Shame On You!

[stymied]

Stand in the middle of Manhattan and say that and then run for your hotel room and hide.  New York City, now that's a union town.  I remember my first law firm on Park Avenue (two blocks down from Tiffany's) and the first document I processed for attorneys.  It was a memo on how to bust unions.  Some client had one of the best law firms in the United States cooking up a union busting strategy for them.  These days Labor is so outgunned by management.  Cannon, I'm going to do what the big guys do and look out for my interests.  I'm 100 percent pro union.  And that's not a quip, it's a statement of my long-held belief.  Look around you and see what being anti-union has done for our lovely state.

What would you propose these owners do beyond giving union companies like Midwest Drywall a chance to bid on their projects?  Once the bids are received take them in the back room and let them have last look to lower their number?  Or better yet, pay the difference in the first place?  Call the local carpenters union.  Ask them how they know Green Country Interiors or Wiljo Interiors has substandard pay and benefits.  They have no clue.  Most of these owners are so far removed to these decisions anyway, it makes no sense to protest them.  These owners hire Flintco and Manhattan to do their projects, who in turn solicit bids from qualified drywall and framing contractors.  Green Country Interiors wins some, Wiljo Interiors wins some, and Midwest has won some.  The difference here is Midwest wants all of the jobs and is not satisfied with just an opportunity to bid.  Even the projects that are publicly bid  the unions get all bent out of shape.  It is ridiculous.  I have no problem with the other unions in town - pipe fitters, sheet metal workers, electricians, iron workers because those labor unions are not whiney little bitches.  "Shame on St. Francis (a not for profit organization) for not handing us a job".  Give me a break.  So would you refuse health care at St. Francis right now to not cross a picket line?

[sgrizzle]

Will there be beer and lawn chairs at said Shame the Shamers rally?  I'm in.

If there is beer, the protesters would come to our side.

[cannon_fodder]

See, you failed to address any of the points I raised.  Either specific to the issue at hand or in general.  An anecdote about a law firm trying to bust unions doesn't really help me understand your position.

Please explain to me what anti-union laws are in place on Oklahoma.  The most anti-union thing I know of is a law that says workers are not required to join a union.  I'm not sure why that is considered anti-union or why requiring people to join a club to get a job would be a good thing (you must pay X Union  Y% of your pay or you can't work in Oklahoma - that's pro-worker?).

Texas has low union rates, as does Virginia and Utah.  All three saw growing economies and growing wages as union states slumped significantly.  New York, New Jersey, and Michigan are the highest per capita union states in the nation.  All three have struggled economically the last couple of decades.  Look at Oklahoma as an example of what non-unions can do?  Go to Detroit and look around to see what unions can do to a lovely place. Or Bethlehem Penn.  Seeing that the correlation is hard to find, I'll go out on a limb and say that the small minority of union members in any given area isn't the driving factor in a state's economy.

I worked with a union and was privy to a memo on strategies to make companies unionize and what the boundaries for lobbying for laws and constitutional limits of laws forcing workers to join unions would be.   So what?  Workers look out for themselves.  Companies looking for themselves.  And unions looking out for themselves (don't forget, unions are companies with income, expenses, and highly paid management).   Makes sense to me.  Usually each one forgetting the roll the other one has to play for them to be successful.  

I'm 100% pro market.  If a union can adjust an irregularity in a market and bring wages in line with demand/supply then good for them.  If the company can find people willing to do the job as good for less, then good for them.  If the workers or the company press their position and the company goes under - then the hell with both of 'em.  That's my position based on experience, study, and thought.

Also, I'm sad to hear that a disagreement on unions in a union town would likely lead to violence.  You'll note the union protesters in "our lovely state" have not had to run and hide from anyone.

I'm neither anti union or pro union.  It really doesn't matter to me.  I have had good working relationships with the UAW (who overplayed their hand and cost about 60% of the union jobs over the years) in the past and the Operating Engineers here in town (a very well run union who uses skill sets to increase wages, imho).  But protesting a company because a contractor subbed out a job to another company isn't really a union issue anyway.  It's a business decision for all parties involved.  The lack of revenue is what has the union mad - not any workers rights issue or labor dispute.    Their club didn't get the work, they didn't get a cut of the revenue, and the guys that are working on the project don't deserve a job because they aren't a member of the club.

That's not a labor dispute.

[Hometown]

Cannon, Please don't tell me how to conduct my side of a conversation. 

What is anti-union about Oklahoma?  Right-to-Work.  And Oklahoma does have a history of violence against Union Organizers.  "The burning" opens with a scene of such violence right here in Tulsa.  And Tulsa's other big untold story (other than the riot) is the Mid-Continent strike.  Where Tulsa's DA bugged the Union Office and provided the information to Mid-Continent's Management.

