# Board finds Texas scaffolding company unlawfully fired striking workers



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> *Board finds Texas scaffolding company unlawfully fired striking workers*
> 
> 
> The National Labor Relations Board has found that a Texas scaffolding contractor unlawfully discharged 77 employees in retaliation for their participation in a peaceful work stoppage.
> ...


They should be Fired if they cannot do what their told and get the job done.

They were hired to do a job and because they left their posts they were fired. 

So the decision by the board is 100% wrong..:no:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> They should be Fired if they cannot do what their told and get the job done.
> 
> They were hired to do a job and because they left their posts they were fired.
> 
> So the decision by the board is 100% wrong..:no:


But for grievences and peaceful protest they are allowed to strike. It's a protected activity.
Should the company not listen to what the men have to say? 100 guys, there has to be a real issue. Right?


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> But for grievences and peaceful protest they are allowed to strike. It's a protected activity.
> Should the company not listen to what the men have to say? 100 guys, there has to be a real issue. Right?


 Not if its 1842, and Harry is the owner of the plantation.

I think he missed his chance to be someones master by being born to late, and it really bothers him.:laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> *
> 
> The National Labor Relations Board has found that a Texas scaffolding contractor unlawfully discharged 77 employees in retaliation for their participation in a peaceful work stoppage. *


*

Who would have thought, IMAGINE that the NLRB takes a stance that is ALWAYS PRO WORKER.:blink:*


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

brian john said:


> Who would have thought, IMAGINE that the NLRB takes a stance that is ALWAYS PRO WORKER.:blink:


 Its a good thing people like us have a voice that can be heard, isn't it John?


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Yea it make complete sense for the employees to decide their pay rate and benefits. It makes complete sense they can refuse to work during a scheduled work day and hold up a shut down. :blink:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

lefleuron said:


> Not if its 1842, and Harry is the owner of the plantation.
> 
> I think he missed his chance to be someones master by being born to late, and it really bothers him.:laughing:


Okay Leftwingron you should read history instead of letting someone tell you what history was.

But hey you like living on your knees for your Union plantation masters.


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Okay Leftwingron you should read history instead of letting someone tell you what history was.
> 
> But hey you like living on your knees for your Union plantation masters.


Look how mad this old idiot is.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> Who would have thought, IMAGINE that the NLRB takes a stance that is ALWAYS PRO WORKER.:blink:


https://www.nlrb.gov/news/workers-r...th-carolina-vote-against-union-representation

https://www.nlrb.gov/news/nlrb-obta...olent-union-protests-port-longview-washington

https://www.nlrb.gov/news/ebi-employees-virginia-reject-union-representation-nlrb-election

https://www.nlrb.gov/news/administr...hip-had-overly-broad-employee-policy-discharg

You know electrical work really well. But it ends there.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

jza said:


> Look how mad this old idiot is.


:laughing: Exactly.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jza said:


> Look how mad this old idiot is.


That was the most informed post i ever read thanks for coming through in the clutch.......:laughing::thumbup::laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> :laughing: Exactly.


:boxing::boxing::boxing::boxing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Okay Leftwingron you should read history instead of letting someone tell you what history was.
> 
> But hey you like living on your knees for your Union plantation masters.


What history is that Harry?


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

How dare a business OWNER wants to run their company their way!


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> How dare a business OWNER wants to run their company their way!


Yeah, god forbid the measly laborer who makes it all possible has a say in anything. Christ, what's next? Women allowed to vote? "********" riding in the front of the bus?, Or, imagine, child labor laws! What's this world coming too!


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> *cumming*


:laughing:
Freudian slip????


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Yeah, god forbid the measly laborer who makes it all possible has a say in anything. Christ, what's next? Women allowed to vote? "********" riding in the front of the bus?, Or, imagine, child labor laws! What's this world coming too!


Not even comparable. :no:

Also, the "measly laborer" is free to seek employment anywhere they see fit.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> Not even comparable. :no:


Yup, that's what they said back in the day too. :thumbsup:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Yup, that's what they said back in the day too. :thumbsup:


Gimme gimme gimme, that's what they say now.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> Gimme gimme gimme, that's what they say now.


No different then before.
Everyone is yelling gimmie when it comes to money. That game is older then dirt and water.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> No different then before.
> Everyone is yelling gimmie when it comes to money. That game is older then dirt and water.


No doubt. But the "you_ have to_ gimme because I want it" is a more recent trend.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> No doubt. But the "you_ have to_ gimme because I want it" is a more recent trend.


