So anti prostition anti drug anti bribery laws etc are communist? I like you dross you are a thinker which is very rare today.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
So anti prostition anti drug anti bribery laws etc are communist? I like you dross you are a thinker which is very rare today.
It's called the market. My employer doesn't pay me minimum wage because he can't get my skills for minimum wage.
Such laws are certainly anti freedom, just not communist or socialist, if you'd rather.
As to bribery, that's a more complex issue, and I'd have to know exactly what you mean.
Oh, and btw, you're a poopy head.
Union jobs prevent baby deaths?
LOL, I had the same reaction. Even the explanation provided below your comment makes me laugh because Mr88GT is non-union and his company provides medical insurance benefits.
How about the rule of freedom? What if a company owner didn't want unionized employees? Is it just to force him to accept them? Why can't he just fire them all?
I'm trained, efficient, licensed, not to mention knowledge and damn good at what I do. And I did it all without a union. It's not the union.
EvilBlackGun
Master
Side-bar:
Why isn't the minimum wage at $25.00 / hr?? Back on topic: For some people, the union takes away some of the incentive to work. I once worked (4 years) in a company that was HARD union, here in Indiana. They are out of business now, NOT due to the union, but due to Japanese Labor Laws (ARE there any!!??) While I worked there I was a non-union Foreman. I easily gathered that most folks there worked to make a good living, and so did I. And we all had pride in our Company, Town, Job / Union, Shift and Self. I found a way for my shift to out-produce the other three shifts, by using a simple tactic: we all were on piece-rate, so the more goods that were in the box-car at the end of our shift, the more $$$ we got on pay-day (except for me; I just had more pride.) I showed the employees -- yes, actually showed them on paper how to make from $50 to $250 more dollars per pay-check. Well, now, I only had to show the shop-steward the proof, and he told the rest of the crew. We did it by NEVER leaving a gap in the production-line. Some operators (more highly paid than "production" workers) were against it, but their pay went up anyway. But their union friends soon 'splained to them how our shift was out-earning all of the others. "Operators" had to get off their ass from then on. It was simple. No gaps in the line -- more cash in the envelope. AND PRIDE POPPED UP ALL OVER THE PLACE! The floors, latrines, break areas all stayed clean, the in-process goods were always in the proper place, breaks did not stretch over into each other, inventory somehow became easier for me to keep up with. Truck operators told me where stuff we could feed onto the line was just laying around, etc. We made MONEY! The Line Supervisor and Plant Manager came down to see how we did it. It was all simple common-sense and coöperation among union ("us") and non-union (me) personnel. The line between us disappeared. I miss the place because of the friends. Damn Japan!
Why isn't the minimum wage at $25.00 / hr?? Back on topic: For some people, the union takes away some of the incentive to work. I once worked (4 years) in a company that was HARD union, here in Indiana. They are out of business now, NOT due to the union, but due to Japanese Labor Laws (ARE there any!!??) While I worked there I was a non-union Foreman. I easily gathered that most folks there worked to make a good living, and so did I. And we all had pride in our Company, Town, Job / Union, Shift and Self. I found a way for my shift to out-produce the other three shifts, by using a simple tactic: we all were on piece-rate, so the more goods that were in the box-car at the end of our shift, the more $$$ we got on pay-day (except for me; I just had more pride.) I showed the employees -- yes, actually showed them on paper how to make from $50 to $250 more dollars per pay-check. Well, now, I only had to show the shop-steward the proof, and he told the rest of the crew. We did it by NEVER leaving a gap in the production-line. Some operators (more highly paid than "production" workers) were against it, but their pay went up anyway. But their union friends soon 'splained to them how our shift was out-earning all of the others. "Operators" had to get off their ass from then on. It was simple. No gaps in the line -- more cash in the envelope. AND PRIDE POPPED UP ALL OVER THE PLACE! The floors, latrines, break areas all stayed clean, the in-process goods were always in the proper place, breaks did not stretch over into each other, inventory somehow became easier for me to keep up with. Truck operators told me where stuff we could feed onto the line was just laying around, etc. We made MONEY! The Line Supervisor and Plant Manager came down to see how we did it. It was all simple common-sense and coöperation among union ("us") and non-union (me) personnel. The line between us disappeared. I miss the place because of the friends. Damn Japan!
