Would you cross a picket line?

[LindaG4458]

The teachers union in our town in NH has had health care with no premium assessed to the employee. This is a small town in the mountains with about 2500 residents including children. We only have one elementary school in town; the older students go to cooperative secondary schools.

The union in the local elementary school negotiated a contract which included health care at a cost of $19,000 for a family plan! All voters are able to vote to accept the school budget as presented (with the teacher contract included) or defeat it and revert to the default budget (the previous year with some adjustments). Our town defeated the budget, mainly over the healthcare costs.

There are many residents who have lost jobs or have cutbacks in hours and pay. Many have no healthcare themselves. It would not be smart for the teachers to go on strike over this. There is not much sympathy for them.

 

[Aimeedyan]

Am I the only one tempted to apply for a (union) job at AT&T now?

 

[slytherinbratz]

Actually I'm a fan of unions, but I prefer the non-striking kind. I worked for a company for 6 years and our union was awesome.

Depending on what the strike is over and if it can cause a danger to people not involved or affect children for ex: nurses, doctors, EMT's, teachers and such. I would cross the picket line in a heartbeat. People in those fields should legally not be allowed to strike.

As for the AT&T deal I would cross it simply because the reasoning behind the strike in foolish in my opinion. If they are at least offering insurance I would take the deal in this day and age. I don't really know much about the strike details so this is just my thoughts.

 

[bicker]

A lot of this, I feel, is envy of how some other people have it better. Yes, executives get paid more, and get better benefits. And doctors get paid more than nurses, and nurses get paid more than orderlies. Professional baseball players get paid a lot, and teachers get paid less. None of this is earth-shaking news, nor is justification for colluding with each other to deprive the public from services entirely, because you're envious of what others have and you want. If you don't like your job, find another. If you didn't have the foresight to do so when the economy was better, or didn't have the foresight and industry to make yourself worthy of some other job when the economy was better, then blame yourself, don't blame others, and don't punish others for what you failed to do for yourself.

 

[PatsMom]

The teachers union in our town in NH has had health care with no premium assessed to the employee. This is a small town in the mountains with about 2500 residents including children. We only have one elementary school in town; the older students go to cooperative secondary schools.

The union in the local elementary school negotiated a contract which included health care at a cost of $19,000 for a family plan! All voters are able to vote to accept the school budget as presented (with the teacher contract included) or defeat it and revert to the default budget (the previous year with some adjustments). Our town defeated the budget, mainly over the healthcare costs.

There are many residents who have lost jobs or have cutbacks in hours and pay. Many have no healthcare themselves. It would not be smart for the teachers to go on strike over this. There is not much sympathy for them.

Our town was able to negotiate something more reasonable with the teachers but they still have better healthcare than most in town. The secondary teachers also have pretty good healthcare - they may be underpaid relative ot the rest of the state, but they make pretty good money for the Valley. Especially when you include benefits. I'm told that before the secondary teachers strike, they will just stop doing extras like writing letters of recommnedation for colleges. Glad my DD is graduating out of the local school system this year.

If the teachers strike, my DD would have crossed the picket line to go to school. Also, I would send my DH in as a substitute teacher. You are certainly right about there not being much sympathy for the teachers. My neighbors are working three or four jobs, without benefits, to make ends meet. One 75 year old neighbor is living in a shack with no plumbing, heat or electricity. He is out of wood now and others in the area are providing him with our extra. It is really a hard sell to convince him that he should be paying more in property tax to help maintain town paid health care for the teachers.

 

[hornedfrog]

To the comment about wanting more safety as in 2 man areas and man hole coverage the answer is we want the same. We had 2 people and they took it away so we would like it back so we can return home from work safely to be with our families.

Was this 'same' in the contract before? Or was it just the way it was done?

 

[hornedfrog]

You make some very great points. It is unfair that some management employees pay so much for their benefits but you can bet they are fighting for us to keep our level of benefits or else the company will ask them to dig even deeper.

I can assure you that while some may feel this way, most do not. Its already been proven that management benefits are in no way tied to what the union has!

Factually it is proven that public utilities do better in a recession than in a good economy. People stay home using more phone, tv and electricity instead of vacationing and going out to dinner.

This was true in the past, but the era of POTS-as-a-utility is over. Uverse does not replace it. We have never been through a recession with the company in this position. Wireless is the lifeblood of the company...and I am sure you are aware of the nature of their contract. Hopefully the company will fare well, but it is NOT a given.

It certainly isn't about the money.

