# salts



## Sparky72 (Jun 2, 2009)

What are Salts?


----------



## MollyHatchet29 (Jan 24, 2012)

Union journeymen who are allowed to work with non-union contractors (which has to be signed off on by their local) in hopes to get them to join the union.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Google it...



> Salting is a labor union tactic involving the act of getting a job at a specific workplace with the intent of organizing a union.[1] A person so employed is called a "salt".
> 
> The tactic is often discussed in the United States because under US law, unions may be prohibited from talking with workers in the workplace and salting is one of the few legal strategies that allow union organizers to talk with workers. Both the Knights of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World employed salts. The IWW continues to use salts, especially in their Starbucks Workers Campaign.[2]


----------



## ohmega (Apr 19, 2010)

Well you got your run of the mill table salt, kosher salt, sea salt, flavored salts, and bath salts.
One of the above may turn you into a flesh eating naked zombie!


----------



## ohmega (Apr 19, 2010)

.....man, I was way off! :laughing:


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

ohmega said:


> Well you got your run of the mill table salt, kosher salt, sea salt, flavored salts, and bath salts.
> One of the above may turn you into a flesh eating naked zombie!


 
Yea, gotta be the bath salts, cause I have used everything else!:thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Salts are usually tenured folk

i had the pleasure of working with one who i learned much in the way of safety and approach to things electrical from

~CS~


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Technically, a union member who is "salting" is referred to as a salt.
A non union electrician who is engaged in "salting" (for the purpose of organizing) is referred to as a pepper.

Traditionally a person or persons who salt with the intent of organizing a workplace would be engaged in whats called "ground up organizing". Some organizers consider that an old school method of organizing though. Some organizers consider that method the hardest way of organizing in the trade unions.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

A salt is also an old navy man.. as in salt water.. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Sometimes along with legitimate organizing Salts intentionally try to draw the employer into a labor board dispute. 

Here is one side of things with it's own bias ..... but the truth likely lies in between Vics description and what you read in the link.

http://www.fklaborlaw.com/articles/Union-Salting-Objectives.html


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

B4T said:


> A salt is also an old navy man.. as in salt water.. :laughing:


:laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Sometimes along with legitimate organizing Salts intentionally try to draw the employer into a labor board dispute.
> 
> Here is one side of things with it's own bias ..... but the truth likely lies in between Vics description and what you read in the link.
> 
> http://www.fklaborlaw.com/articles/Union-Salting-Objectives.html


No, my description was dead on.
Although, I never said that NLRB charges were not a method of organizing.
Just like electricians, there are good organizers and bad ones. IMO, a good organizer will not waste time, money and resources on "trumped up" charges or dead ends.
And then, that leads to the argument of what exactly is a "trumped up" charge.
An electrical contractor might view a particular charge as "trumped up" when in fact it very well might be credible.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

In the midwest a salt is an under average electrician who can't get a real job, so his handlers send him to another job that they don't give a **** about.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> No, my description was dead on.


:laughing:

Of course Vic, you have no bias at all and only give out the straight story.


At least have the balls to admit not all salt activity is 'nice'.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> ...
> At least have the balls to admit not all salt activity is 'nice'.


I would say that most of it is not "nice" and that is one of the reasons it is often ineffective. The most effective salt is one who goes in and does his or her work and out performs the other workers, while at the same time explaining to the other workers the training and other benefits that are available in the union. You don't see that very often.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I would say that most of it is not "nice" and that is one of the reasons it is often ineffective. The most effective salt is one who goes in and does his or her work and out performs the other workers, while at the same time explaining to the other workers the training and other benefits that are available in the union. You don't see that very often.


The only direct experiences I have had with salts were mostly negative.

One guy did great work but all them played games like;

Everyday they needed new safety glasses because they were too scratched.

Everyday show up to work 5 seconds before the start time

Everyday leave if tools were picked up or not.

One had to leave early one day a week for 'religious reasons'

Just stuff to draw a labor board complaint


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

BBQ said:


> The only direct experiences I have had with salts were mostly negative.
> One had to leave early one day a week for 'religious reasons'


That is a workers right and you can get in trouble telling him to pray on his own time.. :blink::blink:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

B4T said:


> That is a workers right and you can get in trouble telling him to pray on his own time.. :blink::blink:


Exactly the point. (BTW he was not praying on the job, he was leaving the job an hour early to do 'something religious')

I don' think he really had a religious commitment, but it was just another way for him to try to draw the company into doing something he could file a complaint with the labor board for.