Last edited:
Seems to me I read somewhere that unions are in decline everywhere in the economy except . . . for government unions. Seems a big conflict of interest when the government bureaucracy that lobbies for and enforces labor laws benefits from those same laws. And Big Labor unions supposedly contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat Party.
With other unions, if they don't prove their worth, the company goes out of business, but with government unions, we taxpayers just keep on paying.
All that said, I've been in several jobs where I had to pay union dues, and I've been in a number of industries where I watched unions' demands eventually force companies to shut down. The Steel Industry comes to mind, and the Airline Industry has had more than its share of airlines fail because they couldn't come to terms with its unions' pay demands.
And, I've personally worked for a company that, when experiencing a downturn, asked us to work longer hours for the same pay. We chose not to do so and promptly got laid off because THE MONEY WASN"T THERE TO PAY US!!!
We watched a plant in Indy go dark this summer because the union workers wouldn't come to terms with a new owner. Some of them - but not all - found union jobs elsewhere. Their choice, no doubt of it, but I've made that dumb choice once myself and I know better than to ever make it again.
If unions want to have a place, they need to be able to compete - and should be required to compete - with non-union workers with no coercion from anyone: unions, management, or the government.
With other unions, if they don't prove their worth, the company goes out of business, but with government unions, we taxpayers just keep on paying.
All that said, I've been in several jobs where I had to pay union dues, and I've been in a number of industries where I watched unions' demands eventually force companies to shut down. The Steel Industry comes to mind, and the Airline Industry has had more than its share of airlines fail because they couldn't come to terms with its unions' pay demands.
And, I've personally worked for a company that, when experiencing a downturn, asked us to work longer hours for the same pay. We chose not to do so and promptly got laid off because THE MONEY WASN"T THERE TO PAY US!!!
We watched a plant in Indy go dark this summer because the union workers wouldn't come to terms with a new owner. Some of them - but not all - found union jobs elsewhere. Their choice, no doubt of it, but I've made that dumb choice once myself and I know better than to ever make it again.
If unions want to have a place, they need to be able to compete - and should be required to compete - with non-union workers with no coercion from anyone: unions, management, or the government.
To All,
I used to hate unions. My mother would come home and gripe about those lazy union workers who had their jobs protected by that #$=^\@~%$#$ Union.
Then one day I was chatting w/ a very nice man, who happened to be a Union Steward. In a polite and open minded way I asked him, "How can you defend those lazy workers w/ your #$=^\@~%$#$ Union rules?"
He was very nice and told me he hated doing it, but #1) He had a legal obligation or the Union could be sued, and #2) the Management was lazy and didn't want to follow the rules.
I learned that all management EVER had to do to get rid of an incompetent or lazy worker was to jump through a few hoops, and BOOM - out the door! At that point the Union Steward would tell Stupid, "Sorry. They followed the rules and you should have done X."
So now I look at it like life. We all have rules to follow. The police have rules, the citizens have rules, lawyers have rules, accountants have rules, etc etc etc. Most of us learn to follow the rules and get what we want when we want, mostly.
If the police want to make an arrest (and have it stick) they follow the rules. Yes, it would be really, really easy to collect evidence without a search warrant, but when you know John Gotti has a lawyer who WILL make certain you dot all the I's and cross all the T's, guess what? You get the warrant. Duh!
Same thing when working with a Union. All management has to do is get up off of their lazy butts and start doing real work, like documenting when employees are late, or when they take too long of a bathroom break. Write up the worker as many times as it takes then fire him and guess what? The Union will tell the doofus, "Sorry. Nothing we can do. He followed the rules. Bye."
I have changed my mind over the years. The company never has the Union just hand them the contract and dictate it. The company always has signed it and agreed to the rules. Always! If there is something that is unfair on one side or the other the management needs to grow a backbone and fight. Yes, it is inconvenient. So is getting a warrant. But those are the rules.
As I see it the problem lies here. It starts with a company or management that wants to do what it wants when it wants however it wants and don't tell them about the rules, laws, or how to treat the employees. Then the employees see a reasonable gripe and form a Union to gain strength from numbers and get something they think is fair. And in most cases it is reasonable. No one wants to give their hard earned money and go through a hell of a fight unless they are really ticked off.
