# IBEW and right to work states.



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

RtW means unions will lose bargaining power and wages will begin to drop.

Look at any union wages in RtW states. They're not too impressive.

My local needs to refer to the hall first, but if they do not believe they'll have the man power from there, yes, they can hire off the street.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

We have shops that are union when it's beneficial to them. Our largest union shop has a merit shop within itself. The employees of that merit division are the specialist from what I hear. 

Plant hands pay above scale here also. When your good J/W tops out they start looking for a contractor in the plants and such if they want more dollars. 

Turner, one such company starts its men at around scale and goes up. No bennies to speak of tho.


----------



## Hybwolf (Jul 31, 2011)

From what i understand, any contractor in any state including states that are not right to work can hire off the street if the hall can't fill the call in a certain time frame, 72 hrs I think. Also I thought all locals have (3) books, 1 local hands, 2 travelers, and 3 off the street. Calls go in the order of 1-2-3. 

I'm wondering if a contractor in a right to work state can hire directly off the street without calling the hall for book 1 and 2 hands first?


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

Yes a contractor can go to hom deposit and pick up a crew in the parking lot of they so chose.

In Michigan they have to go to the hall?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Here we sign an agreement to use the hall as an exclusive source of labor. If you want to hire off of the street, fine, just get them cleared out of the hall.:laughing:


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

Wow. I have only lived in right to work stated. I did not know this was how it was done.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

jrannis said:


> Here we sign an agreement to use the hall as an exclusive source of labor. If you want to hire off of the street, fine, just get them cleared out of the hall.:laughing:


Correct in Kalifornia. The hall has 72 hrs to fill the call. If not, you can street hire, but they are laid off first when a JW becomes available.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Yeah contractors here can hire off the street if the hall can't provide the men, but they get sent to the hall first then back to the contractor.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

nolabama said:


> We have shops that are union when it's beneficial to them. Our largest union shop has a merit shop within itself. The employees of that merit division are the specialist from what I hear.


That is a 2 gate shop, and would be in violation of the agreement here.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

big2bird said:


> That is a 2 gate shop, and would be in violation of the agreement here.


Northrup Grummans shipyard was like that here.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

Right to work states are part of the problem. Not the solution.
How soon we forget.
Tomorrows Saturday. If you are off, you can that the union for that. How soon we forget. How many other examples do we need. 
RTW states are the bottom feeders of the country. It's just another way to make the rich richer and make the poor happy they got some free cheese.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

So in a non RTW state, if I choose to be non union, I still have to pay union dues? How is that any different than the mafia?


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

No point stirring up the old Union/non-union debate. All that does is make folks feel bad.

I'm not completely sure how unions operate in RTW areas. I know there are union shops in such places, employers who will hire only through the hall. Does that violate a man's right to work? Probably - but how can he enforce it?

You know, when the Smart Car dealer came to town, the local BMW and Caddilac dealers weren't worried one bit. Why? Because they knew they still had something to sell, something folks would choose in preference to the cute little econo-box.

Union leadership has known for decades what they will need to do to survive, even prevail. That they choose to ignore the real world, believing that politics will somehow save them, is their decision. Can't push a rope.

Still, I'll repeat "those things" here, for the education of everyone:

Unions have three things they can sell to the employer: Training, benefits, and the hall. They need to think in terms of what they can 'add,' rather than what they can 'get.'

Training: A JW card means something. OSHA training, and specialty continuing ed, give the Union man an edge, and provides the employer with prepared workers. The worker gets credentials that he keeps, that are not limited to one employer;

Benefits: Health care, pensions, and every other benefit are burdens for the employer. A union can -much like a temp agency - take a lot of this burden off the employer. The worker need only 'qualify' once, and not every time he changes jobs; and,

Job Bank: Much like a temp agency, the employer can call on help as needed. 

These are things of value, and IMO the Union needs to grow through actual sales, rather than by the heavy hand of intimidation.


----------



## jimmy21 (Mar 31, 2012)

Zog said:


> So in a non RTW state, if I choose to be non union, I still have to pay union dues? How is that any different than the mafia?


why would you have to pay union dues?


----------



## Dangerously (Dec 1, 2012)

jimmy21 said:


> why would you have to pay union dues?


He doesn't, he is completely confusing the situation.


----------



## Pompadour (Mar 19, 2011)

no, a non-union electrician does not pay dues.

but, in a RTW state, the union can not legally force it's own members to pay dues if they chose not to. it is a play to weaken our union. it is also revenge.

outside the cities and a good part of the upper peninsula, michigan is republican. the republicans control the legislature in michigan (the state house and state senate). the republicans are about to run the table like a pool shark.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Dangerously said:


> He doesn't, he is completely confusing the situation.


The article on MSN about Michigan had it confused, I thought that sounded insane. That only applies to public employees.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

Come to my house and tell me to my face we are bottom feeders you ****ing idiot.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

walkerj said:


> Come to my house and tell me to my face we are bottom feeders you ****ing idiot.


Aw c'mon you know we out the LA in last. Lol.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Zog said:


> So in a non RTW state, if I choose to be non union, I still have to pay union dues? How is that any different than the mafia?


Because in a RTW state if you are not a member and working at a union shop the union has to represent you just like they do their dues paying members....how is that fair????????????


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Because in a RTW state if you are not a member and working at a union shop the union has to represent you just like they do their dues paying members....how is that fair????????????


You cant work a union shop lest they have a merit division. You gotta go to the hall to work for a closed shop.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Because in a RTW state if you are not a member and working at a union shop the union has to represent you just like they do their dues paying members....how is that fair????????????


Didn't think you could work in a union shop and not be union. If that's the case then no, I don't think that is fair.


----------



## Dangerously (Dec 1, 2012)

It has more to do with going to work at a large factory, for example. In a RTW state you can go get hired at the factory and refuse to join the union. Since it's RTW, you don't have to pay any dues, but you do get all of the benefits that the union negotiations bring (higher wages, better benefits package, etc.). In non-RTW states you would have to pay the union dues even if you didn't want to join.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

^^ what he said is how it works at the shipyards.


----------



## Dangerously (Dec 1, 2012)

In most situations, the union negotiations will bring higher wages and better benefits and conditions, so the union dues are already paid for and then some. 

However, you may find some situations in which the union simply hasn't been able to get better wages/benefits compared to competition and in that case I would be pretty pissed if I had to pay dues for nothing.