FWIW we have had employees that had to stop and pray to mecca each day and we would never interfere with that either.


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

So much on the theory of bath salts!

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/tests-find-only-marijuana-1465784.html


----------



## ohmega (Apr 19, 2010)

That guy was on something other than weed. thats bs. Potheads dont eat faces, most I know only eat veggies. And sit on the couch and are what they eat!:laughing:


----------



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

ohmega said:


> That guy was on something other than weed. thats bs. Potheads dont eat faces, most I know only eat veggies. And sit on the couch and are what they eat!:laughing:


 
That article is misleading. There are currently no test for "bath salts"


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

ohmega said:


> That guy was on something other than weed. thats bs. Potheads dont eat faces, most I know *only eat veggies*. And sit on the couch and are what they eat!:laughing:


 
You are way off the mark on this.

Twinkies, HOHO's and Krispy Kreme top the list, now when they are not smoking veggies may top the list.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I have never thought Salting as done by the union, does anything to put a positive light on organizing and union activities.


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

BBQ said:


> The only direct experiences I have had with salts were mostly negative.
> 
> One guy did great work but all them played games like;
> 
> ...


If your company is operating as it should you should have no issues now if you are requiring men to start work or continue to work off the clock or you refuse to provide safety equipment then you deserve to get slammed. I worked at factories were we received new safety glasses every day if I need to leave I need to leave as long as I don't expect to get paid.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

007 said:


> If your company is operating as it should you should have no issues now if you are requiring men to start work or continue to work off the clock or you refuse to provide safety equipment then you deserve to get slammed. I worked at factories were we received new safety glasses every day if I need to leave I need to leave as long as I don't expect to get paid.


I was waiting for that.

We don't expect anyone to work 'off the clock' nor do we have any problem at all providing all the safety gear. We are actually a leader in safety, our safety man teaches to other contractors per the requests of GCs.

As far as the safety glasses, we had about 15 men on the job, the only ones that needed new ones daily were the salts. We were all doing the same work so can you tell me why that would be? 

My point was that these men tried to push things with the intention of drawing a labor board action. 

Where they within their rights? Certainly they were but they were not able to file any complaints because the company follows the rules.

That said, being within your rights and being 'right' are not always one in the same. 

Do I feel people that do such things are pieces of feces? Certainly I do.

And because at the time I was not in any sort of management position I let them know daily how I felt about them and how unwelcome they were. They were not able to convince anyone in the company that going union would be better as the merit shop was taking great care of the guys and the guys liked the company. 


Salts are scum, no one will ever convince me otherwise and I would not give them a glass of water if they were dieing.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

BBQ said:


> Salts are scum, no one will ever convince me otherwise and I would not give them a glass of water if they were dieing.


 
The few cases I know of the salts were trouble makers, working to get fired and start a NLRB action.

Anyone that would work as a salt in my opinion is a low life.

I feel the union could do better.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Exactly the point. (BTW he was not praying on the job, he was leaving the job an hour early to do 'something religious')
> 
> I don' think he really had a religious commitment


Probably was a Rastafarian :whistling2:


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

BBQ said:


> I was waiting for that.
> 
> We don't expect anyone to work 'off the clock' nor do we have any problem at all providing all the safety gear. We are actually a leader in safety, our safety man teaches to other contractors per the requests of GCs.
> 
> ...


 My point is you cannot be drawn into a NLRB issue ,you walk in willingly. Their are businesses that actually teach companies how to deal with salts. I went to a seminar and one thing stuck with me he said salts won't turn your guys union but bad management will. Treat your men well watch out for their safety and a salt shows up he is just mother employee.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

I just think it's funny that some people actually think salting is an ok and decent practice. That they actually think they are doing a good thing. Thats just messed up.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

I think they send the losers to Salt...........


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

I've been feeling bitter as of late...somebody send a salt my way. :laughing:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 27, 2011)

Just in case.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

007 said:


> My point is you cannot be drawn into a NLRB issue ,you walk in willingly.


And my point is people who lie, who misrepresent themselves and who try to cause an NLRB issue are scumbags.


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

BBQ said:


> And my point is people who lie, who misrepresent themselves and who try to cause an NLRB issue are scumbags.