So then the Union is born and the company is forced to bargain with it. Now, a wise company might try to understand what they did to tick off the employees so as not to do it again. Employees, union or nonunion, who are happy where they work are more productive where they work. But no, the company is so PO'd that they can't do what they want when they want how they want they fail to learn. From that point on it is a constant struggle for power between the company and the Union. That is sad, because both of them want to go to work, get paid, and go home without any stress.
Unions can be cooperative and reasonable. Here in Fort Wayne there is the Sunbeam Bakery. They make bread. That is their product. A few years ago when the Atkins diet was all the rage Sunbeam started loosing money, a LOT of money. They needed to cut costs including payroll but they had, oh no, a Union. So what could they do? They were reasonable. They went to the Union, opened their books, and said, "Look. This diet thing is killing us. If we don't cut costs including payroll we will go out of business. Here are the books to prove it. What can we do?" The Union agreed, talked to the employees, and payroll was cut enough to keep the company in business.
When both parties are willing to be reasonable things can operate very well.
Nowdays I try to look at all the facts and understand that sometimes the Union is being a ##$^$%^* and sometimes management is being a ^%&%^##$*!
Regards,
Doug
I used to hate unions. My mother would come home and gripe about those lazy union workers who had their jobs protected by that #$=^\@~%$#$ Union.
Then one day I was chatting w/ a very nice man, who happened to be a Union Steward. In a polite and open minded way I asked him, "How can you defend those lazy workers w/ your #$=^\@~%$#$ Union rules?"
He was very nice and told me he hated doing it, but #1) He had a legal obligation or the Union could be sued, and #2) the Management was lazy and didn't want to follow the rules.
I learned that all management EVER had to do to get rid of an incompetent or lazy worker was to jump through a few hoops, and BOOM - out the door! At that point the Union Steward would tell Stupid, "Sorry. They followed the rules and you should have done X."
So now I look at it like life. We all have rules to follow. The police have rules, the citizens have rules, lawyers have rules, accountants have rules, etc etc etc. Most of us learn to follow the rules and get what we want when we want, mostly.
If the police want to make an arrest (and have it stick) they follow the rules. Yes, it would be really, really easy to collect evidence without a search warrant, but when you know John Gotti has a lawyer who WILL make certain you dot all the I's and cross all the T's, guess what? You get the warrant. Duh!
Same thing when working with a Union. All management has to do is get up off of their lazy butts and start doing real work, like documenting when employees are late, or when they take too long of a bathroom break. Write up the worker as many times as it takes then fire him and guess what? The Union will tell the doofus, "Sorry. Nothing we can do. He followed the rules. Bye."
I have changed my mind over the years. The company never has the Union just hand them the contract and dictate it. The company always has signed it and agreed to the rules. Always! If there is something that is unfair on one side or the other the management needs to grow a backbone and fight. Yes, it is inconvenient. So is getting a warrant. But those are the rules.
As I see it the problem lies here. It starts with a company or management that wants to do what it wants when it wants however it wants and don't tell them about the rules, laws, or how to treat the employees. Then the employees see a reasonable gripe and form a Union to gain strength from numbers and get something they think is fair. And in most cases it is reasonable. No one wants to give their hard earned money and go through a hell of a fight unless they are really ticked off.
So then the Union is born and the company is forced to bargain with it. Now, a wise company might try to understand what they did to tick off the employees so as not to do it again. Employees, union or nonunion, who are happy where they work are more productive where they work. But no, the company is so PO'd that they can't do what they want when they want how they want they fail to learn. From that point on it is a constant struggle for power between the company and the Union. That is sad, because both of them want to go to work, get paid, and go home without any stress.
Unions can be cooperative and reasonable. Here in Fort Wayne there is the Sunbeam Bakery. They make bread. That is their product. A few years ago when the Atkins diet was all the rage Sunbeam started loosing money, a LOT of money. They needed to cut costs including payroll but they had, oh no, a Union. So what could they do? They were reasonable. They went to the Union, opened their books, and said, "Look. This diet thing is killing us. If we don't cut costs including payroll we will go out of business. Here are the books to prove it. What can we do?" The Union agreed, talked to the employees, and payroll was cut enough to keep the company in business.
When both parties are willing to be reasonable things can operate very well.