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

I tryed to go to work for UPS 30 years ago as as maintenance guy.
I asked about having to join the union and was told not in GA, but no one would talk to me if I didn't.

Didn't get the job, so I never found out if I would have joined or not.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Zog said:


> Didn't think you could work in a union shop and not be union. If that's the case then no, I don't think that is fair.


That is exactly what happens with the RTW laws. The company can still be a union shop, but they can't force you to join the union and they can't force you to pay dues or fees to the union.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That is exactly what happens with the RTW laws. The company can still be a union shop, but they can't force you to join the union and they can't force you to pay dues or fees to the union.


Honestly I see arguements for both but sounds to me like RTW is all about power of the union. RTW laws strip that power, non RTW states grant them more. 

So, lets say an EC in a RTW state hires a new EE with PE license to do engineering studies in house. Would the EE be required to pay union dues? Would the union be doing anything to represent him?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The company can still be a union shop, but they can't force you to join the union and they can't force you to pay dues or fees to the union.


Which in fact makes sense and preserves my rights.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

Zog said:


> Honestly I see arguements for both but sounds to me like RTW is all about power of the union. RTW laws strip that power, non RTW states grant them more.
> 
> So, lets say an EC in a RTW state hires a new EE with PE license to do engineering studies in house. Would the EE be required to pay union dues? Would the union be doing anything to represent him?


No. No.


----------



## Dangerously (Dec 1, 2012)

Zog said:


> Honestly I see arguements for both but sounds to me like RTW is all about power of the union. RTW laws strip that power, non RTW states grant them more.
> 
> So, lets say an EC in a RTW state hires a new EE with PE license to do engineering studies in house. Would the EE be required to pay union dues? Would the union be doing anything to represent him?


Not an EE unless the contractor is signatory with some type of EE union.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

But you can't work in a closed shop in a rtw state. I work for a closed shop I must be a paid member of the IBEW. I cannot remain employed with this company and not pay dues. I would be terminated.


----------



## Dangerously (Dec 1, 2012)

nolabama said:


> But you can't work in a closed shop in a rtw state. I work for a closed shop I must be a paid member of the IBEW. I cannot remain employed with this company and not pay dues. I would be terminated.


That's a separate issue between the union and the employer and how they worked it out in their contract.


----------



## jimmy21 (Mar 31, 2012)

nolabama said:


> But you can't work in a closed shop in a rtw state. I work for a closed shop I must be a paid member of the IBEW. I cannot remain employed with this company and not pay dues. I would be terminated.



if they put in a call and it went unfilled by book 1 and book 2 they would then go to probably book 4 which is non union JW.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

jimmy21 said:


> if they put in a call and it went unfilled by book 1 and book 2 they would then go to probably book 4 which is non union JW.


No. I work for a company. Not an EC. I have no choice in the matter. I'm IBEW. I pay dues. I live and work in a right to work state. I must pay dues or no job.


----------



## Dangerously (Dec 1, 2012)

nolabama said:


> No. I work for a company. Not an EC. I have no choice in the matter. I'm IBEW. I pay dues. I live and work in a right to work state. I must pay dues or no job.


Again, that is an issue between your union and your employer, it has nothing to do with the law.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Which in fact makes sense and preserves my rights.


The issue is that if there is an union at that job, then that union has handle and dispute for you just like they do for the dues paying members. Why should I have to pay to support your rights? The union has no choice in this.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Funny, thats how I feel about taxes and the 540,000 people that stopped looking for work last month.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

nolabama said:


> No. I work for a company. Not an EC. I have no choice in the matter. I'm IBEW. I pay dues. I live and work in a right to work state. I must pay dues or no job.


That would be illegal under the wording of the new Mich law and as far as I know under the wording of most if not all RTW laws. The RTW work laws say you don't have to join the union or pay dues, but they require that the union still represent the non dues paying members.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

nolabama said:


> No. I work for a company. Not an EC. I have no choice in the matter. I'm IBEW. I pay dues. I live and work in a right to work state. I must pay dues or no job.


I can't speak for your area, or any other but my own, but if I took my annual NET income, and subtracted my union dues, it would still be more than average non-union JW wages here.

Add on to that pensions, insurance benefits, etc. and going non-union doesn't make any sense on a personal finance level. So here at least, the dues thing doesn't hold water unless you're doing it because of personal ethics. And if that's the case, WTF is wrong with you? This is America! Dollars trump ethics every time :laughing:


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That would be illegal under the wording of the new Mich law and as far as I know under the wording of most if not all RTW laws. The RTW work laws say you don't have to join the union or pay dues, but they require that the union still represent the non dues paying members.


We have employees on Mich. they will pay.dues or look for work.


----------



## Vic098 (Oct 27, 2012)

Nola, do you work for a Rail Road?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

erics37 said:


> This is America! Dollars trump ethics every time :laughing:


 
sums up the whole thread!

~CS~


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

Vic098 said:


> Nola, do you work for a Rail Road?


Yes.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

nolabama said:


> Yes.


All the live long day??


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

Zog said:


> All the live long day??


And the night and weekends and holidays ..... Oh yeah.all the live
Long day.


----------



## Vic098 (Oct 27, 2012)

nolabama said:


> Yes.


Ok. I know that rail road workers are subject to different regs. Im nOT 100% sure but the RTW laws might not apply.


----------



## jimmy21 (Mar 31, 2012)

erics37 said:


> I can't speak for your area, or any other but my own, but if I took my annual NET income, and subtracted my union dues, it would still be more than average non-union JW wages here.
> 
> Add on to that pensions, insurance benefits, etc. and going non-union doesn't make any sense on a personal finance level. So here at least, the dues thing doesn't hold water unless you're doing it because of personal ethics. And if that's the case, WTF is wrong with you? This is America! Dollars trump ethics every time :laughing:


then their next argument is usually, "but eric, there are lots of unemployed union members"


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

which is _more_ unemployed...?


~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The issue is that if there is an union at that job, then that union has handle and dispute for you just like they do for the dues paying members. Why should I have to pay to support your rights? The union has no choice in this.


The union made their choice long ago. 

Why should an orginazation be allowed to force others to pay a fee?





Zog said:


> Funny, thats how I feel about taxes and the 540,000 people that stopped looking for work last month.


Too funny, that was pretty much exactly what I was going to point out to Don.

