No Joke ... Serious As A Heart Attack ... Major Auto Makers Could Go Bankrupt!

[hondo122]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lindsay Richards:
They may be bums, but they were the two highest ranking UAW officials in the plant and the ones making the decisions about things and these are the guys that get promoted up through the system. The cancer has spread right on thought to the top and the 175,000 workers and 500,000 retirees are the ones suffering as well as the 180,000,000 stockholders who lost their collective rears. I might add that these guys held elected positions in the UAW plant. This isn’t an isolated case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is indeed the case that union needs to make changes in their hierarchy. The members need to make those changes. It's becoming apparent to me that I have little knowledge how an industrial union works.Construction unions are different in as much as there is direct competition on the same projects. I order to maintain a presence in a region we must be competitive. This is accomplished through productivity and training. There is no way a non union contractor can man a job with a crew that is as productive or well trained. I'm speaking of a large commercial project, not a new front door, where they may have someone who can handle it. There is no way a non union contractor can come up with 200 skilled carpenters on 2 days notice. Union contractors have lists of people they can call.

[Lindsay Richards]

This thread has always been about the UAW. Glad you got to see the UAW boss on video as you are paying for his 2500 hours of overtime thru your Federal taxes now. This is stealing our money. Evidently your experience was lots different that what goes on in the UAW. In Florida, (a right to work state) almost all of the construction is done without much union activity and they have managed to pave over and build on every available sq ft of land. Subs do the work and the large contractors building condos and such have no trouble getting people as they built them one after the other.

[hondo122]

They are probably union if they are high rise. Non union do much of the residential work. There's more union work than you think in Florida.

[Lindsay Richards]

Not according to the many contractors I talked to. No need for one. Workers and businesses doing very well without them. (until the whole market collapsed due to credit problems).

[zigzagrv]

Here in Pennsylvania we have what is called a 'prevailing wage' law. What that means is that any government project, be it state, county or local, must be bid on using the 'prevailing wage'. The prevailing wage is, of course, set by the unions. If a non-union contractor wants to bid on a job, he must use the prevailing wage for his workers in the bid. The idea is to give union contractors a level playing field. Otherwise they would lose out on a lot of government projects because the non-union shops would usually win the bid because of the lower labor costs.

Now, here's the rub. About 15% (give or take a few percent) of workers in PA are union. So you have a minority of workers dictating what the government should pay for it's work. Secondly, the taxpayers are getting screwed (again!) by having to pay MORE for a government job than they would if there was no prevailing wage rule.

[hondo122]

Zigzag, that's the Davis-Bacon Act, it is federal law. It applies to all states including right to work states. The wages are determined by an average of all jobs reported in an area. In some areas that's the union rate in others it's less.

[Lindsay Richards]

In many states, there is no artificial union wage. We utilize the American Free Market system like the rest of the economy.

[hondo122]

The Davis-Bacon Act of 1936 is a United States federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects.

The act is named after its Republican sponsors, James "Puddler Jim" Davis, a Senator from Pennsylvania and a former Secretary of Labor under three presidents, and Representative Robert L. Bacon of Long Island, New York.

Prevailing wage laws in the U.S. date back as far as 1891, when on the state level, Kansas instituted this first such law. Forty-one states followed suit in the years to come. These state prevailing wage laws were the fruit of the "Progressive Era," which instituted statutes such as child labor laws, public schools and worker compensation insurance.

But it took the worldwide Great Depression, which at its height saw one out of four Americans unemployed, that fueled the passing of the Davis-Bacon Act by a Republican Congress and a Republican President, Herbert Hoover. Representative Bacon, say modern conservative opponents of the law, initially introduced the bill after a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veteran’s Bureau hospital in his New York district. More accurately, the legislative history of Davis-Bacon reflects a desire by Congress to reserve jobs on federal projects for local workers, who nationwide faced epidemic unemployment. Opponents to the Davis-Bacon Act have claimed that there was racist intent to the law, but critics have countered that this is a red herring, stating that it was a sincere attempt to make amends for local workers and flatly dismiss the conservative claim that it has Jim Crow origins.

While Davis-Bacon (and associated "Little Davis-Bacon" state laws) do encourage the hiring of skilled local workers, advocates emphasize that they also work to train young people into skilled tradesmen and tradeswomen. Despite anti-union criticism, union apprenticeship programs (which Davis-Bacon tends to promote) actively recruit and train minorities to this day.

