to clean up environmental messes they make; sell bad mortgages as a commodity and then expect the American taxpayer to bail them out --> bonuses included, while outsourcing jobs to anyone who can afford to work for less money and benefits and employees should trust their employer to do the right thing by their employees in times of recession/depression/inflation/deflation? Seems antiquated to me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm not sure that Obama is saying that we shouldn't--I believe he has been more saying that it isn't something that they would want to do if they don't have to. Good point. Despite the liberal or socialist tag being thrown around, I still think the guy is very pragmatic and will do what he thinks is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Given the power of our military, one could certainly make the same argument about the Second Amendment. Seeing as companies knowingly sell poison peanut butter or tomatoes or jalapenos or dog food; record $47,000,000,000.00 in profits on the back of Americans; screw employees out of overtime like Walmart just got nailed for doing; won't pay to clean up environmental messes they make; sell bad mortgages as a commodity and then expect the American taxpayer to bail them out --> bonuses included, while outsourcing jobs to anyone who can afford to work for less money and benefits and employees should trust their employer to do the right thing by their employees in times of recession/depression/inflation/deflation? Seems antiquated to me too. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Given the power of our military, one could certainly make the same argument about the Second Amendment. Seeing as companies knowingly sell poison peanut butter or tomatoes or jalapenos or dog food; record $47,000,000,000.00 in profits on the back of Americans; screw employees out of overtime like Walmart just got nailed for doing; won't pay to clean up environmental messes they make; sell bad mortgages as a commodity and then expect the American taxpayer to bail them out --> bonuses included, while outsourcing jobs to anyone who can afford to work for less money and benefits and employees should trust their employer to do the right thing by their employees in times of recession/depression/inflation/deflation? Seems antiquated to me too. What does this have to do with the second amendment? If anything, one should be making the argument against laws that disarm or make becoming armed difficult on citizens. We the People will always have something very important on the Military: numbers. Numbers and arms can make up for a lot of technology. When the government goes kookoo enough that it will break out the bad boys like nukes, chem and bio warfare on it's own soil, then we have a lot more to be worried about than being over powered by technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 What does this have to do with the second amendment? If anything, one should be making the argument against laws that disarm or make becoming armed difficult on citizens. We the People will always have something very important on the Military: numbers. Numbers and arms can make up for a lot of technology. When the government goes kookoo enough that it will break out the bad boys like nukes, chem and bio warfare on it's own soil, then we have a lot more to be worried about than being over powered by technology. People are making the argument that unions once held a purpose but no longer do. No private militia could hope to compete with America's military. Suffice to say the Iraqi citizenry is much more well armed than America's and if you actually turned the military loose this would have been done in a month. And given that military, we don't need a well armed militia to protect us from foreign invasion. I saw a parallel. Others may disagree. I happen to like both guns and unions so what do I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 People are making the argument that unions once held a purpose but no longer do. No private militia could hope to compete with America's military. Suffice to say the Iraqi citizenry is much more well armed than America's and if you actually turned the military loose this would have been done in a month. And given that military, we don't need a well armed militia to protect us from foreign invasion. I saw a parallel. Others may disagree. I happen to like both guns and unions so what do I know. Funny...I am not for or against unions. I am against illegal activities perpetrated by unions, and I am against illegal activities perpetrated against unions. People should be free to peaceably form unions and negotiate. They shouldn't be allowed to monopolize labor channels and keep companies from making progress. I like civil liberties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Funny...I am not for or against unions. I am against illegal activities perpetrated by unions, and I am against illegal activities perpetrated against unions. People should be free to peaceably form unions and negotiate. They shouldn't be allowed to monopolize labor channels and keep companies from making progress. I like civil liberties. You'll have to elaborate. I don't understand what you are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 People are making the argument that unions once held a purpose but no longer do. No private militia could hope to compete with America's military. Suffice to say the Iraqi citizenry is much more well armed than America's and if you actually turned the military loose this would have been done in a month. And given that military, we don't need a well armed militia to protect us from foreign invasion. I saw a parallel. Others may disagree. I happen to like both guns and unions so what do I know. Well put. Read below... Funny...I am not for or against unions. I am against illegal activities perpetrated by unions, and I am against illegal activities perpetrated against unions. People should be free to peaceably form unions and negotiate. They shouldn't be allowed to monopolize labor channels and keep companies from making progress. I like civil liberties. Not sure what illegal activities you are talking about. Now my, perhaps bias opinion: (Dam...I swore I'd never do this again! Preaching to the choir... Start w/ a *sigh*, as these posts remind me of how Aqua, Skippy, and I all stood side by side defending a passion of ours...UNIONS!!! There were others, but we took the flak. My thoughts: Any ballot that is not private is crapolla! That RIGHT is AMERICA! No one should be able to over see how someone votes on anything! Unions have been part of the problem, true. But w/o them we would be a slave nation. Most of you (non-union people) can never imagine what our country would be w/o them, because you are living by many of the standards they set. Unions don't control the product. Like the recent entries of muscle cars and SUVs into a market where gas is $$$! What are these people thinking?? Unions don't fill Sky boxes at the Super Bowl. Unions would NOT exist if they weren't needed. Our country was thriving when unions were powerful. A stretch, but true. The day unions die, get used to saying to your boss "Hi comrad!. Would you like your butt licked?". I'm done. YES I am VERY pro union, and although they may have created some problems, they have solved more. You will never understand that until you have worked in a non-union shop vs a union shop. Years past, perhaps, but most non-union shops today fashioned themselves from what the union shops did over many..many years. Unions set the standard. That goes for teaching also. Every level!!! Go ahead...shake my tree! If I fall out, my union brothers will catch me. Who do you have to catch YOU! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Great post up there Club. I am way too tired to get real into this. I have suffered the loss of a 21 year old nephew the other day and many things have been crazy in my life for the last week. One of those things has been managing work with some crazy storms that came though a week ago so with all that said, I just am not ready to do the whole Union vs Anti Union thing. Here is what I will add. Yes there are bad things possible about a Union but in my own personal experience of being a part of a union for 23 years, I have not seen many things that worried me. In fact, I could go on and on with things that my union has done in those 23 years that protected rights of workers. Nothing unreasonable ever that I can remember and moreover my employer has used agreed union verbiage to their benefit many times. Never have we strong armed the employer into a contract and I am NOT overpaid. In fact I make slightly less than contractors working outside of my employment. I knew when I took this job that I would make less but work conditions are much better so the trade off at the time was a no brainer. It is not the same no brainer today as most young guys go for the money and for the new guys it is not just a slight difference but more like 3 to 4 dollars an hour difference. Those young guys don't see the work conditions the same way as I do with the exception of maybe 1 in every 20. Anyway, my feeling is that if I was the company I would not want a Union as that just means that I would not be totally free to do what I want when I want to any employee for any reason. That could be hard for a company to work around as it takes better planning and better management to run the labor. What I mean is that that are retail stores that I know of that will have an employee punch out in the middle of the day for two hours to save those two hours for when the truck shows up that needs unloaded. Thus they avoid any chance of overtime but they pretty much turn what should be an eight hour work day into some drawn out 10 or 12 hour day but that same guy only gets paid for 8 hours. Also in the same exact vain that same retail operation would chop one hour a day from each employee and only have them work 6.5 or 7. Then they would have them work a sixth day to unload the trucks so that they could get their 40 hours. That is just one small example but in that example that would never fly with my shop. Hours are set and only in the case of an emergency are they altered. Otherwise there must be a seven day notice to change a work shift. Also, you hours run back to back from the time you start. None of this punching out for a few hours so you can stay a few hours when they feel they will need you more at the end of your shift. Again, that comes down to management. If they are doing the job that management should be doing then they simply schedule the work force at the times that they are going to be needed. And when I go in on that sixth day, it is overtime. That is never a question and the employer knows that. In fact when I work 10 hours, 2 of them are overtime and the employer knows this well ahead of time. What I think is that my employer and my union get along pretty well. My union has done okay for me but those that think that being in a union means you will be overpaid and under worked are way mistaking. Having seen what companies do to people that are unorganized in the trades vs organized means that I would never work without a union in place. If all the companies were these real nice do gooder’s that always treated employees fairly without taking advantage of them, then I would be in support of getting rid of every union in the US. However, we all know that is far from the way it is. Okay, that is way more than I planned on typing and I hope it makes some sense from this tired out union worker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Great post up there Club. I am way too tired to get real into this. I have suffered the loss of a 21 year old nephew the other day and many things have been crazy in my life for the last week. One of those things has been managing work with some crazy storms that came though a week ago so with all that said, I just am not ready to do the whole Union vs Anti Union thing. Here is what I will add. Yes there are bad things possible about a Union but in my own personal experience of being a part of a union for 23 years, I have not seen many things that worried me. In fact, I could go on and on with things that my union has done in those 23 years that protected rights of workers. Nothing unreasonable ever that I can remember and moreover my employer has used agreed union verbiage to their benefit many times. Never have we strong armed the employer into a contract and I am NOT overpaid. In fact I make slightly less than contractors working outside of my employment. I knew when I took this job that I would make less but work conditions are much better so the trade off at the time was a no brainer. It is not the same no brainer today as most young guys go for the money and for the new guys it is not just a slight difference but more like 3 to 4 dollars an hour difference. Those young guys don't see the work conditions the same way as I do with the exception of maybe 1 in every 20. Anyway, my feeling is that if I was the company I would not want a Union as that just means that I would not be totally free to do what I want when I want to any employee for any reason. That could be hard for a company to work around as it takes better planning and better management to run the labor. What I mean is that that are retail stores that I know of that will have an employee punch out in the middle of the day for two hours to save those two hours for when the truck shows up that needs unloaded. Thus they avoid any chance of overtime but they pretty much turn what should be an eight hour work day into some drawn out 10 or 12 hour day but that same guy only gets paid for 8 hours. Also in the same exact vain that same retail operation would chop one hour a day from each employee and only have them work 6.5 or 7. Then they would have them work a sixth day to unload the trucks so that they could get their 40 hours. That is just one small example but in that example that would never fly with my shop. Hours are set and only in the case of an emergency are they altered. Otherwise there must be a seven day notice to change a work shift. Also, you hours run back to back from the time you start. None of this punching out for a few hours so you can stay a few hours when they feel they will need you more at the end of your shift. Again, that comes down to management. If they are doing the job that management should be doing then they simply schedule the work force at the times that they are going to be needed. And when I go in on that sixth day, it is overtime. That is never a question and the employer knows that. In fact when I work 10 hours, 2 of them are overtime and the employer knows this well ahead of time. What I think is that my employer and my union get along pretty well. My union has done okay for me but those that think that being in a union means you will be overpaid and under worked are way mistaking. Having seen what companies do to people that are unorganized in the trades vs organized means that I would never work without a union in place. If all the companies were these real nice do gooder’s that always treated employees fairly without taking advantage of them, then I would be in support of getting rid of every union in the US. However, we all know that is far from the way it is. Okay, that is way more than I planned on typing and I hope it makes some sense from this tired out union worker. Good post, my friend! A different prospective from mine, which is good, but none the less pertinent! I couldn't agree more w/ the text I bolded above! Good stuff. I'm very sorry for your loss! 21yo...Dam! My deepest sympathy. rr26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.