Why do I pay taxes to build roads that others use for free? It is just a part of life in a large society.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

The parralels one can make here are downright scary.....~CS~


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> The parralels one can make here are downright scary.....~CS~


Looks like a map from the Civil War.

View attachment 19852


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

The Hatfields & McCoys square off....
*Those who are in favor of right to work believe...*


Right to work is a fundamental right that belongs in the Constitution. We should have the right to freely associate or not associate with a union. Except for taxes, we should have the right to decide who gets a cut of our paychecks. Forcing people to join unions -- or to pay a "fair share" of dues -- violates these rights. It's like taxation without representation. (Star Tribune - Crockett)
Unions are really businesses offering a service in exchange for a fee. Employees can purchase the services of a union to handle negotiations with the employer. If the union is delivering value, employees will be loyal customers. If the unions are spending a lot of money on politics and policies that an employee opposes, that individual employee can fire the union. RTW is simply about "Union Accountability." (Star Tribune - Crockett)
RTW leads to more competitive bidding and wages. The Center of the American Experiment released a study with economist Dr. Richard Vedder, of the American Enterprise Institute, that found Minnesota has paid a high economic price for not adopting RTW. "Instead of being 14th in the nation in per capita income in 2008, the state would almost certainly have been in the top 10 with RTW," he writes. Such a difference could mean thousands of dollars in wages. It also could mean more jobs to choose from. (Star Tribune - Crockett)
RTW states have substantially greater personal income economic growth rates than non RTW states. (Indiana)
Union membership, as a percentage of total workers, has been in long-term decline. Non RTW states are helping prop up a union-based system that is no longer needed or relevant. RTW states are simply more "progressive." (Indiana)
RTW states employ a greater percentage of workers. This is based on the observation in the Vedder study, "that the average right to work state had an employment-population ratio that was 1.4 percentage points higher than the average non-right-to-work state." (Indiana)
*Those who are against right to work believe...*


Wages paid in RTW states are lower. On average, workers in states with "Right to Work" laws earn $5538 a year less than workers in states without these laws. (AFL CIO)
Injury rates in RTW states are higher than in non RTW states. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws. (AFL CIO)
The amount spent on education and training for workers is less in RTW states. Right-to-Work states spend $2671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than in non RTW states. (AFL CIO)
In 2010, the Kauffman Foundation ranked states on how well "the structure of state economies match the ideal structure of the New Economy." Minnesota ranked 13th out of 50. However, 20 of the 22 states that had RTW at the time ranked below Minnesota. Nine of the top 10 states were non RTW states like Minnesota, while 8 of the bottom 10 states were RTW states. (Star Tribune - Sojourner)
On the challenge of building personal wealth, non RTW Minnesota is again outperforming RTW states. Our median personal income is higher than 21 of the 22 states that had RTW before this year, as is our per capita economic output, our share of adults in the labor force, our share of population with a high school diploma and our share with a bachelor's degree. (Star Tribune - Sojourner)
We have a lower poverty rate and a higher share of residents with health insurance than all of those 22 states. Minnesota also beats them all on eighth-grade math scores and ties for the top on reading. (Star Tribune - Sojourner)


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> The Hatfields & McCoys square off....
> Those who are in favor of right to work believe...
> 
> 
> ...


And I believe we are 3rd in income tax behind New York and California. 

Most of the statistics on both sides of these arguments are "shaped" to get the desired outcome.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

backstay said:


> Most of the statistics on both sides of these arguments are "shaped" to get the desired outcome.


lies, d*mned lies & _statistics_ .....i picked out quite a few myself , glad i'm not alone....~CS~


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

Zog said:


> So in a non RTW state, if I choose to be non union, I still have to pay union dues? How is that any different than the mafia?


If you take one single benefit the union fought for, you damn right you are going to pay dues or go home. 



walkerj said:


> Come to my house and tell me to my face we are bottom feeders you ****ing idiot.


Comon. You know what I meant. Look at the south (I live here too). Worst schools in the nation and the lowest paying jobs in the nation and for sure the less teeth in the nation.
Unions are despised in the south and you see where that thinking got us..



Dangerously said:


> It has more to do with going to work at a large factory, for example. In a RTW state you can go get hired at the factory and refuse to join the union. Since it's RTW, you don't have to pay any dues, but you do get all of the benefits that the union negotiations bring (higher wages, better benefits package, etc.). In non-RTW states you would have to pay the union dues even if you didn't want to join.


Get one single union fought for benefit, you pay your dues. I don't give a s**t where you work or what state you are from.
If a union represents you, it is your duty to pay dues.
People in the union rarely complain about dues. You cannot run a business without capital and you cannot run a union without it either.



Zog said:


> So, lets say an EC in a RTW state hires a new EE with PE license to do engineering studies in house. Would the EE be required to pay union dues? Would the union be doing anything to represent him?


Management either has their own union, or they don't have any representation.
A union shop is for the tradesmen, not the secretaries and honchos like you, unless they/you decide to form their own union.




Zog said:


> Funny, thats how I feel about taxes and the 540,000 people that stopped looking for work last month.


And name one person you know "personally" that has stopped looking for work? Really name one. You can't can you? I know you can't because you are just repeating something you heard on Fox news.
Let it go. You guys lost big time and its time to quit whining. Quit whining, and help get this country moving again.
Cleansing the house of tea party and republican suits is a great start.
If you guys don't quit this crap, watch what happens in the next election.


----------



## Dangerously (Dec 1, 2012)

John Valdes said:


> If you take one single benefit the union fought for, you damn right you are going to pay dues or go home.
> ~
> Get one single union fought for benefit, you pay your dues.


Recently I hired a lawyer to have the property taxes on my condo reassessed. The condo was still valued from 6 years ago- almost twice as much as it is worth today.

Not only was the taxes on my condo lowered, but everyone else in the building- by thousands per year.

So with your mentality, I could legally take money from everyone else in the building to cover my costs of the lawyer, even if they refuse to help pay?


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

John Valdes said:


> If you guys don't quit this crap, watch what happens in the next election.


I'm vying for armed revolt.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> And name one person you know "personally" that has stopped looking for work? Really name one. You can't can you? I know you can't because you are just repeating something you heard on Fox news


Even the gub'mit knows there's folks who never recover after their 99 is up John....