No it's not. Not by a long shot.
Back in the day, they let the markets crash when they failed. Money changers be damned. 40% of the workforce was unionized and strikes that numbered in the thousands of workers that stretched across multiple states were common place. :no:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

lefleuron said:


> Its a good thing people like us have a voice that can be heard, isn't it John?


On a bias board NO, on a fair board yes.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> No it's not. Not by a long shot.
> Back in the day, they let the markets crash when they failed. Money changers be damned. 40% of the workforce was unionized and strikes that numbered in the thousands of workers that stretched across multiple states were common place. :no:


And that's relevant to today's entitled union workers how?


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Back in the day unions were formed because workers lives were at stake from employers who put the workers at risk. That is no longer the case. Sure they wanted better pay but the market should decide that not the worker.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> Back in the day unions were formed because workers lives were at stake from employers who put the workers at risk. That is no longer the case. Sure they wanted better pay but the market should decide that not the worker.


Is that why?
Enlighten me oh chosen one.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet, you guys think the unions are leftist now, you should read some history on the political stance of the country 80 years ago, when the "free market" work force was 40% unionized. 
You guys really don't know crap.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> Is that why?
> Enlighten me oh chosen one.
> Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet, you guys think the unions are leftist now, you should read some history on the political stance of the country 80 years ago, when the "free market" work force was 40% unionized.
> You guys really don't know crap.



I have no problem with unions. I don't agree with what they have mostly become. I like they protect the workers safety. I also did some research and it seems so may were being killed on the job that that was the motivating factor in forming them. What a lot of unions are today is not what they were. I'm fine with companies and employees who chose to be unionized.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> :laughing:
> Freudian slip????


Woops...:laughing::laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Woops...:laughing::laughing:


:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Is that why?
> Enlighten me oh chosen one.
> Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet, you guys think the unions are leftist now, you should read some history on the political stance of the country 80 years ago, when the "free market" work force was 40% unionized.
> You guys really don't know crap.


There is a reason that it is not, now .

Care to tell us why..

Again if you guys read history instead of letting someone tell you what history was you would have the real answer ..:laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> Not even comparable. :no:
> 
> Also, the "measly laborer" is free to seek employment anywhere they see fit.


Riiiighttt. And there free to change their work place as they see fit too. Well, with in the rights that are afforded to them. You know that despite all your whining and belly aching that you don't get to dictate all the terms of employment right?

I'm talking about facts, not your convoluted sense of entitlement.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> ...I also did some research and it seems so may were being killed on the job that that was the motivating factor in forming them....


 I think that was the primary reason they set up the IBEW. When electrification was in it's infancy, electricians had a 50% mortality rate, and they needed something to educate the workers and provide monetary support to the next-of-kin.

-John


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Is that why?
> Enlighten me oh chosen one.
> Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet, you guys think the unions are leftist now, you should read some history on the political stance of the country 80 years ago, when the "free market" work force was 40% unionized.
> You guys really don't know crap.


80 years ago who was in charge?,,,That's 1931 you know during the 1st great depression....:whistling2:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> How dare a business OWNER wants to run their company their way!





electricmanscott said:


> Not even comparable. :no:
> 
> Also, the "measly laborer" is free to seek employment anywhere they see fit.


 
I agree, where's the employers rights too? Do they not have any? These bums waited til the company was in a vulnerable position. It was well planned and dirty. They purposefully tried to pin the company between a rock and a hard place. They have no right to do that. They have no right to demand a raise. They have one single right, leave if the no longer want their job. Unions suck.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> There is a reason that it is not, now .
> 
> Care to tell us why..
> 
> Again if you guys read history instead of letting someone tell you what history was you would have the real answer ..:laughing:


Im still waiting for "labor History according to harry".......And yes, I know why. NAFTA, "free trade agreements", Tax breaks for outsourcing, The so-called right to work laws, Taft-Hartley Act, Norris – La Guardia Act, the highly funded ABC, etc, etc.....

I'll give you some time for your Google search. Get back to me in the morning.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Im still waiting for "labor History according to harry".......And yes, I know why. NAFTA, "free trade agreements", Tax breaks for outsourcing, The so-called right to work laws, Taft-Hartley Act, Norris – La Guardia Act, the highly funded ABC, etc, etc.....
> 
> I'll give you some time for your Google search. Get back to me in the morning.


I was 100% against NAFTA, "free trade agreements", in 1994 and i am today as well..



on a side note Tell miller i said thanks...:laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> . T*hey have no right to do that. They have no right to demand a raise. They have one single right, leave if the no longer want their job. Unions suck.*


Again, all this is opinion, not facts. That's the problem with these arguments in this place. You guys let you opinions become the facts in your head. YES, they have the direct, protected right to do everything you just said they do not have the right to do.