Nowdays I try to look at all the facts and understand that sometimes the Union is being a ##$^$%^* and sometimes management is being a ^%&%^##$*!
Regards,
Doug
Because the company signed a contract that said they would do it the other way, all hoopy and stuff.
Union jobs pay more. This is because it is the job of the union to limit the labor supply available so as to maintain the higher wages. This is turn leads to increased costs on the part of business and higher prices to the consumer. Simple.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
The function of business is to reward capital investment. It's not to provide jobs, food, shelter, medical care, or anything else. Jobs are an outcome of business, a necessary evil if you will, not a goal. If you reject this basic premise I don't know how you can be anything other than communist, or facist if you like. Someone please explain it to me.
A person is entitled to receive compensation for their work product produced based upon the agreement they establish with a business. Nothing more, nothing less. If their work product is valuable, and few can provide it, they will be well rewarded. If their work product is not valuable, or the labor pool is very large, they will not be well compensated. This is how the free market works.
Everyone has an absolute right to a safe workplace, fair compensation, good work rules, etc. The remedy if none of these conditions are met is called quitting.
Everyone has an equal right to not work somewhere. With very few exceptions (military for example) you are free to leave any job. We are not North Korea where you are forced to work at a specific job. If you choose to stay you do so accepting the conditions of employment.
I have never understood the belief system that anyone owes me anything, or that I can somehow force my employer to bend to my will. I also don't understand the battered wife syndrome displayed whereby someone would continue to work at a job that they are miserable at. I would never work at a job that I hated, nor would I begrudge my crappy employer because I was ill-prepared to reenter the job market.
I also don't understand the concept that people feel entitled to a job under their own conditions. The very same people who rail against government intervention in their lives are oh so quick to invite that same government into their employment relationship. Corrupting the power of government coupled with the tyranny of the mob is what forces business to migrate to areas of the world that understand that the basic premise and function of business is to reward capital investment, not provide jobs. The age of entitlement started with the genesis of unions.
Bottom line: If you don't like your job, quit. Find a new one you will like. Let someone else work the crappy job. If you don't like the way you are treated or respected, get a new career. If you think business iis about providing jobs, raise your own capital and start your own business.
A person is entitled to receive compensation for their work product produced based upon the agreement they establish with a business. Nothing more, nothing less. If their work product is valuable, and few can provide it, they will be well rewarded. If their work product is not valuable, or the labor pool is very large, they will not be well compensated. This is how the free market works.
Everyone has an absolute right to a safe workplace, fair compensation, good work rules, etc. The remedy if none of these conditions are met is called quitting.
Everyone has an equal right to not work somewhere. With very few exceptions (military for example) you are free to leave any job. We are not North Korea where you are forced to work at a specific job. If you choose to stay you do so accepting the conditions of employment.
I have never understood the belief system that anyone owes me anything, or that I can somehow force my employer to bend to my will. I also don't understand the battered wife syndrome displayed whereby someone would continue to work at a job that they are miserable at. I would never work at a job that I hated, nor would I begrudge my crappy employer because I was ill-prepared to reenter the job market.
I also don't understand the concept that people feel entitled to a job under their own conditions. The very same people who rail against government intervention in their lives are oh so quick to invite that same government into their employment relationship. Corrupting the power of government coupled with the tyranny of the mob is what forces business to migrate to areas of the world that understand that the basic premise and function of business is to reward capital investment, not provide jobs. The age of entitlement started with the genesis of unions.
Bottom line: If you don't like your job, quit. Find a new one you will like. Let someone else work the crappy job. If you don't like the way you are treated or respected, get a new career. If you think business iis about providing jobs, raise your own capital and start your own business.
Last edited:
In RTW states they just don't have as much dues $ there to donate to Democrats.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
OK... It's abhorent. So what? Why is it the role of government to interfere in the employment relationship? If someone is willing to work under the conditions, let them. If no one will then the conditions will necessarily change in order to attract labor. Seeking government intervention and protection from the big bad corporation seems to be the antithesis of libertarianism. How do you square this?
I have worked in a union shop or two and have never seen any benefit. Solidarity comes from people refusing to work for a bad company. Dont like it? Go somewhere else. I have always been able to find work. A fair wage for a fair days labor. People can stick together without paying someone to do so IMO.
My billed cost an hour is in the low 120s and I make a fine living. The customers are happy to pay it because I'm trained and efficient.
