buddha bear, about your union...

“It must be a different guy. Union dudes would have buried this guy a long time ago.”

“Arkansas' Governor has proposed merit pay for teachers in the State. The union is opposed to merit pay.

Doing a good job gets you the same pay as doing nothing. It is the union way. How is that for motivation?”

“that is the union way backpac...if billy bob gets a raise, i should get a raise...if sally sue takes an extra 10 minuts for lunch i should get 10 too”

“Socialism.”

“See merit pay is a good thing in some ways. My firm gives out big bonuses based on performance. It aslo a huge benefit to the employer, as its dependant on how much cash they have, and is not seen as an essential cost.
The trouble is that you just can't count on it. Better to have the cash written down on paper.”

“Hey thrifty, if joe smuck gets reprimanded (and/or fired) should you all get reprimanded (and/or fired)?”

“hyway, i meant the figurative I...i'm not a fan of unions...plus there is no reprimands in unions LOL”

“Union Leaders on Trial for Racketeering and Extortion Plead Guilty

By DAVID STABA
Published: August 2, 2006
BUFFALO, Aug. 1 — For more than three decades, leaders of a powerful union used violence and intimidation against contractors, independent workers and even members of other unions to control the construction industry in the Niagara Falls area, according to federal prosecutors, strangling economic development in the process.
On Tuesday, prosecutors declared victory in their long-running war against the union, Local 91 of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, when three of its former officials abruptly pleaded guilty to racketeering charges and a fourth to extortion. Their pleas came in the third week of a federal trial that was expected to last as long as two months and followed vivid testimony of intimidation and violence.

“This has been the most significant F.B.I. criminal investigation in western New York in the past 20 years,” said Laurie Bennett, special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s office here. “I say that because of the widespread violence and the significant and devastating economic loss to the community.”

The local’s former president, Mark Congi, along with Albert Celeste, an assistant business agent, and Paul Bellreng, a steward and picket captain, each admitted to engaging in a racketeering conspiracy. Joel Cicero, the local’s former training director, pleaded guilty to using his position on the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to extort jobs for the union local.

Witnesses in the first days of the trial described threats against themselves and their relatives, slashed tires, vandalism at construction sites and, in one case, explosives thrown through the window of an apartment where nonunion workers from New Jersey were sleeping.

“It wasn’t only the implied threat that you played by the rules of Local 91 or you didn’t do business at all, but there have been documented cases of physical violence, damage to property and intimidation,” Superintendent John R. Chella of the Niagara Falls Police said at a news conference on Tuesday. “The message was clearly sent — either play the game, or pay the price.”

On Thursday, Goran Stevanovich, who was a nonunion worker at an asbestos-removal project in the spring of 1997, described how Local 91 pickets threw steel pipes and other objects at him and his co-workers and shouted threats. He testified that the most chilling one came from Mr. Bellreng.

“ ‘Do you ever ask yourself where are Alexander and Daniella right now?’ ” Mr. Stevanovich quoted Mr. Bellreng as asking him, referring to his two young children.

Several weeks later, Mr. Bellreng said, “Goran, don’t worry. I’m coming tonight to take your head off,” Mr. Stevanovich testified.

That night, two bricks with explosives taped to them crashed through windows at the apartment where Mr. Stevanovich and three others were sleeping. One landed about a foot from his head, with the explosion causing permanent hearing loss in his right ear and burning his bedding, he testified. Four union members later admitted to involvement in the attack, which they said took place on Mr. Congi’s orders. Those union members had agreed to testify against the four union officials.

Mr. Stevanovich testified that the next day, Mr. Bellreng said, “Goran, how was sleeping in the fire last night?”

Shortly after Mr. Stevanovich’s testimony and cross-examination, defense lawyers approached prosecutors and asked to make a plea deal, said Terrance P. Flynn, United States attorney for the Western District of New York.

“I believe they saw the strength of his testimony and became aware of his appeal to the jury and to the public,” Mr. Flynn said.