Facts. That's all Im interested in. You don't have to agree with them, but you have to abide by them. If you don't like em', get out and vote for some one you think will represent YOUR OPINIONS.

Also, I'm not even to sure there was a union involved, there was no mention of one in the NLRB posting, which is quite odd.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> 80 years ago who was in charge?,,,That's 1931 you know during the 1st great depression....:whistling2:


Union membership didn't start to show real decline until the 70's. Maybe even later then that. And stop with the nonsense that the unions caused the depression. You give us wayyyy to much credit for that.

Did you not watch and read the links I sent you a while back? You know, the one about the "Money Masters"???? I thought you said you did. :blink:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> ...These bums waited til the company was in a vulnerable position. It was well planned and dirty....


 Don't take this as condoning the strike, because I don't know anything about it, but any strike puts a company in a vulnerable position. That's literally the purpose of it, and to be honest, I would hope that the strike was well planned, and that they did give it serious consideration, because obviously it's not something to be done lightly.

Make no mistake, any strike, at any time, will negatively impact the employer. The only thing that remains to be determined if the motives of the workers were legitimate enough reason to call a strike.

-John


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Big John said:


> I think that was the primary reason they set up the IBEW. When electrification was in it's infancy, electricians had a 50% mortality rate, and they needed something to educate the workers and provide monetary support to the next-of-kin.
> 
> -John


The IBEW as we know it today was set up in 1898. The NLRA wasn't passed until 1935. That's 37 years of taking your life into your own hands when trying to demand recognition in the work place.

The main concern of the original members was wages, education, safety, and working hours. Funny, Henry Miller, considered the founding father of the IBEW died in a work related accident while working for a utility. I think the accident happened in Baltimore, I forget the story though.


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

I work for a small shop. 6 guys. The company has been growing steadily since I joined 3 years ago when we were 3 guys. The way I see it, as an employee and apprentice, is that I need the bossman as much as he needs me. When we are slammed with work and everything is an emergency, Bossman needs us bigtime. When it is slow, like the last couple of weeks, he needs to scramble to keep us busy or lose us, there is work up here. At all times, we need and depend on him for our livelihood. 

There is not a company without _both_ the bossman and the employees. There is only a one man shop, and it seems it is the one man shops that are most vocally out against the worker's rights. I do not think this is a coincidence.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

stuiec said:


> There is not a company without both the bossman and the employees. There is only a one man shop, a*nd it seems it is the one man shops that are most vocally out against the worker's rights.* I do not think this is a coincidence.



Had your hearing checked lately? Maybe you need to research a small shop called Walmart??????


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

brian john said:


> Had your hearing checked lately? Maybe you need to research a small shop called Walmart?


 In fairness, I think he means among people responding to this thread.

-John


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> Again, all this is opinion, not facts. That's the problem with these arguments in this place. You guys let you opinions become the facts in your head. YES, they have the direct, protected right to do everything you just said they do not have the right to do.
> 
> Facts. That's all Im interested in. You don't have to agree with them, but you have to abide by them. If you don't like em', get out and vote for some you think will represent YOUR OPINIONS.
> .


I like this post. Think I'll post it again. :thumbup::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

brian john said:


> Had your hearing checked lately? Maybe you need to research a small shop called Walmart??????


 
Wow. Nice venom. I was refering to what is posted here.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> I like this post. Think I'll post it again. :thumbup::laughing::laughing::laughing:


 
OK, It's my OPINION, they should have no right to demand a raise. If they're not making enough money, go somewhere else. Even if the company has turned a steady profit for years, they still should not have that right. The company might be saving that profit for a future expansion. The unions aim to suck every single dime out of every employer. They don't really bother me though, even the finatical ones here, because they are a very small minority in America's workforce, and steady shrinking. Good riddance.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

So, was ASC in violation of their contract with the union? Is that why they went on strike? If ASC was operating within their contract with the union I don't see how the strike was warranted. Didn't the union agree to the terms of the contract when they signed it? There must be more to this story.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

stuiec said:


> Wow. Nice venom. I was refering to what is posted here.


Not venom (it was not meant to be), just the facts, but as for what is here many of the business owners here are one man shops. As for me I am a union contractor, employee 20 people and take exception to many of the things unions do. As for the NRLB, A good place to store our stock pile of Nukes and with any luck one might go off.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> ...If they're not making enough money, go somewhere else....