~CS~


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

John Valdes said:


> And name one person you know "personally" that has stopped looking for work? Really name one. You can't can you? I know you can't because you are just repeating something you heard on Fox news.
> Let it go. You guys lost big time and its time to quit whining. Quit whining, and help get this country moving again.
> Cleansing the house of tea party and republican suits is a great start.
> If you guys don't quit this crap, watch what happens in the next election.


That is from the jobs report released last week which your boy has failed to comment on because he is on a $4M vacation on the taxpayers dime. 

And yes, I can name one. A friend of mine who lost his job. I felt bad for him because he had just had a baby so I offered him a sales position. He was green to the industry, I had to teach him everything. 

After 90 days I offered him a full time position, $35k salary + commision which if he was poorest performer in sales staff would still be $40k in commisions on top. He turned it down because he could do as well living off his entillement checks and not have to work.

I don't care who won, this country is going to the crapper and it needs to be fixed, I hope BO can do it but so far I see nothing but more debt and more of the Socialist blueprint that will bring us all down.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

erics37 said:


> I'm vying for armed revolt.


That won't be good.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

Zog said:


> That is from the jobs report released last week which your boy has failed to comment on because he is on a $4M vacation on the taxpayers dime.
> 
> And yes, I can name one. A friend of mine who lost his job. I felt bad for him because he had just had a baby so I offered him a sales position. He was green to the industry, I had to teach him everything.
> 
> ...


So your saying you can make 75k in entitlements in N.C.? If so I'm on my way.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

Loose Neutral said:


> So your saying you can make 75k in entitlements in N.C.? If so I'm on my way.


75k after taxes ain't 75k.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Loose Neutral said:


> So your saying you can make 75k in entitlements in N.C.? If so I'm on my way.


No, just the base salary after taxes. He obviously didn't want to put the effort in for the commisions. Just wanted "free money" to sit at home and let the taxpayers cover him. 

P.S. They just went on a disney cruise.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

how TF does _that_ work....? :001_huh:~CS~


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Zog said:


> No, just the base salary after taxes. He obviously didn't want to put the effort in for the commisions. Just wanted "free money" to sit at home and let the taxpayers cover him.
> 
> P.S. They just went on a disney cruise.


He sounds like he is not too worried about it at all. Maybe mommy makes good coin.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Zog said:


> No, just the base salary after taxes. He obviously didn't want to put the effort in for the commisions. Just wanted "free money" to sit at home and let the taxpayers cover him.
> 
> P.S. They just went on a disney cruise.


Not everyone wants or needs a job. Interesting that in NC someone can quit a job and then collect unemployment. I think there might be something about this all inclusive word " entitlement". Could this be a pension he earned as part of his former salary?


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Zog said:


> I don't care who won, this country is going to the crapper and it needs to be fixed, I hope BO can do it but so far I see nothing but more debt and more of the Socialist blueprint that will bring us all down.


I agree that we are headed in the wrong direction as far as debt is concerned. The problem really escalated during Reagan's administration, and Bush I and Clinton tried to arrest the deficit spending but Bush II ran it up and now Obama is continuing.

So, both sides are guilty of committing this sin. 

If you understand our fractional reserve banking system you will also understand that attempting to arrest the deficit spending and pay down the debt will cause very long term economic contraction (also known as recession or maybe even depression).

If you want to pay off the debt, you will pretty much have to make the middle class poor, make the poor destitute, and make the rich middle class. I don't see that decision being made willingly, so IMO, we will eventually default (and so will a lot of other nations running bigger deficits than we are as a % of GDP).

It's quite a quagmire we have gotten ourselves into, and it really started in earnest with Reagan.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Zog said:


> ... because he is on a $4M vacation on the taxpayers dime.


You are so biased. You are almost as bad as Harry.



> Q: Has President Obama taken more vacation time than his predecessors?
> 
> A: According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."


http://factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Zog said:


> That is from the jobs report released last week which your boy has failed to comment on because he is on a $4M vacation on the taxpayers dime.
> .


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/with-...-of-obama’s-annual-hawaiian-holiday-rises/123

The President and his family pay for their own beachfront rental (they are not staying in the Winter White House this year but rather a house on the same street further to the ocean point).
The Kailua rentals are fronted by the ocean and backed by a canal. So, the taxpayers must cover the costs for housing U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy Seals in beach front and canal front homes in Kailua.
That costs about $1,200 a day ($200 allocated per bedroom per day). Since security arrives one day early, homes are rented for 18 days.
That is about $21,600 per home for approximately 7 houses rented at a total cost of $151,200 for security to stay nearby.

The cost of Air Force One is just under $182,000 per hour to fly. It's a 9 hour flight each way. 
The separate flight for Michelle and girls is a total of $100,000.

Who budgets this money? Oh yeah, Congress. Oops...


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

> Calls to several Presidential libraries reveal that President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, was on vacation more — 1,020 days — than any U.S. President since Herbert Hoover and possibly more than any other President in history.
> 
> Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in office 12 years from 1933 to 1945, was on vacation less days than President Bush at 958 days. Calls to several Presidential Libraries reveal that no President can come close to Bush’s 1,020 days on vacation in an 8 year period. Even Lyndon Johnson, who spent 484 days at his ranch in Texas and at Camp David during his presidency, came in under Bush’s vacation time. Some claim the cost of Bush’s frequent trips to Crawford, Texas cost taxpayers upwards of $20 million, but the numbers are hard to confirm.


http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> The union made their choice long ago.
> 
> Why should an orginazation be allowed to force others to pay a fee?


 The unions did not make the choice of having to represent non-members. The government did.






> Too funny, that was pretty much exactly what I was going to point out to Don.
> 
> Why do I pay taxes to build roads that others use for free? It is just a part of life in a large society.


There are some functions that are related to the common good and we all need to take part. I don't see this issue as being that way. 

I would have no problem with RTW as long as the nonmembers handle all of their issues with the employer on their own. If I chose to pay a fee to have some one help me with those issues that is my choice, but there should not be anything that would make me pay to help the non-members with those same issues. To me it is like saying the fire insurance should pay for my losses even if I didn't pay for a policy.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The unions did not make the choice of having to represent non-members. The government did.


Don, to me the union made the choice when they forced companies to go along with their demands. 



> There are some functions that are related to the common good and we all need to take part. I don't see this issue as being that way.


