[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Walmart etc.

Uhhhh? A real reason--Walmart employees consitently vote not to have unions or they would have them despite what your socialist rags tell you--remember--this is a democracy where people decide what they want--not socialists deciding what's good for them!

Again--why do we need them?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Greed. >f

Union greed?

[iltos]

i'm all for some system that recognizes that a company is more than it's owner or a board of directors....that when times are good, everyone benefits a little...when times are lean...well, ya didn't get laid off and you made your wage

[sglv]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

You are blessed .
If this was how things worked , there would be no need of Unions.
>f

Although I agree that Unions were necessary in their day to protect employees, I feel they have severely abused their power in the times of today. My son (16) reaps the benefits of a Union that none of the people I work with, including myself, reap. He pays through the nose for it. That's fine. What appals me more than anything is the daily literature he receives from the Union of who to support, b/c his Union dues support them, and he is paying for it. Don't have a problem with Unions protecting it's work force, but I do have a problem with them using the dues to support candidates that it's members can't vote on. The Union tells them him to vote for (he's not even old enough so it's a waste of money), not the other way around. That, to me, is not democracy.

[sglv]

Originally Posted by Mulder

And many employers have defined profit sharing plans and give out shares of stock. Many of Walmart's long term employees have very very very nice pensions resulting from that sharing of wealth. Its interesting that Walmart catches so much flack because its got lots of long term loyal employees.

We have that too. Our 401k has matched dollar for dollar in the 9 years I've been there, with the exception of last year where we received nothing, but it was a really bad year and we probably lost over $1M.

I certainly don't expect them to "give" me money when the firm has lost money. But that's me, I'm sure other employees (those who have started in the last year or two and not reaped the benefits of the good years) would disagree - and yes, I've heard them disagree. We're in it together. They gain, I gain (that's their motto), they lose, I certainly have no right to gain. I don't know - maybe that's not the way it works, but if it were my business and I lose money, I'm certainly not going to give money I don't have to my employees who helped in those losses (I'd probably be contemplating their termination). Yes, all you socialists, if a company or business is losing money, you have helped them to lose and have certainly not helped them to earn. That's just how I see it - IMNSHO.

[sglv]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Uhhhh? A real reason--Walmart employees consitently vote not to have unions or they would have them despite what your socialist rags tell you--remember--this is a democracy where people decide what they want--not socialists deciding what's good for them!

Again--why do we need them?

Awwwwhhhh Mulder! Haven't you read the reports. Walmart has a t.v. in its break room that is not allowed to be turned off - this is because the "Company" feels that people will spend their time on breaks and lunch watching the television that they won't actually talk to each other and discuss their working conditions ... thereby preventing them from organizing into a Union type mentality. It is only the smokers, who are forced to go outside, who actually talk to each other and discuss their working conditions, and discuss how the Union would be such an asset for them (o.k., I'm 5 days smoke free and really, really cranky).

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by sglv

Although I agree that Unions were necessary in their day to protect employees, I feel they have severely abused their power in the times of today. My son (16) reaps the benefits of a Union that none of the people I work with, including myself, reap. He pays through the nose for it. That's fine. What appals me more than anything is the daily literature he receives from the Union of who to support, b/c his Union dues support them, and he is paying for it. Don't have a problem with Unions protecting it's work force, but I do have a problem with them using the dues to support candidates that it's members can't vote on. The Union tells them him to vote for (he's not even old enough so it's a waste of money), not the other way around. That, to me, is not democracy.

I hear this a lot --"Unions were needed in their day to protect workers" ---what has changed ?.
Has abuse and greed been eliminated from business ?.
There are too many examples to cite , but their are just as many greedy abusive situations today as there was in past.
Many people such as yourself , who are fortunate enough to work for a good company simply will not understand.
Its obvious with your employer sharing profit from success --and other benefits such as matching 401k contributions -- they are treating you very well. I assume you are treated respectfully as well . This is not always the case.
A company like yours is impossible to Unionize , and that is as it should be.
I also agree that in case of company fortunes falling --so should workers take loss. That is done already in many case -- contracts changed by agreement to reflect situation.
There are abuses in every institution -- church --Govt -- business --Union --- it doesn't mean that they should be eliminated. It means it should be cleaned up. Maybe you have not followed the cleansing of corruption in Unions for the last 20 yrs?.
Unions are closely watched.
As far as Unions using dues to pay Washington lobbiest's , well, not perfect , but when business stops, is prevented from same, then you would have a case.. >f

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Uhhhh? A real reason--Walmart employees consitently vote not to have unions or they would have them despite what your socialist rags tell you--remember--this is a democracy where people decide what they want--not socialists deciding what's good for them!

Again--why do we need them?

Of course you are correct , employees must vote for representation--its a democratic process.
The need for Unions is recognized by nearly all civilized nations , esp the Democracies.
The only nations/Govts that repress or make Unions illegal are ..........not free.
Whether Communist , King , or Dictator, they all ask same question "why do we need them".
You might consider why that is.
Mulder, the problem is this, if I viewed the world /nation/ conditions of workers/ based on my personal situation --I would be blind.
I have retirement -- investments-- good salary-- medical -- and work with good people.
Live in nice home --drive nice cars-- have money to throw away. If I based my views on my success and that of my friends , I would have a similar view to yours, and miss much.
It would be easy to do if not for fact that other situations are in my face everyday, my job.
Too many people who are in my position assume that everyone is treated as well.
They are not. >f

[sy2]

Originally Posted by sglv

Awwwwhhhh Mulder! Haven't you read the reports. Walmart has a t.v. in its break room that is not allowed to be turned off - this is because the "Company" feels that people will spend their time on breaks and lunch watching the television that they won't actually talk to each other and discuss their working conditions ... thereby preventing them from organizing into a Union type mentality. It is only the smokers, who are forced to go outside, who actually talk to each other and discuss their working conditions, and discuss how the Union would be such an asset for them (o.k., I'm 5 days smoke free and really, really cranky).

That is complete and utter crap, so I hope it was said facetiously.

My job takes me to the receiving area (back room) of 4-5 Wal-Marts every day and there is no lack of employees on break talking to each other. Most employees know their co-workers by name, at least in my experience of locating particular managers, finding the receivers, etc...

I usually walk in and ask the first person I see, "Hey is Dan from dept. 82 in today?" Or "Is Amy in dept. 95 working?" (those are the depts. I deal with) and 19 times out of 20 whoever I ask knows exactly who I'm talking about and whether or not they're working.

[sglv]

Originally Posted by sy2

That is complete and utter crap, so I hope it was said facetiously.

My job takes me to the receiving area (back room) of 4-5 Wal-Marts every day and there is no lack of employees on break talking to each other. Most employees know their co-workers by name, at least in my experience of locating particular managers, finding the receivers, etc...

I usually walk in and ask the first person I see, "Hey is Dan from dept. 82 in today?" Or "Is Amy in dept. 95 working?" (those are the depts. I deal with) and 19 times out of 20 whoever I ask knows exactly who I'm talking about and whether or not they're working.

Actually, it is in a book of some woman who decided to write about living on minimum and if she could do it. Can't remember the name, it's packed away somewhere.

I don't have a problem with non-union shops, just like I don't have a problem with union shops. Some people do believe they help them, others believe it's all its own for of bs they have to deal with.

But I think the point of the original post is since Speaker Pelosi is so gung-ho about the people being protected by organized labor unions, why isn't she herself walking the walk?