[LANMaster]

Loveland, Colo., Wal-Mart Workers Reject Union
Workers Would Have Been First Wal-Mart Employees To Belong To Union



link

LOVELAND, Colo. -- A group of Wal-Mart workers in Loveland voted overwhelmingly to reject a plan to unionize.

The workers at a Wal-Mart Tire and Lube Express voted 17-1 against the plan to start a union.

Earlier this week, a rally was held to support the workers. Wal-Mart had tried to block Friday's vote, but the National Labor Relations Board ruled in favor of the workers last month.

Wal-Mart argued that the tire and lube department is only one part of the store and isn't eligible for its own union. Supporters of a union say they're specially trained, and work in a separate area of the store.

If the employees had voted to unionize, it would have been the first Wal-Mart store in the nation to unionize a department.

This was just the second union vote ever to occur at a Wal-Mart store in the United States.

Texas meatcutters held a union vote in 2000. Wal-Mart then eliminated that job throughout the company, but officials said it had nothing to do with the election.

Wal-Mart has announced plans to close a store in Quebec because of what it calls unreasonable demands by workers in negotiating the first-ever union contract with the world's largest retailer.

That store will close in May.

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

This was just the second union vote ever to occur at a Wal-Mart store in the United States.

Texas meatcutters held a union vote in 2000. Wal-Mart then eliminated that job throughout the company, but officials said it had nothing to do with the election.

Wal-Mart has announced plans to close a store in Quebec because of what it calls unreasonable demands by workers in negotiating the first-ever union contract with the world's largest retailer.

That store will close in May.

Given these two examples, is it any wonder that they voted against unionisation? Wal-Mart is hardly being supportive of anyone who considers starting a union.

Alex

[Wino]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

Given these two examples, is it any wonder that they voted against unionisation? Wal-Mart is hardly being supportive of anyone who considers starting a union.

Alex

Good for Walmart!!!

[Wet Chicken]

If they really want to bring in the unions then they need to organize and unionize statewide. Then Wally would be powerless

[Mulderator]

I took the deposition of a guy today--union guy. He claims he hurt his shoulder in an accident with my client. He tells the cop he wasn't injured, but after he gets home and has time to think about it, suddenly his shoulder starts bothering him! He stays off of work for 6 months! As it turns out, he is being paid $550 a week in disability and $250 a week from his union. The $250 a week from the union stopped after 6 months (are you starting to follow this? ). He tells me that things started getting tight when his union stipend stopped--then he went back to work and coincidentally that is when his shoulder got better!

He told me he couldn't lift his arm above his shoulder although the doctor's notes (which he really doesn't think about when he's testifiying) indicate he had full range of motion every time he examined him! The doctor kept giving him disability slips based on his subjective complaints of pain. Unfortunately, many doctors will give people disability for as long as they want it, regardless of whether there are any objective signs of disability (i.e., limited range of motion).

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I took the deposition of a guy today--union guy. He claims he hurt his shoulder in an accident with my client. He tells the cop he wasn't injured, but after he gets home and has time to think about it, suddenly his shoulder starts bothering him! He stays off of work for 6 months! As it turns out, he is being paid $550 a week in disability and $250 a week from his union. The $250 a week from the union stopped after 6 months (are you starting to follow this? ). He tells me that things started getting tight when his union stipend stopped--then he went back to work and coincidentally that is when his shoulder got better!

He told me he couldn't lift his arm above his shoulder although the doctor's notes (which he really doesn't think about when he's testifiying) indicate he had full range of motion every time he examined him! The doctor kept giving him disability slips based on his subjective complaints of pain. Unfortunately, many doctors will give people disability for as long as they want it, regardless of whether there are any objective signs of disability (i.e., limited range of motion).

So,you are trying to make a case that Union membership makes you a crook? ---lowlife person?. Save it for those who believe that organized workers are criminally inclined .
I have seen people in all walks of life trying to get something for nothing-- Company execs--rich, and even lawyers
Dishonesty isnt owned by workers --- and its increasingly obvious.>f

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by Mulder

He tells the cop he wasn't injured, but after he gets home and has time to think about it, suddenly his shoulder starts bothering him!

If you knew anything about injuries such as this then you would know that it can take up to several months before some injures surface. Maybe one day God will teach you this, and then you won't have to roll your eyes

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

So,you are trying to make a case that Union membership makes you a crook? ---lowlife person?. Save it for those who believe that organized workers are criminally inclined .
I have seen people in all walks of life trying to get something for nothing-- Company execs--rich, and even lawyers
Dishonesty isnt owned by workers --- and its increasingly obvious.>f

You are correct that dishonesty is not limited to any one class of people, but my point the system is designed to encourage slovenly behavior. The amount the union paid this guy in addition to his disability closed the gap between what he would have made working (about $900 a week) and what he was getting from disability.

Last week I took a deposition of a guy who had a total hip replacement surgery and was back at work in 3 months. He could not afford to be off any longer with the amount he received for disability--he was not a union worker and did not have the additional $1000 a month.