Union supporters of Davis-Bacon point to a 2002 case known as "Brazier Construction vs. Elaine Chao, Secretary of the Department of Labor." In it, Judge William B. Bryant rejected that Davis-Bacon was a Jim Crow law. He stated: "Americans of all races were in need of aid from the government during the Great Depression. Congress enacted the DBA (Davis Bacon Act) to assure workers a fair wage, provide local contractors a fair opportunity to compete for local government contracts and to preserve its own ability to distribute employment and federal money equitably through public works projects." With the claim rejected, the plaintiffs did not appeal. Despite notable attempts to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, the law for the most part continues to enjoy often bi-partisan local support across the nation

[zigzagrv]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hondo122:
Zigzag, that's the Davis-Bacon Act, it is federal law. It applies to all states including right to work states. The wages are determined by an average of all jobs reported in an area. In some areas that's the union rate in others it's less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hondo, thanks for the refresher. I thought it was a federal law, but couldn't remember the name of the act.

The point remains the same......The unions have too much influence for the percentage of workers they represent. We all know where most of their political contributions go.

[hondo122]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zigzagrv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hondo122:
Zigzag, that's the Davis-Bacon Act, it is federal law. It applies to all states including right to work states. The wages are determined by an average of all jobs reported in an area. In some areas that's the union rate in others it's less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hondo, thanks for the refresher. I thought it was a federal law, but couldn't remember the name of the act.

The point remains the same......The unions have too much influence for the percentage of workers they represent. We all know where most of their political contributions go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, generally to people that think as they do. The same as most political contributions.

[Lindsay Richards]

The act does not provide for union wages to be paid, but for prevailing wages to be paid. Union membership amoung non governmental employees has dropped from over 35% to about 13% in the last 40 years an still is dropping like a rock. With most of it concentrated in the North East. This is why the labor unions gave the dems over $400 million to try and promote the improperly named Employee Free Choice Act whereby the long held sacred secret ballot will be eliminated in union elections and guys like the 2 in the linked video will be calling on employees at their homes to intimidate them into signing cards. Once they intimidate 50% of the workers then no election will be permitted. This is a blatant attempt to stop the crashing union membership and to save the union bosses jobs like the two “gentlemen” in the video who will be deciding for the employees. In most of the South East for example, prevailing wages are not determined by union wages are there aren’t any to compare with. Public works project are notoriously very inefficient. Next time you pass some road construction look at how many people are working and how many people are leaning on there shovels. Who pays for the shovel leaners? Doesn’t come from the sky, it comes from the taxpayers. Disney in our area completed a huge road project into Disney World that looks exactly like an expressway, but they did it themselves and it cost about 35% of what a normal state or federal road of similar spec would have cost exclusive of land cost. Getting the unions and government involved in anything almost always results in additional cost for no benefit the taxpayer.

[hondo122]

Lindsay, please quote the portion of the Employee Free Choice Act which states no election will be permitted, I think you have misread the act. The is a difference between not required and not permitted. If in the southeast the prevailing wage isn't set by union rate the what's the problem? So if Disney can do a highway job for 35% of the non union rate they must be using smoke and mirrors and there's really no road there! You're talking about an area which I can speak intelligently, I'll debate anyone regarding union construction. In the past 43 years I've held about every position in a construction company from apprentice to owner so if you want to go that route OK!

[Lindsay Richards]

We went thru all this last time. Read the act. Under the present system if 30% or more of the employees sign the cards, then the NLRB holds an election and brings in a voting booth and it is held in secret. I have seen this myself. Under the new act being pushed by the unions and the dems, if 50% of the employees sign the cards, then no election is held at all and the union is in. No election means no secret ballot. This has been all over the news repeatedly and even on C-Span. This is the way it is. The problems are and you can see the video’s on YouTube that the union reps go to the homes of the employees and intimidate them into signing the cards. I have also seen this intimidation myself and had employees come to me in tears about it (female ones). If over 50%, then there is a union with no election. Very unfair and numerical. Remember those two thugs from the UAW in the video. Like them talking to your wife and demanding that she sign a card. I didn’t say that Disney paid 35% of the rate, I said that they built the road for 35% of the cost. This was by utilizing the labor better and not having the shovel standing that we all see and the huge amount of time wasting by building, tearing out, and rebuilding sections over an over again.


&gt;&gt;&gt;If in the southeast the prevailing wage isn't set by union rate the what's the problem?