 And just hope that some company, eventually, out of the goodness of it's heart, sees fit to pay decent wages instead of counting that money as profit?

Regardless of what I think of union tactics, I have to admit that they have largely determined the wage scales we all enjoy today.

The day the last union dies in this country is the day we will all be making Walmart wages.

-John


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

amptech said:


> So, was ASC in violation of their contract with the union? Is that why they went on strike? If ASC was operating within their contract with the union I don't see how the strike was warranted. Didn't the union agree to the terms of the contract when they signed it? There must be more to this story.


There was no mention of a union in the NLRB posting.
That leads me to this conclusion, the employees are in the process of trying to organize and some union helped them with this, but at the moment there is no recognized CBA or employee agent.

It's rare for unorganized employees to organize in this fashion, but not unheard of.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Big John said:


> And just hope that some company, eventually, out of the goodness of it's heart, sees fit to pay decent wages instead of counting that money as profit?
> 
> Regardless of what I think of union tactics, I have to admit that they have largely determined the wage scales we all enjoy today.
> 
> ...


 
I cna understand your point, and I understand needing to combat corperate greed, but I think a worker has no right to do what they did. They want more money, so they try and MAKE the company give them more money. What ever happened to EARNING more money. 

They took (what i bet to be) that company's largest customer and royally screwed them. How do they expect to make money? How many large companies are around them that use their services like that during outages? It was dirty, and they deserved to be fired for it.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

stuiec said:


> I work for a small shop. 6 guys. The company has been growing steadily since I joined 3 years ago when we were 3 guys. The way I see it, as an employee and apprentice, is that I need the bossman as much as he needs me. When we are slammed with work and everything is an emergency, Bossman needs us bigtime. When it is slow, like the last couple of weeks, he needs to scramble to keep us busy or lose us, there is work up here. At all times, we need and depend on him for our livelihood.
> 
> There is not a company without _both_ the bossman and the employees. There is only a one man shop, and it seems it is the one man shops that are most vocally out against the worker's rights. I do not think this is a coincidence.


The boss put everything he owns on the line to create a job for ANYONE who choses to work for him if he choses to hire them. You risked not one thing.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Big John said:


> The day the last union dies in this country is the day we will all be making Walmart wages.
> 
> -John



Other than government unions,free sector unions are close to dead now, that 5% of the work force drives the 95% (excluding government unions) is a bit of a stretch. Though in strong union markets I am sure this is true.

That in the past unions drove the market I am sure is true.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> OK, It's my OPINION, they should have no right to demand a raise. If they're not making enough money, go somewhere else. Even if the company has turned a steady profit for years, they still should not have that right. The company might be saving that profit for a future expansion. The unions aim to suck every single dime out of every employer. They don't really bother me though, even the finatical ones here, because they are a very small minority in America's workforce, and steady shrinking. Good riddance.


OK. I'm glad that you admitted to this. Now, only if Harry would do the same. :whistling2:


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

brian john said:


> Not venom (it was not meant to be), just the facts, but as for what is here many of the business owners here are one man shops. As for me I am a union contractor, employee 20 people and take exception to many of the things unions do. As for the NRLB, A good place to store our stock pile of Nukes and with any luck one might go off.


 
I think maybe everyone just needs to mind their own business. Literally. I like the non-union mom&pop shop I'm with right now. I think there is a need for small and growing companys. I think there is also a need for one man shops (I may become one). As well, there need to be the giant PCLs and other mega companys to take care of the big projects. Union or non. 

I also believe that what is good for a one man shop is not necessarily good for a medium or large shop. 

Anyone with a voice ought to be heard. Period. Regardless of whether they are rewarded or punished for using it. Where we live, we have that. If anyone doesn't like the way it is in the country they are presently posting from.....feel free to gtfo.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> You guys really don't know crap.


:thumbup:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> :thumbup:


:laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> I cna understand your point, and I understand needing to combat corperate greed, but I think a worker has no right to do what they did. They want more money, so they try and MAKE the company give them more money. What ever happened to EARNING more money.
> 
> They took (what i bet to be) that company's largest customer and royally screwed them. How do they expect to make money? How many large companies are around them that use their services like that during outages? It was dirty, and they deserved to be fired for it.


You live in a fantasy world.


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> The boss put everything he owns on the line to *create a job for ANYONE* who choses to work for him if he choses to hire them. You risked not one thing.