Witnesses at the trial described a range of job-site vandalism that they ascribed to Local 91 members. A New York state trooper said 220 feet of wood fencing built by a company he ran in his off-duty hours was destroyed after he rebuffed Mr. Congi’s demands to put union workers on the job.

In all, 19 union members were indicted over the last four years. Only one was acquitted. The rest pleaded guilty or were convicted. Most had agreed to testify against the four union officials in the trial that ended on Tuesday.

Mr. Flynn said the lineup of former defendants waiting to testify helped make the defense team’s position untenable.

“You can attack one, but it’s difficult to attack all of them,” he said.

Each of the felony counts carries a potential 20-year prison term. As part of the plea arrangement, prosecutors agreed to ask Judge Richard J. Arcara to sentence Mr. Congi to 15 years, Mr. Celeste and Mr. Bellreng to five years each, and Mr. Cicero to probation.

Mr. Flynn said the local’s threats and reputation for violence hurt the local economy by discouraging businesses. “They just weren’t going to bother with Niagara County,” he said. “It just wasn’t worth the violence, the intimidation and the extra costs.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/nyregion/02union.html


*******************************************


Lovely people you work for, BB.”

“Oh, and visors are gay.”

“UNIONS DEFEND WORKERS AND HELP THE ECONOMY
-by Nathan Newman


It's a funny thing how violently people on this network react to mention
of unions. Unions are a simple thing: a majority of workers in a factory
demand to negotiate with an employer. That's it.

Unlike most institutions, whether church, business, or university, the
leaders of unions are elected democratically by all people who are covered
by its work. Unions come in a lot of different forms: small craft unions
covering only a certain kind of work (Carpenters working in multiple sites
for multiple employers) or covering almost every worker in a company no
matter what they do (like the UAW at GM).

Some union members make a lot of money--the Baseball Players Association
probably has the highest average income of any union in the country.
Others cover employees who make much less, such as Hotel and Restaurant
Employees or janitors working for the Service Employees International Union.

Almost all union leaders are honest (including most local Teamster
leaders); a few, such as the national leadership of the Teamsters a few
years ago and a few locals, have been corrupt, often when the companies
they negotiated with were also corrupt.

Most unions do support Democratic candidates. A very few, notably the
Teamsters, have supported Republican candidates. (An interesting fact
that the most corrupt union was the one that supported the Republicans.
The similarity with Drexel Burnham does not end with indictments). The
Teamsters were thrown out of the AFL-CIO in 1958 because the rest of the
honest unionists did not want to associate with them. It took until 1989
for the Republicans to come to the same conclusion and actually brought a
serious indictment against the national Teamster leadership. Last year, a
new honest national Teamster leadership was elected; they immediately
endorsed a Democrat for President having been freed from
Republican-supported corruption. (Remember, it was Robert Kennedy who
worked to indict Jimmy Hoffa and it was Republican Richard Nixon who gave
him a pardon.)

Some unions are in the private sector, such as autoworkers, janitors, or
truck drivers; some are in the public sector as school teachers, legal
services employees, or bus drivers.

To argue that unions are all corrupt is to argue that tens of millions of
people in all sorts of different professions all choose criminals to
represent them. To argue that is to show contempt for democracy. Workers
are capable of electing honest leaders and they do so every day of the
week in unions across the country.

Without unions, workers don't elect corrupt leaders; they have no right to
vote at all. They have no voice in the companies they work in. Unions
give workers a right to bargain collectively for rights in the workplace
and for a decent wage.


BUT DON'T UNIONS HURT THE ECONOMY? No...

Let's look at the economic facts comparing heavily unionized countries
verus the US.

The US has one of the lowest unionization rates among industrialized
countries. Where 16.4% of workers are unionized in the US, 26.8% are
unionized in Japan and 33.8% are unionized in Germany. Sweden, with one
of the highest standards of living in the world and one of the lowest
unemployment rates over the last 20 years, has a 85.3% unionization rate.