The problem was that you said it was. I was just pointing out that it was not always union rates as the poster from PA was discussing and you indicated. I know you find this hard t believe, but many places get along quite well with no union. The 12 transplants for example make $48/hr total compensation have great job security and have thousands of people on their waiting list.

[hondo122]

Lindsay, on one hand you're saying Disney built a road for 35% of the going rate. You also state that FL is a right to work state so the unions don't set the rate the non union contractors do, hence 35% of the non union rate from what you're saying.
Certification on the basis of signed authorizations

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) allows government resolution of labor-management disputes affecting commerce. Section 9(c) of the NLRA provides for a secret ballot election if there is "a question of employee representation" of an individual or labor organization seeking collective bargaining with an employer. If the recognizing of the individual or labor organization is not disputed, then the NLRB does not interfere. Both an employer or a substantial number of employees can dispute the recognition of an individual or labor organization and require a secret ballot election.[5]

The most widely publicized change to the National Labor Relations Act is a change to employer disputes over recognition of an individual or labor organization claiming to represent employees. Currently an employer can demand a secret ballot election even if a majority of employees has signed cards authorizing a representative to bargain on their behalf, also known as a card check election. Under the EFCA, an employer can only dispute the legitimacy of an employee representative if less than a majority of employees have signed authorization cards, or if illegal coercion is alleged.

The process of union decertification does not change under the EFCA, with a secret ballot election held when thirty percent of employees request decertification of a union, or an employer can voluntarily accept the results when a majority of employees sign decertification cards.

The amended text proposed in lines 8 through 24 reads:
“ (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a). ”
first contract mediation and arbitration

The bill provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for mediation. If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation the dispute will be referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration shall be binding on the parties for two years. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was created in 1947 and provides most mediation services in support of collective bargaining free of charge.
Civil penalties and increased back pay for certain unfair labor practices

The bill would require the NLRB to seek a federal court injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has discharged or discriminated against employees, threatened to discharge or discriminate against employees, or engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee rights during an organizing or first contract drive. It also authorizes the courts to grant temporary restraining orders or other appropriate injunctive relief.

The bill also calls for increases in the amount an employer is required to pay when an employee is discharged or discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first contract drive to two times back pay as liquidated damages, in addition to the back pay owed, for a total of three times the back pay. Current damages are limited to back pay, lest any wages earned by an employee if they are hired by another employer.

Finally, the bill would provide for civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees’ rights during an organizing campaign or first contract drive. Currently there are no civil fines for violations.
Small business exemptions

The Employee Free Choice Act does not alter the existing small business exemption of the National Labor Relations Board. The jurisdiction of the NLRB remains at the level set in 1959, $500,000 gross volume for a retail business, which, if inflation-adjusted, would be about $3.3 million in 2008.[6] The NLRB also requires a union to consist of a minimum of three employees who have no supervisory authority, exempting many small businesses from the increased penalties of the EFCA.


Proponents' views
Proponents of the legislation contend the change is necessary to protect workers' rights to join unions. In his remarks accompanying the bill’s introduction, Representative George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, stated:
“ The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to form a union. Although it is illegal, one quarter of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are active union supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it does little to deter law breakers.

Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they control the information workers can receive, can force workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can force workers to meet with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted.

The Employee Free Choice Act would add some fairness to the system…[7]
”

President-elect Barack Obama supports the bill. An original co-sponsor of the EFCA, Obama urged his Senate colleagues to pass the bill during a 2007 motion to proceed:
“ I support this bill because in order to restore a sense of shared prosperity and security, we need to help working Americans exercise their right to organize under a fair and free process and bargain for their fair share of the wealth our country creates.

The current process for organizing a workplace denies too many workers the ability to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act offers to make binding an alternative process under which a majority of employees can sign up to join a union. Currently, employers can choose to accept--but are not bound by law to accept--the signed decision of a majority of workers. That choice should be left up to workers and workers alone.[8]
”

The AFL-CIO argues that, in practice, company-run secret ballots actually make the process less democratic:
“ People call the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election system a secret ballot election—but in fact it's not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. It's really a management-controlled election process because corporations have all the power. They control the information workers can receive and routinely poison the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who try to organize unions. No employee has free choice after being browbeaten by a supervisor to oppose the union or being told they may lose their job and livelihood if workers vote for the union."[9]