And I am sure the salt guy would think you were a brown nosing rat bastard but that has little to do with NLRB issues and the fact nobody can "cause" an NLRB charge. They count on guys with attitudes like yours and they just sit back and push your buttons and eventually you will stub your own toe. The salt is just doing what he feels will be best for him and my job is to do what's best for my business he is not going to make my job easier and I sure am not going to make his easier.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

007 said:


> And I am sure the salt guy would think you were a brown nosing rat bastard but that has little to do with NLRB issues and the fact nobody can "cause" an NLRB charge. They count on guys with attitudes like yours and they just sit back and push your buttons and eventually you will stub your own toe. The salt is just doing what he feels will be best for him and my job is to do what's best for my business he is not going to make my job easier and I sure am not going to make his easier.


I thought the good union guys didn't use words like "Rat".


----------



## D-Bo (Apr 15, 2012)

ok someone bring me up to speed here. i understand what a salt is but my question is why in gods name would a company hire a salt knowing damn well they are only there with evil intent. sounds like most of the people on this site who've worked with salts knew what they were from the get go


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

D-Bo said:


> ok someone bring me up to speed here. i understand what a salt is but my question is why in gods name would a company hire a salt knowing damn well they are only there with evil intent. sounds like most of the people on this site who've worked with salts knew what they were from the get go


The company doesn't usually know their a union salt until they've hired them and it's too late.

Just another classy practice brought to you by the "brotherhood".


----------



## D-Bo (Apr 15, 2012)

i see how that could happen in a large metropolitan area but my city is just shy of 100,000 and all of us electricians are aware of one another


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I heard a union consultant on the news today and he was saying in 1977 the private work force was 23.7% union, today it is 7.7% union. He feels the union has been making mistakes and that has affected their public image and membership.

He did say the card check of open votes was a mistake as it garnered bad press, violating everything America stands for. HMMMMMM I've heard that somewhere before.

Maybe someone read some of my post here and my constant complaints about how the union shoots themselves in the foot.

One law they want to get passed is that a union vote no longer has to be a majority. But take a company in bits and pieces. Such as a store if only a minority wants to be union let them organize as the shoe salesmen and the suit and shirt salesmen would be open shop. :no::no::no::no:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

D-Bo said:


> i see how that could happen in a large metropolitan area but my city is just shy of 100,000 and all of us electricians are aware of one another


Even if you know for sure they are a salt if you do not hire them but you hire others you are likely going to be defending the decision to the labor board. 

If they are qualified it is against the law to consider their union ties.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Even if you know for sure they are a salt if you do not hire them but you hire others you are likely going to be defending the decision to the labor board.
> 
> If they are qualified it is against the law to consider their union ties.


....almost impossible to prove they where not hired because they where union, unless the owner comes right out and says it.


----------



## D-Bo (Apr 15, 2012)

BBQ said:


> Even if you know for sure they are a salt if you do not hire them but you hire others you are likely going to be defending the decision to the labor board.
> 
> If they are qualified it is against the law to consider their union ties.


so lets say my hypothetical company is looking to pick up ONE more employee. and say i choose to hire a green apprentice over a seasoned jman with suspected union ties. why would i have to give a reason to anyone for my actions, its my company and i will hire whoever i damn well please.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

D-Bo said:


> so lets say my hypothetical company is looking to pick up ONE more employee. and say i choose to hire a green apprentice over a seasoned jman with suspected union ties. why would i have to give a reason to anyone for my actions, its my company and i will hire whoever i damn well please.


Lets say you don't hire the salt, they go to the labor board.

You will have to stop what you are doing and defend yourself over this action. Even if you win, they have cost you money.

The goal is to screw with you.

In my case the company I was working for was hiring a lot of guys, it would be hard to defend why you hired guys A, B, C, E and F but did not hire guy D who had great experience.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

I think BBQ is just stating that the company can not come out and state the difference in the hiring was a direct result of someone belonging to a union (if that person was not associated with the union, he/she would have been hired)


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

360max said:


> ....almost impossible to prove they where not hired because they where union, unless the owner comes right out and says it.


Yes, for companies that do not hire that many guys but regardless the company has to defend themselves.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

360max said:


> BBQ is just stating that the company can not come out and state the difference in the hiring was a direct result of someone belonging to a union (if that person was not associated with the union, he/she would have been hired)


Yes,

But it would be hard to defend, if out of a pool of 10 guys you hire 7 and the only ones not hired had union ties.