QUOTE]
How much of that $120/hr do you take home?
People come to the US because it is the land of Opportunity. They work hard and provide a better life for their family. In a generation or two their children or grandchildren go to college and some realize unlimited opportunities (not necessarily working for someone else).
Now, the sad part, the great grandchildren are given everything and much more than they need. They get sidetracked by hobbies and become lazy. They want to make a lot of money, but do not really want to do anything to earn it (somehow they are entitled due to their previous generations hard work). In line at a fast food joint, they stand behind a guy wearing a shirt with the a motto on back "more pay, less work" and say tell me more about this?
Anyone not happy with their current job, pay or conditions is FREE to go out on their own and start their own business (this is how most millionaires are made) - warning this requires really hard work to start and may not pay off in your life (but your children and their children will approve).
First, Right To Work and Prevailing Wage are two separate items. The Government jobs that are PW jobs are not covered by RTW.
Second, no law forces any company to accept and keep contracts with any union. Companies break contracts and hire a new work force all the time.
Third, RTW will affect skilled trades unions and hard. In skilled trades the union hall is also the job locator and puts the person with the proper skills on the proper jobsite. They also find jobs out of jurisdiction when times get hard and there are not enough jobs in home jurisdiction. Skilled trade unions also don't have seniority, they have no paid time off, there is no protection for "slackers" who can't or won't do the work. The contractor can fire or layoff anyone at any time for no reason, the only time they are held accountable is when they "fire without rehire" which means the person is not eligible to return. Then the union hall wants to know why.
A lot of your facts are biased by your political lean, but that hasn't stopped most of you from spouting them repeatedly.
No one forces anyone to join a union, people join because they want a job with a certain company to get the pay and benefits that are offered there. Or they join because they are adept in a trade and they want the pay and benefits offered by that trade. Indiana has always been a RTW state, no one has ever said you can't work somewhere. There have been non-UAW plants in this state for decades, there have been non-union construction contractors (and more of them than union) longer than anyone on this board has been alive.
So flame away, but get all the facts straight.
Second, no law forces any company to accept and keep contracts with any union. Companies break contracts and hire a new work force all the time.
Third, RTW will affect skilled trades unions and hard. In skilled trades the union hall is also the job locator and puts the person with the proper skills on the proper jobsite. They also find jobs out of jurisdiction when times get hard and there are not enough jobs in home jurisdiction. Skilled trade unions also don't have seniority, they have no paid time off, there is no protection for "slackers" who can't or won't do the work. The contractor can fire or layoff anyone at any time for no reason, the only time they are held accountable is when they "fire without rehire" which means the person is not eligible to return. Then the union hall wants to know why.
A lot of your facts are biased by your political lean, but that hasn't stopped most of you from spouting them repeatedly.
No one forces anyone to join a union, people join because they want a job with a certain company to get the pay and benefits that are offered there. Or they join because they are adept in a trade and they want the pay and benefits offered by that trade. Indiana has always been a RTW state, no one has ever said you can't work somewhere. There have been non-UAW plants in this state for decades, there have been non-union construction contractors (and more of them than union) longer than anyone on this board has been alive.
So flame away, but get all the facts straight.
Then the unions at the statehouse were apparently wasting their time? In all honesty I cannot reconcile the fact you have presented and the reaction to RTW legislation that occurred in the recent past.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator
Members online
- Simon6101
- Tbell7
- 2A_Tom
- opus1776
- hoosierdaddy1976
- williamsburg
- eric001
- gassprint1
- shootersix
- deanald2pt0
- Scott58
- sp3worker
- flint stonez
- Bsj425
- hhi7410
- pokersamurai
- Craigh
- jeff1980
- irl104
- JTL165
- Duke5555
- Gaffer
- GodFearinGunTotin
- DoggyDaddy
- L C H
- GasTube138
- bobjones223
- Pyro
- jerrob
- spencer rifle
- Jojo_2000
- kotaoz
- crookcountygo
- BillD
- Highstandard
- singlesix
- MontereyC6
- 04FXSTS
- Wolfhound
- drillsgt
- backtrail540
- MrHank
- Skullglide
- Joniki
- danieldefense33
- gdun67
- jlw
- Michigan Slim
- three50seven
- bigretic