 
This is a load of sh t. The boss took the risks he did because he wanted to be his own boss. He wanted to make money. He could not do it anymore. The list goes on. I openly challenge any one on this forum to say _honestly_ that the reason they took all the risks they did was to *create a job for anyone*.`

It is a symbiotic relationship. IMO.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

stuiec said:


> *I think maybe everyone just needs to mind their own business. Literally.* I like the non-union mom&pop shop I'm with right now. I think there is a need for small and growing companys. I think there is also a need for one man shops (I may become one). As well, there need to be the giant PCLs and other mega companys to take care of the big projects. Union or non.
> 
> I also believe that what is good for a one man shop is not necessarily good for a medium or large shop.
> 
> *Anyone with a voice ought to be heard. Period.* Regardless of whether they are rewarded or punished for using it. Where we live, we have that. If anyone doesn't like the way it is in the country they are presently posting from.....feel free to gtfo.


???????????????????????


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

stuiec said:


> This is a load of sh t. The boss took the risks he did because he wanted to be his own boss. He wanted to make money. He could not do it anymore. The list goes on. I openly challenge any one on this forum to say _honestly_ that the reason they took all the risks they did was to *create a job for anyone*.`
> 
> It is a symbiotic relationship. IMO.


Duh.
I've been saying this for years. Then, when they can't become millionaires, or fail to grow and hire people, they need someone to blame. The guys who complain the most in these types of threads are theone who have no employees at all, or close to it.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/08/02/is-the-nlrb-biased-you-be-the-judge/


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Union membership didn't start to show real decline until the 70's. Maybe even later then that. And stop with the nonsense that the unions caused the depression. You give us wayyyy to much credit for that.
> 
> Did you not watch and read the links I sent you a while back? You know, the one about the "Money Masters"???? I thought you said you did. :blink:


Let me make it clear i never said the unions caused the depression in the 1930's


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

stuiec said:


> This is a load of sh t. The boss took the risks he did because he wanted to be his own boss. He wanted to make money. He could not do it anymore. The list goes on. I openly challenge any one on this forum to say _honestly_ that the reason they took all the risks they did was to *create a job for anyone*.`
> 
> It is a symbiotic relationship. IMO.





slickvic277 said:


> Duh.
> I've been saying this for years. Then, when they can't become millionaires, or fail to grow and hire people, they need someone to blame. The guys who complain the most in these types of threads are theone who have no employees at all, or close to it.


My older brother is a "small" business owner. We're pretty tight, but you should here some of the, uh, "conversations" we have. :laughing:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> You live in a fantasy world.


 

Point blank, they screwed one of their own cmpanies best customers. That is the opposite of what a good employee should do. If I send somebody to a customers house, and they cuss that customer out, is that wrong? Because that is exactly what this bunch did. And they deserve to be fired for it.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> My older brother is a "small" business owner. We're pretty tight, but you should here some of the, uh, "conversations" we have. :laughing:


At least he has you listening to Rush...:thumbup::thumbup::laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

stuiec said:


> This is a load of sh t. The boss took the risks he did because he wanted to be his own boss. He wanted to make money. He could not do it anymore. The list goes on. I openly challenge any one on this forum to say _honestly_ that the reason they took all the risks they did was to *create a job for anyone*.`
> 
> It is a symbiotic relationship. IMO.


Where would you be without those that often risk a lot to start a firm with their GREEDY need to keep the worker in the ditch? Of course it is a relationship and hopefully a good one. The union problem is they paint all bosses as Scrooges, losing any chance at a good relationship with SOME shops.


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

brian john said:


> ???????????????????????


 `

I assume all the question marks and the boldface are intended to communicate that the two statements are contradictory. 

Its funny how that is often the case when words and sentences are removed from context. For example, if you were to have extended the boldface to include the sentence following the second statement, your question marks would have looked absurd.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

stuiec said:


> `
> 
> I assume all the question marks and the boldface are intended to communicate that the two statements are contradictory.
> 
> Its funny how that is often the case when words and sentences are removed from context. For example, if you were to have extended the boldface to include the sentence following the second statement, your question marks would have looked absurd.


You got it.


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

brian john said:


> Where would you be without those that often risk a lot to start a firm with their *GREEDY* *need to keep the worker in the ditch*? Of course it is a relationship and hopefully a good one. The union problem is they paint all bosses as Scrooges, losing any chance at a good relationship with SOME shops.


 
I have called noone greedy. As for the worker in the ditch bit, You have me at a loss as to what you are talking about. I have advocated the relationship I have with my present employer, and, I believe, stated that I need and depend on him for my livlihood. I think the problem is that there are alot of broad strokes being painted here. 