Note that with a lower unionization rate, the US had the highest drop in
manufacturing employment of those countries (over 30% drop in
manufacturing employment. Germany lost only 7.8% of its manufacturing
employment, while Japan gained 13.6%

The US also had the lowest productivity gain in all sectors of the economy
over the last twenty years.

In the US, 40% of manufacturing employees have to change jobs in each
year. Only 25% of German workers have to seek out a new job each year,
and only 18% of Swedish and Japanese workers switch jobs.

Unions keep managers from being overpaid relative to average workers:
In the US, a CEO makes 17.5 times as much as the average worker.
In Japan, a CEO makes only 11.6 times as much.
In Germany, a CEO makes only 6.5 times as much.


Politically, strong unions fight for benefits for all workers:

The strongest union country, Sweden, has average paid maternity leave of
32 weeks, while Germany and Japan have an average of 14 weeks paid
maternity leave. And the US: an average of zero (0) weeks of paid
maternity leave.

US employers spend almost nothing on job training in
the US (only about $10 billion a year by employers out of a $5.5 trillion
economy). The US government spends only a bit more, about 0.25% of GDP on
labor training programs.

In Germany, the government spends 1.05% of GNP on training and Sweden
spends 1.79% of GDP on job training (and private employers in both
countries are much more committed to job training, as is Japan).


So, the evidence is quite clear, high unionization rates do not correspond
to low productivity rates. International comparisons show that unions
often increase productivity by encouraging (forcing) employers to include
workers in improving the product. That is the history in Japan where a
massive unionization and strike wave there in the post-war period led to
employers conceding life-time employment and strong job training in order
to defuse the radical union movements pressure. In Germany, union leaders
serve on their companies board of directors and help push for productivity
increases and more intelligent production methods.


Unions are about democracy for workers. Increasing democracy in all our
institutions is not a detriment; it's a plus for any society.

Anyone can pick out this local event and this conflict with this group of
workers in a union; that says nothing about unions as a whole.

The most incompetent industry of the 1980s was the Savings and Loan
industry, one of the least unionized sectors of the economy. Unions, by
increasing wages, force companies to upgrade productivity in order to make
higher wages pay off.

In a world economy, we will inevitably lose low-wage jobs to other
countries. If companies are allowed to pay low wages this year, they will
not invest in new technology to increase productivity. Why invest when
you can make profits off the backs of low-wage workers?

Only by supporting a high-wage, high-skill workforce will we be
competitive. And high wages come from strong workers rights and unions.

--Nathan Newman: newman@garnet.berkeley.edu
Council for a Democratic Economy
UC-Berkeley”

“Got a recession? Get a union.
So concludes a report by a surprising source: the World Bank, the global financial authority whose lending policies have historically tended to place it at odds with organized labor.
The report, "Unions and Collective Bargaining: Economic Effects in a Global Environment," analyzed more than 1,000 studies o­n unions and pay settlements. It found that high unionization rates can lead to lower unemployment and inflation rates, higher productivity and faster adjustment to economic shocks.

"This report reinforces everything we in the labor movement have been saying for years," said IBEW International President Edwin D. Hill. "I’m glad to see the World Bank is catching o­n to ideas that have for so long been fundamental to our way of life."

Union members in rich and poor countries earn significantly more money than workers who do not belong to a union. In the United States, the study said wages are 15 percent higher and in other industrialized countries they are up to 10 percent higher. The AFL-CIO has put the union advantage at an average of 25 percent higher in the United States and 30 percent for women and minorities.

"A well-functioning labor market is essential for solid economic performance as well as future economic growth and for the well-being of workers and their families," said a summary of the report o­n the World Bank web site at www.worldbank.org .


The report said union members receive more training, work fewer hours and have longer job tenure o­n average than non-union workers. Countries with a history of wage bargaining have "less persistent unemployment and fewer and shorter strikes," the study said.

