Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Right to work

January 30, 2013

Dear editor: In re: Opposition to “Right to Work” legislation proposed by Rep. Rapp. Fair share is a fee for actual services; nothing more, nothing less....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(17)

Frugaltaxpayer

Jan-30-13 6:30 AM

All this talk of being fair. How is it fair that job advancement is purely based on time of service and NOT job performance? The lazy person that hides from work and never does their FAIR SHARE of work gets the same pay increase an the employee that may excel in their job? I dont hate unions, but feel ther are some problems with their core beliefs that everyone is equal in the workplace. I also beleive there is no place for them in government.

11 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kinzua1

Jan-30-13 7:36 AM

There is nothing that says promotion is based on seniority alone.If the promotion is done by that merit alone,then it is managements mistake,not the union. If a so called "slug "is not punished for lack job duties,that is management's mistake.Each job has a job discription (all employees must sign),if that employee does not meet those goals,there are steps to be taken that can lead to dismissal.If the agreement is followed,as it should be,that is the fair way for management,and the employee.Unions can not protect an employee past the agreement,but won't allow an employer to fire an employee for reasons outside the contract agreement.

8 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Jan-30-13 8:08 AM

If you know your job, and actually go do work and do your job to the best of your abilities, there is no need for a union. Mgmt will recognize this and promote your contributions. Pro-union folks talk like mgmt has no goal other than to eliminate the workers. Bologna. without worker bees, the business is nothing. Great time and expense is put into training employees. No employer wants to falsely accuse a worker to get rid if him/her. That equates to more training costs and lost productivity. Again, prove your worth to the company and you WILL be rewarded accordingly. If you're valuable, the company will not want to lose you to competition. Slugs need not apply. Still no replies to the question of what will happen to the Detroit (union) workers caught drinking and smoking dope while on lunch break. NO to unions!

8 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

colorado

Jan-30-13 8:24 AM

Unions can be beneficial for the workers in negotiation for wages and benefits and acting as a deterrent against employers who do not treat employees fairly. The problem is they spend most of their time, money and energy protecting folks even their fellow members say should be fired and spend too much time and money supporting political causes many of their members don't agree with.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Jan-30-13 9:35 AM

Kinzua1, perfectly said. The great fallacy is that union workers cannot be fired or disciplined. I have worked in union environments where both things have occurred. The union contract stipulated production levels and expected performance. A union may not be the right choice in every work environment, but it is for some. If the employee did not fulfill his part of the contract, he was warned. If he continued, he was fired. As a management representative, I sat in on some individual grievance conferences. The contract protected both ways. The contract was the bottom line, and like any contract, it had to be agreed to by management and the union local. If management negotiates poorly, it will end up unhappy in the end, but it has only itself to blame.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Jan-30-13 9:38 AM

Now the state is smarting because it negotiated poorly in the past, and it is stuck with contracts it regrets. Does that mean that the unions are to blame? Perhaps partly, but the state (management) shares that blame.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Jan-30-13 10:03 AM

Stonewall, did you look for the answer yourself? I did. Google is a wonderful thing. Chrysler fired 13 workers that a local TV station caught boozing and toking on their lunch break.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TJR63PA

Jan-30-13 12:32 PM

yeah, but they later rehired them...

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

archaeo1

Jan-30-13 1:21 PM

I Must run over to Deerfield and have my head examined,I have To say I agree with most of your posts.Look what unions have done in the North.Jobs have gone South and beyond.Though I do see their benefit.Just like everything else thing can go too far.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Jan-30-13 2:40 PM

TJR, yes you are correct, only after an arbitrator ruled in the employees' favor. It could have gone the other way. As a commentator on Fox news said, "We might not like the outcome in any trial or grievance process, but neither you or I saw the evidence."

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ugal62

Jan-30-13 7:11 PM

This topic is all political. Union voters do not traditionally vote republican party.Unions protect workers from unfounded accusations of wrongdoings. When you work with the public sector anyone can make alse accusations about your character. Bottom line some professionals need unions.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Jan-30-13 9:44 PM

Alright all you pro-union folks, what is your stance on unionizing our military forces. They are gov't employees. Should they not have a union, too?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

archaeo1

Jan-31-13 12:35 AM

Why,They are employed by the government.They choose the job,sometimes because there are no jobs . Yet if they do their 20 its a really good deal. I dont know whether the infantry would be the best choice but to each his own. I respect thier choice. sorry , to answer your question NO.How in the worl couldthey be unionised ...P.S. Im not a big union fan but it does benefit many.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PlayBall

Jan-31-13 8:00 AM

And, our taxes are paying for your benefits and pension....You're welcome!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Jan-31-13 11:20 AM

THANK YOU. PlayBall! MY taxes also pay for my pension. As far as benefits go, they are very few. The VA says I make too much money in my post-service job to qualify for any medical benefits. I can go to a VA clinic, space available, but I have to pay a HUGE fee just to be seen. That's why I have private insurance. Archeo1, true, military folks DO voluntarily serve their country. (And aren't you thankful for that!) No conscription since the early 70s. Does this disqualify them for deserving union representation? Using YOUR logic, there should be NO unions for ANY person who CHOOSES to work in ANY gov't employment. No more civil service unions? Beyond this, the 13th Amendment banned all slavery, so EVERYBODY voluntarily chooses to work where they work. Using YOUR logic, NOBODY should have the right to unionize. If they don't like the work THEY chose, move along to another job. Thanks for clarifying this for all of us.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rockytop

Feb-02-13 5:28 PM

There's some good to unions and some not so good. I'm retired from a job in electrical engineering. I ask one of the school board members about doing some volunteer work at the tech center helping in reading prints etc. I was told the union most likely would not allow me to. He also told me that a group of parents wanted to paint a classroom and were turned down because of the union concerns.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-04-13 8:54 PM

Rocky, and yet the unions would have you believe that they're only looking out for the betterment of their fellow man, kid's classrooms be damned.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web