We will remain in disagreement.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

John Valdes said:


> And name one person you know "personally" that has stopped looking for work? Really name one. You can't can you? I know you can't because you are just repeating something you heard on Fox news.
> Let it go. You guys lost big time and its time to quit whining. Quit whining, and help get this country moving again.
> Cleansing the house of tea party and republican suits is a great start.
> If you guys don't quit this crap, watch what happens in the next election.


Sorry John he is just telling you the facts.

""Confused why the unemployment rate dropped? The same, favorite BLS adjustment - a drop in the labor force participation rate which declined by 0.2% to 63.6% once again, as the number of people out of the labor increased by over 540K to 88,883,000.""



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-...-expectation-85000-unemployment-rate-lower-77


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> I agree that we are headed in the wrong direction as far as debt is concerned. The problem really escalated during Reagan's administration, and Bush I and Clinton tried to arrest the deficit spending but Bush II ran it up and now Obama is continuing.
> 
> So, both sides are guilty of committing this sin.
> 
> ...


Sorry Lou, But Clinton was forced too because of the Republican House and senate during the last six years of his term.:laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Sorry Lou, But Clinton was forced too because of the Republican House and senate during the last six years of his term.:laughing:


Sorry Harry, but he didn't have to cooperate, he gets the credit.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Sorry John he is just telling you the facts.


When will we hear more of the facts that it takes less people to produce more work therefore the available jobs are disappearing?

How about we have an aging demographics that buy less stuff so demand is down.

How about this is not just a US problem.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> When will we hear more of the facts that it takes less people to produce more work therefore the available jobs are disappearing?
> 
> How about we have an aging demographics that buy less stuff so demand is down.
> 
> How about this is not just a US problem.


Demand is down because of the high cost of energy,TAXES both state and federal ,Lack of Jobs for the 89,000,000 mentioned above And all the Economic uncertainty created by our Federal Government that does not have any plan for the future.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Sorry Harry, but he didn't have to cooperate, he gets the credit.


If he did not cooperate he would have got the boot in 1996.

And yes I give him credit But not all of it.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Demand is down because of the high cost of energy,TAXES both state and federal ,Lack of Jobs for the 89,000,000 mentioned above And all the Economic uncertainty created by our Federal Government that does not have any plan for the future.


This downturn all started in 2007 and really blew up in 2008. Should we blame Bush for our problems?


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

http://www.bluugnome.com/papers_fractional-reserve-banking-system.aspx



> The idea of how money is created with the Fractional Reserve Banking system is simple. The problems it creates are just as simple but not as obvious until you take a good look at what is happening. It is evident most people do not understand the implications of the money system we use. If people understood how our money system worked they would not say we should pay off the national debt, or ask to tweak the system so there are no house foreclosures. The negative things that occur in our system are not because of poor planning. They are because debt is an integral part of what the system is. Debt is money so the negative impacts are inescapable. Just as in musical chairs; just hope you are in a good position when the music stops.
> 
> With the system we use………………….
> Paying that off the national debt is simply not possible. Unemployment will rise and fall but will always be there. House foreclosures will always be there. Bankruptcy will always be there. Business failures will always be there. The negative impacts of increasing debt and an undulating economy are what the system is built on. These things are the system at its most basic level.
> ...


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

*Another one*

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2991-why-we-cannot-pay-off-the-national-debt.html


> When I was a child, I always found it fascinating to watch the cartoon where the cartoon character would be riding a horse while holding a stick with a carrot on the end. The horse would see that carrot and instinctively move toward it. But every time the horse moved, so did the carrot! The most important thing to that horse was the carrot right in front of him, so much so that he didn't even notice the person riding on him.
> 
> I was amazed to find out that our country is very similar to that horse. Whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent, all instinctively would agree that we need to balance the budget and pay down the debt. However, every time our country has run a surplus and began to pay down the debt, a recession was sure to follow and we were unable to continue paying it down..


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Don, to me the union made the choice when they forced companies to go along with their demands.


That has never happened in the history of the world. Both sides have to agree to the contract language. One side cannot do anything by itself.





> We will remain in disagreement.


Of course we will.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> This downturn all started in 2007 and really blew up in 2008. Should we blame Bush for our problems?


For today's problems NO.,Does he deserve blame for the down turn that started in 2007 yes because he lost the house and senate to the democrats,and that created the uncertainty we still have today .

But January 2009 The democrats had complete control until January 2011 they wasted that opportunity on their agenda they lost the house and now we have gridlock.
And the same uncertainty prevails today as it did in January 2007 and most likely last till January 2015.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> For today's problems NO.,Does he deserve blame for the down turn that started in 2007 yes because he lost the house and senate to the democrats,and that created the uncertainty we still have today .
> 
> But January 2009 The democrats had complete control until January 2011 they wasted that opportunity on their agenda they lost the house and now we have gridlock.
> And the same uncertainty prevails today as it did in January 2007 and most likely last till January 2015.


I guess you think financial catastrophes that have been decades in the making can be fixed in 4 years? Really?


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> But January 2009 The democrats had complete control until January 2011 they wasted that opportunity on their agenda....


Apparently, you are in a minority on this opinion (check the election results).

I will state again, this problem has a much larger scope than politics. Personally, I don't see it ever being fixed, I just see it as eventually we have a world reset.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> For today's problems NO.,Does he deserve blame for the down turn that started in 2007 yes because he lost the house and senate to the democrats,and that created the uncertainty we still have today .
> 
> But January 2009 The democrats had complete control until January 2011 they wasted that opportunity on their agenda they lost the house and now we have gridlock.
> And the same uncertainty prevails today as it did in January 2007 and most likely last till January 2015.


Here is an interesting viewpoint.


> I have heard both sides argue this point ad nauseaum. The Democrats usually cite the fact that under Democratic Presidents, the economy actually has performed better than under Republican Presidents. Republicans respond that under Republican Congresses, that the economy responds better. I decided to look at the data myself and found that the statistical analysis of all this hooha is meaningless... when you hear it, you are being lied to by statistics. I can make the case for either party using rational assumptions, like lag time for effect. I also looked at it by party controlling congress and party in the white house and all combinations thereof.
> 
> .............................
> 
> All in all, with Congress setting a budget, and Presidents having veto power, responsibility goes both ways. I think it is WAY too simplistic to argue whether a republican or democrat President is better for the economy. From this, clearly Johnson was a bad for the economy from a DJIA perspective but equivalent to Reagan and Truman from a GDP and government spending rates basis. Reagan was great from a DJIA basis, but bad from a GDP and government spending basis. Nixon was good on a GDP and government spending basis but bad from a DJIA basis, as was Ford and Carter. Clinton was a rock star on all bases. Bush has been non-descrip to date.


http://openchoke.blogs.com/open_cho...my-better-under-democrats-or-republicans.html

:laughing: I figure "Clinton was a rock star on all bases" will get you worked up even more. :laughing:


----------



## jimmy21 (Mar 31, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> For today's problems NO.,Does he deserve blame for the down turn that started in 2007 yes because he lost the house and senate to the democrats,and that created the uncertainty we still have today .
> 
> But January 2009 The democrats had complete control until January 2011 they wasted that opportunity on their agenda they lost the house and now we have gridlock.
> And the same uncertainty prevails today as it did in January 2007 and most likely last till January 2015.