The World Bank plays a major role in shaping the global economy by setting, implementing and enforcing rules governing international trade, often benefiting multinational corporations at the expense of sustainable development, workers and the environment. It has been criticized by the international labor community for promoting policies that roll back workers’ rights, reduce real wages, privatize and deregulate public services and mire poor countries in debt.”

“BOO gay visor!



HOORAY beer!!


last edited: 8/02/06 11:54:14 AM”

“Labor Unions

Gallup Poll. Aug. 8-11, 2005. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions?"

.

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
8/8-11/05 58 33 9
8/04 59 34 7
8/03 65 29 6
8/02 58 33 9
8/01 60 32 8
8/99 65 28 7
3/99 66 29 5
8/97 60 31 9
7/91 60 30 10
7/86 59 30 11
1/78 59 31 10
9/67 66 23 11
10/58 64 21 15
7/47 64 25 11
1936 72 20 8
.



"Thinking about the future, do you think labor unions in this country will become stronger than they are today, the same as today, or weaker than they are today?" Options rotated

.

Stronger Same Weaker Unsure
% % % %
8/8-11/05 19 25 53 3
8/04 21 34 41 4
8/02 23 35 36 6
8/01 24 30 40 6
8/99 25 28 44 3
.

"Would you, personally, like to see labor unions in the United States have more influence than they have today, the same amount as today, or less influence than they have today?" Options rotated

.

More Same Less Unsure
% % % %
8/8-11/05 38 29 30 3
8/04 29 36 32 3
8/02 27 36 31 6
8/01 30 35 31 4
8/99 30 36 32 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Gallup Poll. Aug. 4-6, 2003. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.

"Overall, do you think labor unions mostly help or mostly hurt [see below]?"

Help Hurt No
Opinion
% % %
"Workers who are members of unions"

8/03 76 20 4
.

"The U.S. economy in general"

8/03 54 38 8
.

"Workers who are not members of unions"

8/03 36 54 10
.

"The companies where workers are unionized"

8/03 58 35 7”

“So BB is A OK with his Union Brother's actions.
Figures, I'm sure they are all GOOD Democrats.
[VBG]”

“Troll stirrin' up trouble.......

Get them hammeroids tied off a'fore ya say somethin' nasty and hurt somebody's feelings.”

“MarkO approves of his Union Brother's actions also.
[VBG]”

“Ha ha, YOU tryin' to pick a fight again?

I don't hit girls.”

“I understand why you support Unions, MarkO.
Your current job would be minimum wage without it.”

“Elitist??

(dude must have a really sore ass today)

”

“You work for the County or City government, MarkO?

Your Union dues go directly to Union Bosses like the one's that just admitted to threating children.
last edited: 8/02/06 1:11:41 PM”

“Troll, troll, troll yer boat.........

You are an insulting puke............as usual.”

“SS's puke is salty? I don't even wanna know...”

“Are all unions bad or are all corporations bad? I’m so confused.”

“Shut up Zac, we're hurling on one another here!!”

“Neither BB or MarkO seem to think Union thugs threatening children is a bad thing.
That's the point.”

“Ha ha!!

I'm tellin' the teacher!!

Oh wait..........teacher's pet.......rats!!”

“Dang MarkO! You really were dropped on your head multiple times as a child. ;-)”

“'Buddy-punching' of timecards is OK, union backers tell council
By Rob O'Dell
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 09.07.2006

A group of union advocates and employees had a message Wednesday for City Council: "buddy-punching" of timecards is OK, and city employees recently disciplined for it were wronged.
About 60 people clad in their green union shirts, many city sanitation workers, told the council that buddy- punching was allowed by supervisors.
The city completed an investigation last week in which 18 employees were reprimanded, including two who were fired, for buddy-punching. That's when a supervisor punches the timecards of workers after they go home, giving them credit for time not worked.
Sanitation workers and union representatives said it was a common practice that had gone on for years in the city's Environmental Services Department.
City officials acknowledged as much, but said the two supervisors who were fired, the three supervisors who were suspended and the 13 sanitation workers reprimanded were told the practice was against city policy but they continued to do it.
Sanitation worker Wanda Felix, flanked by her children, said a former supervisor in the department installed the system "so people could go home to be with their families."
Alan Lee, the administrator for the local chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union that represents the city's blue-collar employees, said the practice is OK, but employees shouldn't do it if it's against city policies.
Don Slaiman, the national representative for the AFL-CIO based in Phoenix, said the city employees' "reputations have been besmirched in newspapers." He also said the practice was acceptable.
"These people are just very good at their work," Slaiman said of their reason for leaving early. "I don't see why they can't go home."
The council took no action because the employees and union officials spoke during public comment.