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

A little ot, but I was turned down for a job once because I was in the guard.
I told him that was illegal and he said prove it!
All he had to say was I wasn't qualified for the job as he needed.


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

jbfan said:


> A little ot, but I was turned down for a job once because I was in the guard.
> I told him that was illegal and he said prove it!
> All he had to say was I wasn't qualified for the job as he needed.


You should have filled a complaint guys like this need to be slapped.


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

D-Bo said:


> so lets say my hypothetical company is looking to pick up ONE more employee. and say i choose to hire a green apprentice over a seasoned jman with suspected union ties. why would i have to give a reason to anyone for my actions, its my company and i will hire whoever i damn well please.


You have to justify your reason for not hiring, you can't use race,sex, age as reasons to not hire. If I am just as qualified and I am 55 and you hire the 20 year old you are going to have to defend the decision


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

007 said:


> You have to justify your reason for not hiring, you can't use race,sex, age as reasons to not hire. If I am just as qualified and I am 55 and you hire the 20 year old you are going to have to defend the decision


 
And that is the problem..ALL BS


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

brian john said:


> And that is the problem..ALL BS


 so what is the problem? you think race discrimination is OK ???


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

007 said:


> so what is the problem? you think race discrimination is OK ???


 
Only if he can't produce, if I make a determination that in my opinion a certain individual is a better fit for my orginzation, why to heck should some unemployable lawyer that had to go to the lowest of government jobs make that determination for me?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

B4T said:


> A salt is also an old navy man.. as in salt water.. :laughing:


:laughing::laughing::thumbup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> One had to leave early one day a week for 'religious reasons'


Yes the religion of alcohol and Boodh! .:laughing:


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

brian john said:


> Only if he can't produce, if I make a determination that in my opinion a certain individual is a better fit for my orginzation, why to heck should some unemployable lawyer that had to go to the lowest of government jobs make that determination for me?


All things being equal you cannot use race, religion, sex or age as the determining factor.you sound like the reason why we need these laws


----------



## triden (Jun 13, 2012)

007 said:


> All things being equal you cannot use race, religion, sex or age as the determining factor.you sound like the reason why we need these laws


My company doesn't hire anyone who is a smoker. Might be considered a grey area, but I think it's great :thumbsup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

007 said:


> All things being equal you cannot use race, religion, sex or age as the determining factor.you sound like the reason why we need these laws


You know NOTHING about me and have NO CLUE how I run my business. But I have the right to determine who will or won’t be responsible for what I have risked my existence on for 27 years. I have all types and ages working for me.

Last year when an electrician I know was laid off, 13 months short of being eligible for retirement I found a spot for him to make those 13 months. BUT I decided on that not the government buffoons. EEOC and NLRB are buffoons. And like all government agencies at one point they served a vital purpose (and in some cases do now) but as they grow they lose sight of their mission and become another waste of tax dollars.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> You know NOTHING about me and have NO CLUE how I run my business. But I have the right to determine who will or won’t be responsible for what I have risked my existence on for 27 years. I have all types and ages working for me.
> 
> Last year when an electrician I know was laid off, 13 months short of being eligible for retirement I found a spot for him to make those 13 months. BUT I decided on that not the government buffoons. EEOC and NLRB are buffoons. And like all government agencies at one point they served a vital purpose (and in some cases do now) but as they grow they lose sight of their mission and become another waste of tax dollars.




So you think you should have the freedom to discriminate based on age, race, gender, religion, affiliations, etc?


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

backstay said:


> I thought the good union guys didn't use words like "Rat".


Not to defend the use of words like that. But its difficult in this anti union environment to be treated respectfully. Any union guy participating in this forum should well understand this.
I suspect some guys loose their tempers when posting and the end result is one of the words.
As you can see I did not use any of those words. But I have. And it is always in the context of a heated exchange of words.



jza said:


> The company doesn't usually know their a union salt until they've hired them and it's too late.
> Just another classy practice brought to you by the "brotherhood".


As an ex union electrician and supporter of unions as a whole, I would never ever consider being a salt. 
I have carried a picket sign for the local. But never anything more.



BBQ said:


> Even if you know for sure they are a salt if you do not hire them but you hire others you are likely going to be defending the decision to the labor board.
> If they are qualified it is against the law to consider their union ties.


