Re: OT Abusive UNIONS
From: Clarence (no_at_No.com)
Date: 11/06/04
- Next message: Terry Given: "Re: To all disappointed Bush bashers"
- Previous message: Rich The Philosophizer: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- In reply to: Jim Thompson: "Re: OT AUSSIE UNIONS"
- Next in thread: Bill Sloman: "Re: OT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 03:03:22 GMT
> >"John Crighton" <john_c@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> I get the impression that your opinions of the union movement
> >> are based on experiences many decades ago. if I am wrong, I
> >> apologise but thanks for sharing them.
> >
> >You are SOOOO wrong!
> >
> >The recent abuses have been this year, and everyone in Southern California
> >knows about it.
> >
> >Does the TERM "At Will" mean anything to you?
> >
> >All Employees in California are classified as "At WILL" employees unless
they
> >have a labor contract. Anyone may agree to a contract if BOTH parties are
> >willing. A Union is not needed to negotiate a labor contract. But of
course
> >Labor unions insist on a contract since that is where they get their power.
> >
> >Most employees are not covered by a contract and they may, without penalty
> >choose to leave at any time. Consequently any employer with "At will"
> >employees may dismiss any employee. They customarily give some notice or pay
in
> >lieu of notice. A Union employee can only be dismissed in accordance with
the
> >contract terms. Often nearly impossible! The friction and rancor caused
when
> >it is necessary to dismiss a union employee is very damaging to company's
> >efficient operation and often costly. So no employer wants to associate
with
> >a union.
> >
> >The unions having bought certain government people by financing their
elections
> >have made it the law to allow a union to force a company to allow a union to
> >represent the employees whether all of the employees want the union or not!
> >This also makes it a adversarial situation and many good employees will
leave
> >rather than put up with the unions interference. This leaves the mediocre
> >employees to be the sole source of labor for a company since the brightest
and
> >best move on. The unions only measure for pay increases is seniority, not
> >productivity, or innovation. So anyone with any decent ability is severally
> >penalized by the presence of a union.
> >
> >Now, what was this crap about how good a union is?
> >
> >
> >
> >Clarence
> >
> >BTW: I am not going away!
> >
Something for you to read!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Labor+Union%22+violence
29,500 hits. That should get your attention!
- Next message: Terry Given: "Re: To all disappointed Bush bashers"
- Previous message: Rich The Philosophizer: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- In reply to: Jim Thompson: "Re: OT AUSSIE UNIONS"
- Next in thread: Bill Sloman: "Re: OT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|