http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/145557.php”

“Tisk tisk. In this month's copy of Reason magazine they have a flow chart of what schools must do in order to fire bad teachers in NYC. It's four pages long. Did you know they have teachers that sit around and play cards, sleep and read all day? It costs so much to get rid of trouble teachers it's cheaper to dump them all together and hang out while getting paid than it is to fire them.”

“Teachers in Detroit are on strike in violation of state law and are still walking the line even though their students (who more than anyone need an education) are supposed to be in class this week. The law is clear that the individuals striking can be fired and/or fined. A judge is supposed to rule this week.

Firing teachers or any employee in a union shop is not hard at all. Its actually easy. The union contract is a defined rule book. If management follows to the letter the agreed upon contract language for discipline and termination its gravy. The union cannot do squat ,an arbitrator has to see a violation of contract or passed practice or violation of labor law. The prob is managment is not thourough and rushes their cases.

A saavy boss will befriend union leaders. A saavy boss will understand that most unions and their leadership dont want to haul "dead wood". A saavy boss will read the contract to see what the steps MUST be followed. A saavy boss is thorough and detail oriented. A saavy boss builds his/her case using the union discipline policy as its framework.

For better or worse few bosses are saavy. Few understand the process.”

“Birch,

You've got it. There is almost always a way.

I've been amazed by the lack of planning on the part of the Detroit Public Schools for this strike.

They tried to open the schools, but proved that they couldn't do it without the teachers.

So, sure there's a law. But then there's reality. Enforcement of that law is now a negotiating point.”

“RL, I too am astounded at DPS not predicting this. the DFT has staged illegal strikes numerous times since PA112 barred strikes.”

“Birch is right about poor management keeping crummy workers in thier jobs. Every contract I have to enforce has a defined process that allows management to discipline workers for just cause. Unfortunately, most managers suck, don't follow the procedures, and allow people like me, who are legally obligated to defend and represent my clients to the best of my ability, to win thier jobs back, or lessen the punishment. Managers regularly "play favorites", and let thier favorite employees get away with the same crap they are firing thier non-favorites for (creating a form of past practice, or a mutually agreeded upon practice/procedure that sets a precedent in dealing with a situation or scenario), or are too lazy to follow procedures, allowing me to nail them on a technicality.

As a result, bad managers are much more dangerous/cost deficient than bad workers.

As for Stovie's post, I won't go into it, he's too dense to understand the explanation, and I don't have time to explain it. For those interested in the Union's arguement, the next time ya see me on a trip, bring it up, there's actually pretty interesting case law behind past practices and the unwritten agreements between labor and management.

And Nigal, all you need is just cause and due process to fire somebody, unless it's for some stupid little thing, then you need several of those to fire somebody. It shouldn't cost much, because all you need to do, as management, is keep accurate records, be consistant in your dealings with employees, and present a good arguement during arbitration. If those procedures are followed, most contracts have clauses that mandate the loser of the case pay the expenses, except for management legal fees.

Peace-out”

“You should stop by the news stand and pick up this month's reason Magazine and check the article out. in one case it cost the school district some $350,000 to get rid of one bad teacher.”

“BB, why do you union Thugs oppose secret elections for positions? I mean when they try to pass a bill in the house that allows the union employees to vote for or against something with the same privacy as a normal election you guys oppose it.

UNIONs like the Buggy Whip, great when we needed it....”

“You've missed the point Nigal.”