I understand you have to prove yourself and that costs money. But I have never seen anything like that here.
In fact I was ready to be hired as a PM for a local non-union shop. 
Turns out it was a christian themed/run company. (Very common in these parts). I never noticed the religious writings on the back of all their business cards until the hiring process ended.
The Vice President was more interesed in my private life, than he was with my experience. When I finally took a good look at his business card, his title was "Vice President/Ministry".




007 said:


> You have to justify your reason for not hiring, you can't use race,sex, age as reasons to not hire. If I am just as qualified and I am 55 and you hire the 20 year old you are going to have to defend the decision


I guess the companies here act with impunity as the people have no idea. The majority of the inhabitants in my area are religious zealots and despise unions. With no/zero experience with unions.



triden said:


> My company doesn't hire anyone who is a smoker. Might be considered a grey area, but I think it's great :thumbsup:


Me too. But I think it's possibly an illegal requirement?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> So you think you should have the freedom to discriminate based on age, race, gender, religion, affiliations, etc?


 
Based on my choices of who to hire based on intereviews, references and work expierence. Lets say I have one opening into days market 30 applications, 12 interviews and I hire the 90 year old, crippled, Native American, Vet for the job, should the other 29 or 11 be able to bring me up on charges as they are all classified in some way or the other by the EEOC? 

And then you deal with government buffoons for several years (YES YEARS), cost in legal fees approach 10Gs and still no closure. Response from the Feds we are still looking into whether this is a valid claim. (oh and the claim under current law for 3 reasons is invalid).

*THEY DON'T CARE,* good claim, bad claim THEY DON'T CARE.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> Based on my choices of who to hire based on intereviews, references and work expierence. Lets say I have one opening into days market 30 applications, 12 interviews and I hire the 90 year old, crippled, Native American, Vet for the job, should the other 29 or 11 be able to bring me up on charges as they are all classified in some way or the other by the EEOC?
> 
> And then you deal with government buffoons for several years (YES YEARS), cost in legal fees approach 10Gs and still no closure. Response from the Feds we are still looking into whether this is a valid claim. (oh and the claim under current law for 3 reasons is invalid).
> 
> *THEY DON'T CARE,* good claim, bad claim THEY DON'T CARE.


This clearly isn't a real life or realistic scenario.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> This clearly isn't a real life or realistic scenario.


 
Of course not but possible with the government we have.



These regulatory groups are important because of past abuses and current abuses as well, I know that. I just see some of the idiots working there and knowing they have no clue about business and the importance of settling cases in a timely manner and want to SCREAM.

They just don't care, to them it is widget in widget out.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

..thanks for giving that electrician the 13 months needed for retirement,Brian. You sound like a stand up owner!!


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> ..thanks for giving that electrician the 13 months needed for retirement,Brian. You sound like a stand up owner!!


 
He was the good guy, the company he worked for was down to two electricians that did battery work, the other guy was young and had a new baby, this guy left so the other guy would be able to keep his job.


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

brian john said:


> You know NOTHING about me and have NO CLUE how I run my business. But I have the right to determine who will or won&#146;t be responsible for what I have risked my existence on for 27 years. I have all types and ages working for me.
> 
> Last year when an electrician I know was laid off, 13 months short of being eligible for retirement I found a spot for him to make those 13 months. BUT I decided on that not the government buffoons. EEOC and NLRB are buffoons. And like all government agencies at one point they served a vital purpose (and in some cases do now) but as they grow they lose sight of their mission and become another waste of tax dollars.


Just going by what you post. I could care less how you run your business. As long as you comply with the law you can hire as you please you sound like a brainwashed talk radio fan. You would have us take a giant step backward. You sound like one of those old men who wears his pants pulled up to his chest and yells at kids to get off his lawn. seriously you must be going through manapause


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

007 said:


> Just going by what you post. I could care less how you run your business. As long as you comply with the law you can hire as you please you sound like a brainwashed talk radio fan. You would have us take a giant step backward. You sound like one of those old men who wears his pants pulled up to his chest and yells at kids to get off his lawn. seriously you must be going through manapause


As being argumentative seems to be you poor way of operating I am telling you, I have NO FAITH in the EEOC or NLRB, they are in place to serve as protection but are operated poorly like most government agencies.

Basically you seem to be heading into the real of a full fledge troll, does anyone on this site meet ytour standards?


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> So you think you should have the freedom to discriminate based on age, race, gender, religion, affiliations, etc?


As a business owner I believe I absolutely should.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> As a business owner I believe I absolutely should.