It is ALWAYS about the money. Its a business. No one is out to 'deprive' anyone of anything for any other reason, despite what the propaganda says.

 

[Lib E]

A lot of this, I feel, is envy of how some other people have it better. Yes, executives get paid more, and get better benefits. And doctors get paid more than nurses, and nurses get paid more than orderlies. Professional baseball players get paid a lot, and teachers get paid less. None of this is earth-shaking news, nor is justification for colluding with each other to deprive the public from services entirely, because you're envious of what others have and you want. If you don't like your job, find another. If you didn't have the foresight to do so when the economy was better, or didn't have the foresight and industry to make yourself worthy of some other job when the economy was better, then blame yourself, don't blame others, and don't punish others for what you failed to do for yourself.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

A lot of this, I feel, is envy of how some other people have it better. Yes, executives get paid more, and get better benefits. And doctors get paid more than nurses, and nurses get paid more than orderlies. Professional baseball players get paid a lot, and teachers get paid less. None of this is earth-shaking news, nor is justification for colluding with each other to deprive the public from services entirely, because you're envious of what others have and you want. If you don't like your job, find another. If you didn't have the foresight to do so when the economy was better, or didn't have the foresight and industry to make yourself worthy of some other job when the economy was better, then blame yourself, don't blame others, and don't punish others for what you failed to do for yourself.

Absolutely ridiculous. Its not about punishing others or blaming others, it's about the right to strike if you are not being treated fairly, not about envy of any kind. Its about protection from the greed and corruption which we all know happens. Its about workers rights. Saying friviously about getting another job, or your fault for not making yourself more worthy of another or punishing others is ludicrous and worse. Its absolutely more important now a days then ever, which is obvious from what these large companies w/o transparencies have done to this country right now. Unions are not perfect, some better than others, but well needed, and we see what happens now more than ever. No one expects unions to strike w/o reason. My mother retired from AT&T. I'm not in a union and my job has totally bleeped me every way they could. My husband left one union job of 20 years bc of the economy and got another one last yr. He was offered many non-union jobs closer to home, some even a little higher paying and he would never take those jobs, would never ever ever consider. We sleep at night and feel secure with our union jobs. Another thing, you don't complain at my job, you get e-mails sent to you saying that those things are not acceptable in meetings, etc., sending all of us a very clear message. We live in fear at my job of stirring the pot in any way, and that is not lying or exaggerating at all, that is not the case with union jobs. And don't tell me I can get another job or make myself worth of another, I know highly educated people personally working blue collar jobs now.

 

[bicker]

Absolutely ridiculous. Its not about punishing others or blaming others, it's about the right to strike if you are not getting your fair share, not about envy of any kind.

I'm sure you feel that way but my point was that that is not the case; what I wrote is not "ridiculous" but rather a very clear and concise summary of this rationalization for what would otherwise be illegal collusion. If it were not for labor protection laws, that conduct you're defending would be criminal conspiracy. The law exempted that conduct from criminal charges because of the public good that society derived from that exemption. Society is no longer deriving such a benefit, and so the exemption is now no longer justifiable.

Its about protection from the greed and corruption which we all know happens.

If that was even a little true, then it would apply to all workers. It doesn't. Corruption has its own applicable laws. If you feel that there is something wrong with how companies are operating, then charge them with violations of those laws, rather than hiding the manipulation that unions engage in behind unproven excuses. Let your charges be voiced and weighed in courts of law.

Its about workers rights.

Workers have rights without having unions.

Saying so friviously about getting another job, or punishing others is ludicrous.

It isn't even a little frivolous, nor a little ludicrous. Again, your saying so is surely you're right but isn't actually the case.

Its absolutely more important now a days then ever, which is obvious from what these large companies w/o transparencies have done to this country right now.

If you have a problem with lack of transparency, then resolve that by requiring transparency, not by defending collusion.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I'm sure you feel that way but my point was that that is not the case; what I wrote is not "ridiculous" but rather a very clear and concise summary of this rationalization for what would otherwise be illegal collusion. If it were not for labor protection laws, that conduct you're defending would be criminal conspiracy. The law exempted that conduct from criminal charges because of the public good that society derived from that exemption. Society is no longer deriving such a benefit, and so the exemption is now no longer justifiable.

If that was even a little true, then it would apply to all workers. It doesn't. Corruption has its own applicable laws. If you feel that there is something wrong with how companies are operating, then charge them with violations of those laws, rather than hiding the manipulation that unions engage in behind unproven excuses. Let your charges be voiced and weighed in courts of law.

Workers have rights without having unions.