Democrats had control but the republicans philabustered everything that came through


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jimmy21 said:


> Democrats had control but the republicans philabustered everything that came through


And the senate passed the HC Law by , bypassing the phiabuster through recsiliation a sleazy but leagal way.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> bypassing the phiabuster through recsiliation a sleazy but leagal way.


Where did they learn that, from the republicans? :laughing:


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

If the losers would just accept they lost and work together, this country can be the greatest once again.
I have never seen this country more divided in my life.
I have always accepted the peoples choice and stood with the President regardless of who it is. And no matter his affiliation.
What makes it so different this time? I know and so do all of you.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Where did they learn that, from the republicans? :laughing:


:laughing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/03/25/reid-pushing-through-the_n_512546.html


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

John Valdes said:


> What makes it so different this time? I know and so do all of you.


The debt?

The fact that Obama is declaring war on the recent winners in the class warfare?

You're not suggesting it's because of race are you?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> The debt?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

John Valdes said:


> I have never seen this country more divided in my life.
> .


nor i John



~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> You mean the ones who bought him into office....?


Strange question, but no.


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

"What makes it so different this time? I know and so do all of you. "

OK, John, you can apologize at any time.

Fact is, you have no idea what I'm thinking. It's pretty arrogant to claim that you do. King Solomon himself could not know a man's motives - where did you get your insight?

That's what makes it so hard to have a productive discussion - when one radical starts assigning motives and 'thinking' for the other guy. Back to the topic, please.

Funny, all these employers who preach the right of the working man to make his own deals are the same ones who want credentials, references, salary history, etc. Give them a market where labor is scarce, and suddenly they want to restrict a man's ability to compete. Just look at the firms with 'no compete' clauses, and the 'never re-hire' policies. Look at how happy they are to link benefits with seniority, and to restrict a man from changing his position.

Unions have their potential, and it has yet to be realized. There is no reason for things to be 'us vs. them.' I regret that is how things have developed. 

Craft unions like the IBEW have a uniue opportunity to polish their brand. R2W is a chance for this to happen - and not the 'end of the world' so many feel.

"Closed shops" are quickly becoming 'out of business' shops. Just look at where the economy is ailing, and where it is doing better.

Right now, employers have the edge. They can pretty much do as they will and a man will still cling to his job. This WILL pass. All things do. When the 'good times' return, those who used this time to squeeze their people will find their help gone. 

Unions need to return to their roots, to the "Steamboat Pilots' Union" days, where their members had a very real competitive advantage over the other pilots.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Amish Electrician said:


> Unions have their potential, and it has yet to be realized. There is no reason for things to be 'us vs. them.' I regret that is how things have developed.


I share that regret, but that's the way it is because of greed.


> Right now, employers have the edge. They can pretty much do as they will and a man will still cling to his job. This WILL pass. All things do. When the 'good times' return, those who used this time to squeeze their people will find their help gone.


 Most of them will just raise the pay of the ones they want to keep and everyone will be happy.


> Unions need to return to their roots, to the "Steamboat Pilots' Union" days, where their members had a very real competitive advantage over the other pilots.


I agree, for the unions to work, they must continually demonstrate they are worth the additional money.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I often wonder what an "Eagle with no wings" refer's to. The eagle is obviously the USA, but what is up with the no wings?. 



Don't ask me to elaborate, this is for well read wise men only, and I already know how far and few between they really are........


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Amish Electrician said:


> "
> 
> 
> > Unions have their potential, and it has yet to be realized.
> ...


----------



## Staxmaloney (Jun 8, 2012)

It seems pretty simple to me. If you want to be union join one and work for union EC's. if you don't, join an open shop. How is a union forcing you to join?


----------



## Staxmaloney (Jun 8, 2012)

Zog said:


> That is from the jobs report released last week which your boy has failed to comment on because he is on a $4M vacation on the taxpayers dime.
> 
> And yes, I can name one. A friend of mine who lost his job. I felt bad for him because he had just had a baby so I offered him a sales position. He was green to the industry, I had to teach him everything.
> 
> ...


I'm c


----------



## Staxmaloney (Jun 8, 2012)

Zog said:


> That is from the jobs report released last week which your boy has failed to comment on because he is on a $4M vacation on the taxpayers dime.
> 
> And yes, I can name one. A friend of mine who lost his job. I felt bad for him because he had just had a baby so I offered him a sales position. He was green to the industry, I had to teach him everything.
> 
> ...


I'm calling BS on that.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> Don't ask me to elaborate,.......


OK, we won't (or at least I won't)


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> I guess you think financial catastrophes that have been decades in the making can be fixed in 4 years? Really?


Yes in fact they could have fixed it anytime they wanted,key word "wanted", the fact is they don't want to fix it and pound that line you just did.,They have their motives and the faster we figure out what they are the better off WE will be.

They've had the power all along to fix it and can do so in a new york minute.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> They've had the power all along to fix it and can do so in a new york minute.


You should do some reading on the fractional reserve banking system.


----------



## bhardman86 (Nov 23, 2011)

BBQ said:


> The union made their choice long ago.
> 
> Why should an orginazation be allowed to force others to pay a fee?
> 
> ...


You don't want to pay your dues.. than pay for you own damn health insurance and your own pension plan. Don't take out of our pot that you're contributing nothing too.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Staxmaloney said:


> I'm calling BS on that.


Call it want you want but it is still causing me pain. My wife is friends with his wife and now she is out of friend loop because of the whole situation and she is pissed off at me. Lesson learned for helping someone out that needs a job.