What I meant by everyone "minding their own business" was take care of their own business (company). If I were your employee, I'm pretty sure that you would be pleased with and find value in me both as a worker and a person. Likewise, I imagine that I would find you a knowlegable and fair boss. That is all. Each company keeping their own house in order.

A company that experiences a walkout in the middle of a shutdown has not been taking care of business. Things have to get pretty bad. Ask yourself what it would take for you to join such an action? How alienated would you have to feel to risk your job?


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Good, they shouldn't have been terminated. I have no good troll material for this one so I am forced to side with vic :laughing:



slickvic277 said:


> Also, I'm not even to sure there was a union involved, there was no mention of one in the NLRB posting, which is quite odd.


There wasn't, they were non union employees exercising their rights (damn employees :jester. 

As I understand it a local helped them file the charge with the board.

It's nice to see things go the way they should for a change, no violent protests, employee's rights protected, employees exercising the rights they have whether they are union or not, and unions helping all employees.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Jlarson said:


> Good, they shouldn't have been terminated. I have no good troll material for this one so I am forced to side with vic :laughing:


Post #1 was troll material. I'm mad at myself for falling for it.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Yeah, god forbid the measly laborer who makes it all possible has a say in anything. Christ, what's next? Women allowed to vote? "********" riding in the front of the bus?, Or, imagine, child labor laws! What's this world coming too!


Now this is just a stupid comment. A "worker" not wanting to do their job and walking off has no comparison to what you have stated.
You walk off, you get fired. This is the way it should be. You can always go somewhere else and find a job that pays better. Well unless your just a lazy slug.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

> Yeah, god forbid the measly laborer who makes it all possible has a say in anything. Christ, what's next? Women allowed to vote? "********" riding in the front of the bus?, Or, imagine, child labor laws! What's this world coming too!


They do it is called starting your own business. And I know being in business is not for everyone, and I know not every boss will treat their employees fairly. But this goes both ways, all the good employees are tainted by a few bad apples. Just as all good companies are lumped in as a-holes because of the few bad corporations.

That is what pits workers against bosses and the other way around. 

I believe workers should have rights (DUH) and I believe the NLRB is important, BUT it should be unbiased. Both sides (labor and management) stack the board, all I am asking is for a fair and impartial board. And that will never happen.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

stuiec said:


> I have called no one greedy.


Sorry I was not necessarily referring to you, my apologizes.



> As for the worker in the ditch bit, You have me at a loss as to what you are talking about. I have advocated the relationship I have with my present employer, and, I believe, stated that I need and depend on him for my livelihood. I think the problem is that there are alot of broad strokes being painted here.


There always is, that what keeps this place interesting





> What I meant by everyone "minding their own business" was take care of their own business (company). If I were your employee, I'm pretty sure that you would be pleased with and find value in me both as a worker and a person. Likewise, I imagine that I would find you a knowledgeable and fair boss. That is all. Each company keeping their own house in order.


Very true, BUT if all owners were decent folks and all workers were honest hard working, we would not have this section to banter in.



> A company that experiences a walkout in the middle of a shutdown has not been taking care of business. Things have to get pretty bad. Ask yourself what it would take for you to join such an action? How alienated would you have to feel to risk your job?


I agree and would do what I could to work with the men through the issue prior to it exploding. But I had a case quite a while ago where one employee was stirring the pot where my men were ready to walk. Got rid of of the trouble maker and explained to the men they were WRONG, but if they felt different prove it to me or leave.

And with most stories, depending on who is telling the story and who is listening, controls where the story goes and both sides will embellish (F***ING LIE) (not you or me!) to get their point across.


----------



## Brother Noah1 (Mar 23, 2010)

With threads such as this one we show our how predetermined our outlook on life is by our post. The anti's post how the contractor risk it all therefore should have COMPLETE CONTROL over their slaves.The union side as a norm say all workers should have the right to do what they want, well some where in the midst must be a hidden truth. To me the contractors are making dire risk but I also say the workers must risk something to be employed and when greed for power and or monetary gain get in the way of human rights we as a whole should be afforded some dignity or outlet to fight oppression(UNIONS are a good start) with NLRB a government agency set up to protect mainly those who work under a union contract (employee and employer alike) to me similar to a boxing ref who yells break.Really though should contractors be allowed mandate workers pay stay the same? IF so then for how long? who decides when enough is enough? A naysayer will post well you can just quit, really I say that is merely an easy answer to hard decisions that will also have negative impacts on All that are involved.The power of numbers of my brothers and sisters helps us all in the working class over come corruption. I will agree that there have been case of corruption within our ranks as well, we are after all to err as humans but at least a goal has been set to help protect all working class union and non union alike.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Brother Noah said:


> With threads such as this one we show our how predetermined our outlook on life is by our post. The anti's post how the contractor risk it all therefore should have COMPLETE CONTROL over their slaves.The union side as a norm say all workers should have the right to do what they want, well some where in the midst must be a hidden truth. To me the contractors are making dire risk but I also say the workers must risk something to be employed and when greed for power and or monetary gain get in the way of human rights we as a whole should be afforded some dignity or outlet to fight oppression(UNIONS are a good start) with NLRB a government agency set up to protect mainly those who work under a union contract (employee and employer alike) to me similar to a boxing ref who yells break.Really though should contractors be allowed mandate workers pay stay the same? IF so then for how long? who decides when enough is enough? A naysayer will post well you can just quit, really I say that is merely an easy answer to hard decisions that will also have negative impacts on All that are involved.The power of numbers of my brothers and sisters helps us all in the working class over come corruption. I will agree that there have been case of corruption within our ranks as well, we are after all to err as humans but at least a goal has been set to help protect all working class union and non union alike.


Noah, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE use punctuation.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Noah,

Have you been lurking all this time just waiting for this thread. I assume you have been on the road?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Brother Noah said:


> With threads such as this one we show our how predetermined our outlook on life is by our post. .


 
But that is the way life works and the older we get the less likely we are to change.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> Noah,
> 
> Have you been lurking all this time just waiting for this thread. I assume you have been on the road?


Noah lives on the road. The road is his home. Noah is a FLE.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Noah lives on the road. The road is his home. Noah is a FLE.



What's an FLE?..:blink:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> What's an FLE?..:blink:


Union stuff.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Union stuff.


No NO NO! lets translate...After all this is an open forum..


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> What's an FLE?..:blink:


Fing Lying Electrician.:laughing::laughing::laughing:

Just kiding Noah, I could not resist.

Basically a traveler.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Federation of Linemen and Electricians (FLE) (pronounced flea), an informal fraternal organization of traveling contruction electricians said to be as old as the union itself.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

brian john said:


> Fing Lying Electrician.:laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> Just kiding Noah, I could not resist.
> 
> Basically a traveler.


:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Federation of Linemen and Electricians (FLE) (pronounced flea), an informal fraternal organization of traveling contruction electricians said to be as old as the union itself.


From the Billy Chadwick story site?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> From the Billy Chadwick story site?


 
Now he understood what the union was REALLY about, and what good it was.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Now he understood what the union was REALLY about, and what good it was.


Whatch you talking about willis?
No one ever claimed the IBEW was perfect or with out it's flaws.
A couple of things, one, that story was from 1970(?), two, he was and continued to be a reformer which means he believed in the IBEW and unions in general.
Also, if your gonna play devils advocate, he was a self admitted member of the FLE organization, which quite possibly could of meant he was a trouble making, lazy sack of sht. 

But that's OK. I wouldn't expect a good ole' boy like you to understand any of that.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> Whatch you talking about willis?
> No one ever claimed the IBEW was perfect or with out it's flaws.
> A couple of things, one, that story was from 1970(?), two, he was and continued to be a reformer which means he believed in the IBEW and unions in general.
> Also, if your gonna play devils advocate, he was a self admitted member of the FLE organization, which quite possibly could of meant he was a trouble making, lazy sack of sht.
> ...


 
The story is from 1979, he was fired for distributing flyers against the union, stating they did not deserve the 2% of wages they were getting...

I was trying to ruffle your feathers.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> The story is from 1979, he was fired for distributing flyers against the union, stating they did not deserve the 2% of wages they were getting...
> 
> I was trying to ruffle your feathers.


Duh, that's what this whole thread is. One big coupe of ruffled chickens. :laughing:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> Duh, that's what this whole thread is. One big coupe of ruffled chickens. :laughing:


 
HaH!! it's fun though isn't it:laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> HaH!! it's fun though isn't it:laughing:


:thumbup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

mcclary's electrical said:


> HaH!! it's fun though isn't it:laughing:


It is easy to ruffle a brothers feathers.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> It is easy to ruffle a brothers feathers.


Or Harries, Or McClarry's, Or yours, Or Electricmasscot, or Bulldog, or ShocDock, or etc, etc...........


----------



## Mrmanly (May 23, 2010)

Lets see here. 

77 guys want some time off. They just go ahead and take some time off, business says ok you want time of we will give you plenty of it. 

Now they are complaining about getting time off.