It isn't even a little frivolous, nor a little ludicrous. Again, your saying so is surely you're right but isn't actually the case.

If you have a problem with lack of transparency, then resolve that by requiring transparency, not by defending collusion.

Not true at all! They do NOT have the same rights. There is a reason union jobs are like gold by us. People can be fired w/o reason, not so with union jobs. I'll give an example, my FIL left his union position at a company and wanted to work in management at a higher pay. Guess what, he lost his job. No real reason. If he stayed where he was, would not have happened unless there was a reason. You can't get fired without good reason in a union job, you have to go through an arbitraton. You have protection, you absolutely do not have the same protection. Have you ever worked a union job? Like I said some are better than others but there is not the same protection at all. And my job they keep you in fear of losing your job if you bring up issues, not same at a union job. You can't have your pay lowered on any whim at the company like they did at my job, or fired, or anything else. According to my job it was bc we have to compete with the outsourcing.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

It isn't even a little frivolous, nor a little ludicrous. Again, your saying so is surely you're right but isn't actually the case.


Again your saying so is surely your right but isn't actually the case either, my point stands, it is absolutely not only frivolous and ludicrous, it is ignorant of unions. Unions give a person a voice without fear of retaliation.

 

[Judy from Boise]

But where did you ever get the idea that having a job is your "right"? Companies can , without violating labor law, ADA legislation, FMLA legislation, or their own HR policies, eliminate jobs. And why shouldn't they ? Being nimble and responding to the needs of the market is the only way for long term survival. Our economy is based on the long term survival of companies.




PS, calling someone's well stated position "ignorant" is the type of response that will get this thread locked.

 

[Magic Mom]

you can take politics and religion away but the folks on the DIS never change. All I see on this thread is sour grapes.

THat's what I saw when I read your post about the 5% and the 95%.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

But where did you ever get the idea that having a job is your "right"? Companies can , without violating labor law, ADA legislation, FMLA legislation, or their own HR policies, eliminate jobs. And why shouldn't they ? Being nimble and responding to the needs of the market is the only way for long term survival. Our economy is based on the long term survival of companies.

PS, calling someone's well stated position "ignorant" is the type of response that will get this thread locked.

You miss the point of a union. And it is not having a job my right, that is absolutely not at all what I said. A union is to give workers a voice, that is what it is for. You can be fired absolutely but it goes through an arbitration, you don't get fired as easily, such as in my job they put fear in you to speak out about issues. You have more rights and protection with a union. It gives and protects the worker's rights on the job itself. As far as name calling, I said people that speak of unions without knowing them personally can be ignorant. I apologize if it was taken otherwise and edited it to make it clearer.

 

[Magic Mom]

You can't get fired without good reason in a union job, you have to go through an arbitraton. You have protection, you absolutely do not have the same protection..

Should companies have that same protection? Should you be required to STAY at a job unless you have a good reason to leave?

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Should companies have that same protection? Should you be required to STAY at a job unless you have a good reason to leave?

Read my reply to the post.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

If you have a problem with lack of transparency, then resolve that by requiring transparency, not by defending collusion.

In my husband's 25 years of working in union jobs, you know how many times he went on strike?? ZERO. They had 6 contract negotiations in 25 years. They almost went on strike twice, that hardly constitutes "collusion."

I love your idea about requiring transparency, which is greatly needed in my job. If you think it is easy to do, think again. I have gone to the Better Business Bureau and have written people, etc., but it has done nothing. I cannot put my name, bc I don't want to be fired. You want me to hire an attorney at $300 an hour, that would hardly work and then I would be fired. The only protection I have is if it were about my race, sexual orientation, sex, etc. etc. If at least we banded together, (which I guess in your words is collusion) and didn't work for even a day, I know my job would at least listen to our complaints. Now they just have us in fear of losing our job. I swear to you this is fact, they keep us in fear of this and of speaking out on issues. Unions give the workers a voice, they are not illegal and it is not collusion.

 

[Magic Mom]

Read my reply to the post.

I've read your posts, and the question stands. Should companies have the same protection? Should workers be required to STAY at a job unless they have a good reason to quit? That would protect small companies from needless turnover and costly hiring and training.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I've read your posts, and the question stands. Should companies have the same protection? Should workers be required to STAY at a job unless they have a good reason to quit? That would protect small companies from needless turnover and costly hiring and training.

You obviously did not read the reply at all. I said people can be fired. Workers are required to stay at a job unless they have a good reason to quit??? I don't even understand what that means. They aren't required to stay at a job unless they quit, ever.