Point is that I see this over and over and over again--when people are paid the same for anywhere close to the same as what they could make working, most won't work--its just human nature--it is why socialism and liberalism always fail. If it were up to Fidelista or Xico or DN, you people would make sure disability and welfare, etc. were enough for people to live comfortably on. While we all would like that for the people who really need it the bottom line is that you increase the numbers exponentionally.

As an example, if we said that anyone who doesn't want to work can instead simply sign and affidavit saying they did not want to work and the government would pay them $20,000 a year. How many people do you think would take advantage of that?

This guy was getting from disability a salary equal to $28,600 a year (after taxes!!!!). That in itself to me is too much (but that's liberal California for you! ), but then the union stipend bumped him up to $41,600 a year to stay home and do nothing. You don't have to be a friggin genious to figure out that you give most union guys or girls that kind of money (most hate their jobs anyway) they are going to "milk" whatever injury they have for as much as they can.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

If you knew anything about injuries such as this then you would know that it can take up to several months before some injures surface. Maybe one day God will teach you this, and then you won't have to roll your eyes

Soft tissue injury would show up in 48 hours. Any damage to the bones, ligaments, tendons etc etc would be almost immediate.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

If you knew anything about injuries such as this then you would know that it can take up to several months before some injures surface. Maybe one day God will teach you this, and then you won't have to roll your eyes

Your barking up the wrong tree--I do this for a living so I know far far more about this than you do. Just about every doctor I've ever deposed will tell you that traumatic soft tissue injury may take up to 12 hours to manifest itself and in some circumstances up to 24 hours. The typical scenario is a person in an accident wakes up the next day very sore and stiff. It is biologically impossible for a traumatic injury to take several months before symptoms manifest themselves--that is just plain ridiculous.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Your barking up the wrong tree--I do this for a living so I know far far more about this than you do. Just about every doctor I've ever deposed will tell you that traumatic soft tissue injury may take up to 12 hours to manifest itself and in some circumstances up to 24 hours. The typical scenario is a person in an accident wakes up the next day very sore and stiff. It is biologically impossible for a traumatic injury to take several months before symptoms manifest themselves--that is just plain ridiculous.

I just said that. Geez follow along with the conversation!

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Any damage to the bones, ligaments, tendons etc etc would be almost immediate.

You are playing with words Just because it may be 'damaged' doesn't necessarily mean that it will be sensed, especially if there is nerve damage at the spinal cord.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I do this for a living so I know far far more about this than you do.

Just about every doctor I've ever deposed will tell you that traumatic soft tissue injury may take up to 12 hours to manifest itself and in some circumstances up to 24 hours.

Well then you need to depose a doctor that has graduated from medical school

It is biologically impossible for a traumatic injury to take several months before symptoms manifest themselves

[Mulderator]

The accident occurred on January 2. Here is how I reported the injury in my initial evaluation (in part):

An MRI to rule out rotator cuff tear of the right shoulder was performed at St. Mary’s on March 6, 2003. The report notes that the reason for the MRI was severe right shoulder pain with decreased range of motion. The results were (1) findings consistent with tendonitis of the supraspinatus and (2) marked arthrosis with hypertrophy of the acromioclavicular joint and narrowing of the subacrominal space.

Plaintiff was next seen by Dr. ***** on March 13, 2003. He was still complaining of right shoulder pain. No specific tenderness was present on palpation. Range of motion was normal. Impingement sign was positive. Neck examination was within normal limits. The brief description of the MRI results was "AC arthritis and supraspinatus tendinitis." A corticosteroid injection was given.

If you know anything about medicine, you would know that is a classic repretetive injury condition. This guy has been working with his arms over his head (he's a pipe-fitter) day in and day out for 35 years. He is going to have chronic shoulder problems and arthritis and narrowing of the subacromonial space is NOT going to occur in a few months--that takes years to develop. He has no specific tenderness--that is a classic chronic condition--if it were an acute injury, he would have a specific area of tenderness. The range of motion of his shoulder was normal--this 2 and a half months after the accident--if he range of motion is normal, he has no acute injury. He should have been sent back to work at that time, but remained off for another 3 and half months--until his union stipend stopped.

Is there anyone here who would accept that it was reasonable for this guy to be off work for 6 months?

Bottom line is this guy is doing what most of the people do in my cases and that is blame years of wear and tear on their bodies on single acute events (i.e., accidents) so they can make some money. What is disconcerting is some people (almost certainly a jury filled with bleeding heart liberals) actually buy their BS and give them money for conditions that were caused by life, not by and accident.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

You are playing with words Just because it may be 'damaged' doesn't necessarily mean that it will be sensed, especially if there is nerve damage at the spinal cord.

Yes--everyone knows that nerve damage in the spinal cord can't be sensed!

Some of the things you come up with are so ridiculous I wonder if you are yanking our chains or you really believe it.