Doesn't make sense.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Brother Noah said:


> With threads such as this one we show our how predetermined our outlook on life is by our post. The anti's post how the contractor risk it all therefore should have COMPLETE CONTROL over their slaves.The union side as a norm say all workers should have the right to do what they want, well some where in the midst must be a hidden truth. To me the contractors are making dire risk but I also say the workers must risk something to be employed and when greed for power and or monetary gain get in the way of human rights we as a whole should be afforded some dignity or outlet to fight oppression(UNIONS are a good start) with NLRB a government agency set up to protect mainly those who work under a union contract (employee and employer alike) to me similar to a boxing ref who yells break.Really though should contractors be allowed mandate workers pay stay the same? IF so then for how long? who decides when enough is enough? A naysayer will post well you can just quit, really I say that is merely an easy answer to hard decisions that will also have negative impacts on All that are involved.The power of numbers of my brothers and sisters helps us all in the working class over come corruption. I will agree that there have been case of corruption within our ranks as well, we are after all to err as humans but at least a goal has been set to help protect all working class union and non union alike.


Didn't read the post but I'm sure it's insightful. Good to see you back. You missed some good stuff. :laughing:


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

brian john said:


> It is easy to ruffle a brothers feathers.


 
I don't know why, but I feel kinda dirty just reading this statement:laughing:


----------



## Brother Noah1 (Mar 23, 2010)

*ion*



electricmanscott said:


> Didn't read the post but I'm sure it's insightful. Good to see you back. You missed some good stuff. :laughing:


Thank you for your statement. First off I am not a member of the Fle's although I always help if I can when they attempt to raise money for those that are sick or needy. I am working long hours at night out of my home local 1579 @ the MOX facility( the government is trying to take nuclear warheads and turn them into an energy source). I always surf and read the post when time allows. What Mr Chadwick did for our IBEW was to hold us to a higher standard by making the sacrifice of his lost membership in our IBEW.Mr Chadwick was able to get all our retirement to go to our home locals to make vestment possible for all. What many loose sight of (even union members) is that the unions are meant to create a better way of life and or working conditions for all even if that means taking pains for others.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Brother Noah said:


> Thank you for your statement.
> 
> First off I am not a member of the Fle's although I always help if I can when they attempt to raise money for those that are sick or needy.
> 
> ...


Brother Noah.

Your posts would be much better and easy to read if you would just use the space bar so you posts look that above...^^^^^


----------



## Brother Noah1 (Mar 23, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Brother Noah.
> 
> Your posts would be much better and easy to read if you would just use the space bar so you posts look that above...^^^^^


Thank you Harry.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Brother Noah said:


> Thank you Harry.


So, you gonna start using punctuation and spaces now?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Brother Noah.
> 
> Your posts would be much better and easy to read if you would just use the space bar so you posts look that above...^^^^^


 
Harry, a paragraphis normally at least 4 sentences and doesn't need a new paragraph until the subjuect changes. Also, you didn't indent. 


My point is, don't start picking on his post, when he sounds way more educated than you. His post was closer to being correct than yours.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Harry, a paragraphis normally at least 4 sentences and doesn't need a new paragraph until the subjuect changes. Also, you didn't indent.
> 
> 
> My point is, don't start picking on his post, when he sounds way more educated than you. His post was closer to being correct than yours.


NO! Harry is right!  I know, hard to believe. But Noah doesn't use a single period, a break, an indentation, or anything even close to grammical conformity. I would love to read Noah's posts, but they make my eye's blead. :001_huh:


----------



## Brother Noah1 (Mar 23, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> NO! Harry is right!  I know, hard to believe. But Noah doesn't use a single period, a break, an indentation, or anything even close to grammical conformity. I would love to read Noah's posts, but they make my eye's blead. :001_huh:


Now that is some funny shtt I do not care who you are! I have been taught better yet I always try typing faster than my brain can compute, hence we are left with a jumbled mess at times. I think it is a wonderful thing when those of us who are in direct competition can play nice like big kids even if it the joke is on my behalf.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Brother Noah said:


> Now that is some funny shtt I do not care who you are! I have been taught better yet I always try typing faster than my brain can compute, hence we are left with a jumbled mess at times. I think it is a wonderful thing when those of us who are in direct competition can play nice like big kids even if it the joke is on my behalf.


Noah, you're missing the point. You make some cool posts, some interesting points. BUT it becomes a chore to read them. All I have been asking for, for at least as long as you have been posting here, is to atleast TRY and use a period and the space bar from time to time.

Honestly, you have the grammar of a 5 year old. And I don't care if you give a sht who I am or not, this is a public forum and I will give my opinion to whom ever I fcking feel like.


----------