----------



## 347sparky (May 14, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> or even have an inflatable entity?
> 
> ~CS~


I thought McClary had an inflatable doll with tatoos on it. :laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Zog said:


> Call it want you want but it is still causing me pain. My wife is friends with his wife and now she is out of friend loop because of the whole situation and she is pissed off at me. Lesson learned for helping someone out that needs a job.


That sucks for you. I hope you find a way to get her to move on.

No good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> You should do some reading on the fractional reserve banking system.


I have and It's part of the big picture.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

hardworkingstiff said:


> That sucks for you. I hope you find a way to get her to move on.
> 
> No good deed goes unpunished.


It will work out, but I did slap a "Buy Americian" sticker on thier new Prius the other night. :jester:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

347sparky said:


> I thought McClary had an inflatable doll with tatoos on it. :laughing:











~CS~


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> I often wonder what an "Eagle with no wings" refer's to. The eagle is obviously the USA, but what is up with the no wings?.


Would fight before flying away...


----------



## IBEW 164 (Nov 26, 2012)

It's all nonsense. Right to work? Sure you have the right to work. If
You wanna work union, go through the program and work. Nobody is stopping anyone from working. The whole argument is bogus.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

IBEW 164 said:


> It's all nonsense. Right to work? Sure you have the right to work. If
> You wanna work union, go through the program and work. Nobody is stopping anyone from working. The whole argument is bogus.


Exactly! You wanna work union? Apply then wait a few months, test then wait a few months, apply again and wait a few months, then interview and wait a few months sign the book then wait a few months. :laughing:


----------



## IBEW 164 (Nov 26, 2012)

TGGT said:


> Exactly! You wanna work union? Apply then wait a few months, test then wait a few months, apply again and wait a few months, then interview and wait a few months sign the book then wait a few months. :laughing:


Exactly. If ya don't like it. Don't join. Problem solved. I mean really
Theres a test involved, which is alot of work, an interview? god forbid they try and select who gets in. And we all know while your waiting to hear from
Them, you cant work. If ya don't like it once again, don't join. But then don't cry "right to work" when you want to work for them hahaha. 

Unions aren't keeping anyone from working. If anyone feels that way please tell me how so. If someone wants to work, they will. If they don't, they are the ones who are complaining. Unions have their place on large jobs. If your a non union shop, you have the manpower, and are paying less money....you should
Have no issue with taking jobs away from union shops. Right to work is for those who are pissed off at union wages and benefits. 

NOBODY IS STOPPING ANYONE FROM JOINING. 

It's free will. Do with it as you will.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

IBEW 164 said:


> Exactly. If ya don't like it. Don't join. Problem solved. I mean really
> Theres a test involved, which is alot of work, an interview? god forbid they try and select who gets in. And we all know while your waiting to hear from
> Them, you cant work. If ya don't like it once again, don't join. But then don't cry "right to work" when you want to work for them hahaha.
> 
> ...


That's classic man, I love it. Trust me, there are plenty of non union shops with the manpower, knowledge, and paying less money, taking work from union boys.

I don't wish the shrinking marketshare on you guys, but when reality is cockslapping you in the face because you refuse to make meaningful change it's hard to feel sorry for you either.

Public and private sector unions are losing public support. That's support from working men and women. If you're losing their support there is something seriously wrong with your business model. They're supposed to be your bread and butter, but they're not feeling the love. A union with no members has no power.

Now legislation it changing to make unions even weaker, but it's only a symptom of the problem. The public largely supports these changes. 

That's not okay, dude, no matter how far you shove those fingers in your ears. As far as I can tell, it's only going to get worse.


----------



## Rochsolid (Aug 9, 2012)

I don't understand the hatred between non union and union workers. As far as I'm concerned, do whatever makes you happy. I work for a non union shop, I have a great benefit package,(for myself my wife and my son). I don't have a pension (like I would if I was union) but my situation works for me. Had my company been a union shop when they hired me I would be a union worker. I just do t understand the bad blood, maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## icefalkon (Dec 16, 2007)

It really isn't cool when things deteriorate into ridiculous name calling. As was also stated in another thread that was thankfully closed...we all have to feed our families. 

Whether you buy into our way of life or not...try to be the best possible construction electrician you can be. I'll give you this...not one person here...union or non union wants to see a boatload of electricians from say...China...housed on a barge...being boated to land to do electrical work on one of our piers right? 

It was suggested very recently at a City Planning Meeting by an international general contractor.

I don't care if you want to be union or not...THAT is something we ALL should be standing up against. The concept of shipping electricians over from another country and housing them on a freaking BOAT to do work we here in America can do???

Yet...here on ET...we'll fight and name call...when in truth...there are just as many union assholles as there are non union assholles around the country. However...there comes a time when we all have to consider what's going on...it's far cheaper for international GC's to bring in workers...

and we can not allow that. 

This is OUR country, OUR trade, and we can NOT sit by...argue...and let things like this happen. If it happens here in NYC...I can guarantee you it will begin happening elsewhere.


----------



## sayn3ver (Sep 13, 2011)

icefalkon said:


> However...there comes a time when we all have to consider what's going on...it's far cheaper for international GC's to bring in workers...
> 
> and we can not allow that.
> 
> This is OUR country, OUR trade, and we can NOT sit by...argue...and let things like this happen. If it happens here in NYC...I can guarantee you it will begin happening elsewhere.


That is scary for everyone. I am sure most everyone was taught or told that as a generality, construction and labor markets normally do not compete against each other or influence the other. Ie, the cost to build a house in texas is different then it is in NJ. While one may be cheaper than the other, they don't compete with each other due to geography. This is a rather simplified version. 

I could not imagine sitting in on a meeting only to hear that. Every american citizen should should be appalled at the idea of that ever happening and should be willing to do whatever it takes to prevent that. It should be considered unacceptable by everyone on this board.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Yeah guys, the real competition to organized labor is imported Chinese electricians that live on boats.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

TGGT said:


> Yeah guys, the real competition to organized labor is imported Chinese electricians that live on boats.


Basically that is happening in San Francisco - some big bridge project being done by a chinese company with chinese labor.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)




----------



## sayn3ver (Sep 13, 2011)

eejack said:


> Basically that is happening in San Francisco - some big bridge project being done by a chinese company with chinese labor.


the new pecking order...(in terms of price higest to lowest)...