Your trolling skills are elementary.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> So you think you should have the freedom to discriminate based on age, race, gender, religion, affiliations, etc?


Yes. I think I should have that freedom.


----------



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

slickvic277 said:


> Your trolling skills are elementary.


 
I agree with him. Hell, I should be able to not hire people that don't exercise.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

mcclary's electrical said:


> I agree with him. Hell, I should be able to not hire people that don't exercise.


Fat people, smokers, handicapped, overly tatted up with face piecing, NOT SURE where the line is drawn. Myself if they are qualified and seem able to do the work I'd hire them if they.

There is such a fine line between discrimination and choice.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> So you think you should have the freedom to discriminate based on age, race, gender, religion, affiliations, etc?


Most definitely, though I would take race off of your list. The other factors are absolutely good reasons to hire or not.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

Peter D said:


> Most definitely, though I would take race off of your list. The other factors are absolutely good reasons to hire or not.


Race and religion are just as good of a reason as affiliation to hire or not hire.

Resi service in a white upscale neighborhood can't hire African Americans or Mexicans and expect there customers to have the same comfort level. Commercial contractors doing fit outs and retail can't hire union labor and still expect to be competitive in those markets.


----------



## 007 (May 4, 2009)

brian john said:


> As being argumentative seems to be you poor way of operating I am telling you, I have NO FAITH in the EEOC or NLRB, they are in place to serve as protection but are operated poorly like most government agencies.
> 
> Basically you seem to be heading into the real of a full fledge troll, does anyone on this site meet ytour standards?


I like everyone on this site o think you are riding on past good karma to try and cover the fact you are a closet troll. Do you actually read your BS you post? I'm done with you .


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

T-Bart said:


> Race and religion are just as good of a reason as affiliation to hire or not hire.
> 
> Resi service in a white upscale neighborhood can't hire African Americans or Mexicans and expect there customers to have the same comfort level. Commercial contractors doing fit outs and retail can't hire union labor and still expect to be competitive in those markets.


In the few years I did residential I never gave this a thought nor did my employer, we had a fair amount of blacks mechanics and helpers. If it was an issue that would have been a customer I would not work for. 


As for union contractors making it every market is different, we do OK here.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

brian john said:


> In the few years I did residential I never gave this a thought nor did my employer, we had a fair amount of blacks mechanics and helpers. If it was an issue that would have been a customer I would not work for.
> 
> 
> As for union contractors making it every market is different, we do OK here.


Well I'm not sure I want to revert to referring to them as *Blacks* Just yet my point was more in drawing a correlation between racism and discriminating by affiliation. We should probably be a little more PC.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

007 said:


> I like everyone on this site o think you are riding on past good karma to try and cover the fact you are a closet troll. Do you actually read your BS you post? I'm done with you .


Well I am heart broken


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

T-Bart said:


> Well I'm not sure I want to revert to referring to them as *Blacks* Just yet my point was more in drawing a correlation between racism and discriminating by affiliation. We should probably be a little more PC.


Black is not a slur......


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

brian john said:


> Black is not a slur......


Hey whatever man no need to justify it to me, I don't hire them either.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

T-Bart said:


> Hey whatever man no need to justify it to me, I don't hire them either.


Well I do.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

T-Bart said:


> Well I'm not sure I want to revert to referring to them as *Blacks* Just yet my point was more in drawing a correlation between racism and discriminating by affiliation. We should probably be a little more PC.


I'm guessing you haven't seen this thread...
Call things what they are.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Your trolling skills are elementary.


If anyone knows trolling it would be you. :thumbup:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> If anyone knows trolling it would be you. :thumbup:


I resemble that remark!


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

brian john said:


> Well I do.


Me too brother!  

Hail victory!


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

Celtic said:


> I'm guessing you haven't seen this thread...
> Call things what they are.


I got to the second post where bob was saying something about being civil threw up in my mouth and closed it. Thanks tho


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

T-Bart said:


> Race and religion are just as good of a reason as affiliation to hire or not hire.
> 
> Resi service in a white upscale neighborhood can't hire African Americans or *Mexicans* and expect there customers to have the same comfort level. Commercial contractors doing fit outs and retail can't hire union labor and still expect to be competitive in those markets.


have you ever driven thru an upscale neighborhood and looked to see who was mowing the lawns?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> have you ever driven thru an upscale neighborhood and looked to see who was mowing the lawns?


Or cleaning their houses, watching their kids, cooking their dinners..........


----------