“A *girl* in a political thread!?!? Oh my.”

“Got that saw off your tongue yet, Bubba Bear?”

“XL, here is a clip from the AFSMCE international unions election manual. I have participated in 5 elections, all have been done as required by the manual.
http://www.afscme.org/publications/1988.cfm

Its worth noting that anything I post here is not to be misconstrued. I am in union office (pres of 450 plus members) BUT I am anxiously counting down the days till my term is up. I will walk away, never look back and will be all the better for it. Union stuff just isnt my thang. Too much babysitting, handholding and solving problems that never should have been.


The boogeyman isnt union elections, its union cultural attitudes.
last edited: 9/08/06 11:28:42 AM”

“Thank you birch you made my point.”

“XL, what point did I make for you? You said that unions dont allow secret ballots, I showed that its a requirement for AFSCME and that is how its done.”

“well the detoit teachers union decided to stop breaking state law (has been for two wks) and go back to work. They signed a 3 year deal. I was really hoping for a court ruling against them.

I find it crazy that folks who are supposed to set the example for kids decided to set the example that its okay to break laws you dont like. Too bad. I was hoping for whopping fines as the law mandates. That way the law breakers can be punished and the state can decide wether it needs to revisit the law.

On a lighter note I got a call from a custodian today who thinks he's being harassed. He didnt clean up paint in a sink and on a soap dispenser (the 4year old were finger painting) and the teacher took pics to show his boss. The custodian made his own pics(photo copies) to support his harassment case (his words, not mine). I advised him that having pictures that prove you didnt do the required work may not be the strongest case builder.”

“teachers, who work for the government, and any other government worker, should not be allowed to unionize

union government? think about it...

the government is supposed to work for the people - unions lobby - unions fight for higher wages (taxes) - it's unbelieveable it is legal in this country!!!”

“I know, collective bargaining lifts people out of poverty, and we just can't have that!

Joe:
Duty of Fair Representation
The obligation of unions to represent its members in a fair and impartial manner without invidious discrimination.

read more about it here”

“So Bubba Bear would have blindly defended the custodian that did not do his job.

Figures.

Perfect example of what is wrong with unions.
[VBG]”

“LOL...Unions are now specialists in ensuring mediocrity.

I have an example of how UNIONS lift people out of poverty.

In 1972 (I think) The Asphalt Haulers for a Refinery in Mt. Pleasant Texas decided to unionize. At the time there were something like 36 and they were paid above the average (for other haulers) for their work and had good benefits. Well the organized and went to bargaining. Five years later the Refinery laid the last Trucker off. REASON...it cost less to hire independents (LOL)....YEP UNIONS lifted those guys out of GOOD PAYING jobs to NO work.”

“Birch!

I do think that contracts are best settled amicably.

But, it took about a week for the Detroit teachers to get a contract via a strike.

What has happened since the no strike law was instituted is that a lot of problems linger without being solved.

There are many districts in this state that have gone years without a contract because there is no pressure to settle.

So, I'm not sure that a no strike law really solves anything. And I'm not sure that a no strike law is in the best interests of kids.”

“Heck it solved the problem for PATCO (LOL) I actually had an out of work ATC apply for a management job with me in the 1980's I looked at his resume and we started talking...then I turned and showed the photo of Me and Reagan shaking hands...LOL he left.”

“RL, I agree. I want the law to go back to court to be fought out and to see if it holds up. Personally I think the law is crap, BUT since its the law it ought to be obeyed.

The sad part is that some of the most arguably needy kids in Michigan have been caught as the victims of the district and teachers fight. In addition to that, so many of these kids have such crappy fractured lives and the only consistent role models they have are educators, who have a far greater role in Detroit than in any other regions. Not only to teach but to be a role model in terms of conduct etc. The DFT failed at that. I would pull my kid from my district if the teachers pulled this. Its always about the kids in every argument except when it comes to paychecks.

The real issue is the headley amendment though. That is what needs fixing first and foremost.”