1)union labor american citizen :hammer:
2)non-union labor american citizen :cowboy:
3)illegal resident of united states 
4)Imports from third world nation :chinese:


it'll impact even you non union guys if it becomes an accepted practice. If you don't think so you are naive. We need to vote a politician into office to pass a law making this an illegal practice. You know the GOP will be against it though as it will hinder business just as they are against clean air and water.


----------



## icefalkon (Dec 16, 2007)

It is a threat, and I find it repulsive that there were members at the meeting espousing the benefits of it. 

Again...union or not...something like the importing of skilled labor that can be manned by Americans is something that affects us all.


----------



## icefalkon (Dec 16, 2007)

I don't feel we are better than anyone else. I feel we have better healthcare and retirement plans...but no one is better than the other. Words said on both sides get ugly when the arguments get heated. I'm guilty of that myself. But when ALL of our ways of life come under attack...no...old arguments have to stop and everyone needs to come together. 

As when union shops bid against merit shops for prevailing wage work. As long as the open shop follows the same rules we have to follow...fine. A winning bid is a winning bid. However, when an open shop willfully withholds the medical portion of the certified payroll to the men...that is wrong. A union shop cannot do that as the money for medical goes from contractor to union to the medical provider. It's no longer a level playing field if a portion of the money that the contractor SHOULD be investing in his men do not GO to his men. Of course not all shops do that, but here in NYC a substantial number of them do. So many in fact that certain entities have initiated programs to investigate this particular brand of corruption. 

All this goes to the wayside with the importation of labor. If that happens ALL get hurt.


----------



## sayn3ver (Sep 13, 2011)

they are probably the same people who shop at walmart and believe in "rolling back prices everyday" 

they manufacturer it, they ship it, they build it, they buy it, they trash it....doesn't leave much for us. It comes down to the walmart mentality of the american public...pay as little as possible for everything, no exceptions. No pride, no responsibility. no conscious.


----------



## icefalkon (Dec 16, 2007)

sayn3ver said:


> they are probably the same people who shop at walmart and believe in "rolling back prices everyday"
> 
> they manufacturer it, they ship it, they build it, they buy it, they trash it....doesn't leave much for us. It comes down to the walmart mentality of the american public...pay as little as possible for everything, no exceptions. No pride, no responsibility. no conscious.


Scary...but true.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

eejack said:


> Basically that is happening in San Francisco - some big bridge project being done by a chinese company with chinese labor.


Why not, the Chinese built the railroads.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Why not, the Chinese built the railroads.


Funny, yet the parallels are there - robber baron owners hiring slave labor to work, pinkertons to crack union heads.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

eejack said:


> Funny, yet the parallels are there - robber baron owners hiring slave labor to work, pinkertons to crack union heads.


I'm so glad you caught my inferences.  :thumbsup:


----------



## sayn3ver (Sep 13, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Why not, the Chinese built the railroads.


And didn't that lead to American labor organizing to fight against the railroad tycoons? It's like it's a big circle or something...

I don't understand how anyone from this country can think its a good idea to import labor from another country? We already import most of our goods as manufacturing has pretty much dwindled to nothing in this country. Importing labor pretty much would be us telling the world "we give up on life". Not to mention the wages would be going directly overseas rather than remaining mostly in this country. 

Wait until the unions disappear altogether and or are nerfed so bad they are completely ineffective. Wellbe right back to where we were during the industrial revolution, 10,12,14 hour days 6-7 days a week, no job safety, minimum wage, child labor, etc.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

If you look at history, it is full of examples of more affluent people taking advantage of less affluent people. It is a sad commentary on the spiritual development (rather the lack of) of our societies (not just the USA, but the world). (I'm not talking about religion here)

I've read a lot and learned a lot in the last 4 years. I had no idea how f'ed up the whole thing is. It really saddens the heart to see what's going on.



> For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Deflection hasn't served your organizations well so far, I don't understand why you still partake in that charade.


----------



## icefalkon (Dec 16, 2007)

What deflection/charade T?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Can you validate your insistence on this medical benifit withholding Ice?

~CS~


----------



## icefalkon (Dec 16, 2007)

Well there was Venus Electric here in NYC last year, a firm in Astoria Queens. They were busted by the School Construction Authority and their owner was taken out in handcuff's. Another firm PJ Dempsey Electric was doing the exact same thing and the owner (Dempsey) closed the shop and is now a PM for one of the largest shops in the tri state area. 

If you do your research into prevailing wage theft you will find that this is easily substantiated. Those are two firms I know of personally. The School Construction Authority's head of "internal affairs" is a personal friend of mine and believe me CS...this man does not fabricate lies on this subject.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

icefalkon said:


> What deflection/charade T?


Deflecting responsibility for their downward spiral.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

icefalkon said:


> Well there was Venus Electric here in NYC last year, a firm in Astoria Queens. They were busted by the School Construction Authority and their owner was taken out in handcuff's. Another firm PJ Dempsey Electric was doing the exact same thing and the owner (Dempsey) closed the shop and is now a PM for one of the largest shops in the tri state area.
> 
> If you do your research into prevailing wage theft you will find that this is easily substantiated. Those are two firms I know of personally. The School Construction Authority's head of "internal affairs" is a personal friend of mine and believe me CS...this man does not fabricate lies on this subject.


Not insinutaing any lies here Icedude, just need to understand the situation. From what i gather here, open shop companies are not paying medical bennies to their help, is this correct?

further, they've been arrested for doing so.....?

~CS~


----------



## uconduit (Jun 6, 2012)

eejack said:


> Basically that is happening in San Francisco - some big bridge project being done by a chinese company with chinese labor.


IDK if that's true. There were a number of calls out of local 6 a while back for that job described as '6" rigid, working at height'.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

uconduit said:


> IDK if that's true. There were a number of calls out of local 6 a while back for that job described as '6" rigid, working at height'.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/global/26bridge.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

We get to pour the roadway...lucky us.


----------



## sayn3ver (Sep 13, 2011)

Hey the one worker makes $12 a day. only works 7am-11pm. Sounds like a deal. Sign me up.


----------



## sayn3ver (Sep 13, 2011)

What gets me is that the politicians think its a great idea and that they are doing us a favor by saving some money. Haha. With leaders like that who needs competition/enemies.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

sayn3ver said:


> the new pecking order...(in terms of price higest to lowest)...
> 
> 1)union labor american citizen :hammer:
> 2)non-union labor american citizen :cowboy:
> ...


Ok, which *one* doesn't degrade our standard of living?


----------