That was the story with union organizing all over.  Local police enforced Management's dictates and that is what led to mob involvement with unions.  The mob became union enforcers.  But you are from Ohio and probably are aware of that.

Cannon, the next time you get a vacation or use your health care benefit, please get on your knees and thank union organizers.  Attorneys are higher up the food chain than some folks but you are still workers.

The next time you want to see the power and majesty of united labor go to New York City and feast your eyes on the Center of the Civilized World -- The Rome of our Day.  Built by Unions.

Now, this is my general stance and I don't know any detail on the organization discussed here.  Of course, bids should be sealed and standard practices should be followed.

It's just very sad to me that a beat down, poverty stricken state like Oklahoma that would really benefit from unionization doesn't support unionization.  Management has been very effective in mind f****** the little people here.

[RipTout]

Unions are so old commie.....

[cannon_fodder]

You realize that the Unions BOMBED OIL PIPELINES during the Mid-Con strike don't you?  There was sabotage of company property, feuding between the AFL and CIO, violence from both side, accusations of spying by both sides, and an over reaction and illegal acts by the government. I'm not pointing a finger at labor, but both sides acted a fool for sure.  I hope you realize that labor unrest in the great depression was not limited to Oklahoma - your bastion of unions in New York saw its fair share of labor unrest in the time period. 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/M/MI005.html

Your basic argument is:  Oklahoma is a crappy place to live because in the great depression the state treated unions poorly and because we don't require workers to join a union.

Ignoring the acts of several government officials 75 years ago - please explain to me how requiring workers to pay a union for the privilege of working is supporting workers rights? 

You are anti union if you don't force people to join unions.  Well damn.  Oklahoma is anti-Jesus because we don't require people to be Christian to get a job.  We are anti-Boy Scouts because we don't require kids to be Boy Scouts to go to school.  We are anti gun because we do not mandate gun ownership for every citizen.  I really don't get it, it just doesn't make sense.   Feel free to continue to not-explain your position, but I'm being honest.

You keep arguing that the "little people" of Oklahoma are too stupid to figure it out on their own.  That the big bad employers have brainwashed them all while the poor little unions (generally a larger national organization than the company) can't figure out how to get their message across because Oklahomans are too stupid.  In essence, workers are too stupid in Oklahoma and should be legally required to join a union.

Way to stick up for the working man.

Per your New York/Rome comment.  You keep ignoring Detroit and Pittsburgh.  Ignoring the fact that the NYC is unique in many other ways (being the largest, among the most corrupt, most unionized, and most capitalist city in the USA) and the fact that a working man in NYC needs to make in excess of $100,000 to be considered middle class, it still doesn't show a correlation.  Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle - large non-union bastions of prosperity.  Do you not get that there is a failure of correlation there or just ignoring it?  Why are the most heavily unionized industries the ones that have been failing for decades?  Why do industries with little or no unionization still have high wages (IT comes to mind rapidly)?

I'm not arguing against unions on principle.  I am showing and supporting a different perspective.  Again - unions can do tons of good.  But unions can and do destroy companies to the detriment of current and future workers.  John Deere, GM, Chrysler, Ford, American Steel, Bethlehem Steel and on and on . . . tons of long term legacy employers won't be hiring their workers sons (in my home town there were three generations that went from high school to John Deere, but when a bolt turner made $70,000 a year they let him retire and automated the job).  I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say companies can abuse labor and labor can abuse companies... but I also don't think you will bother addressing this point no matter how many times I raise it. 

Union good.  Employers bad.   That's the end of it.  Anyone who says otherwise is stupid and brainwashed, no matter how reasoned their opinion or open their attempt to discuss it.  The union was spied on during the midcon strike but the bombings were no big deal.  Union Town New York is awesome, Detroit doesn't count.  Union jobs pay more, companies can't be driven out of business.  Companies owe their workers more, workers don't owe employers anything.  There are two sides to the story and both labor and employers have a roll to play.  Either or both being unreasonable is bad for both.

And I won't be thanking anyone for my benefits or my vacation time.  I don't have any benefits and my substantial compensation comes from productivity - thus I don't really get paid to take vacation.  I think I should walk out until I make what I "deserve," or demand clients pay me at least double my current rate.  If I protested a company for going with a different firm because I'd just get laughed at.


And the details of the present case have been well presented.  Other bids were chosen in many, many instances.  In each instance the Union was made that the local company got the job so they protested the company that ordered the work.

They didn't claim it was a rigged bid or contracting practices weren't followed.  They are pretending a union not getting the job makes it a labor dispute. 

Personally, I will avoid even having that company bid on any of my clients projects in case they don't win the bid.  It isn't worth the risk to give them a chance if it could result in being protested simply because they aren't chosen.  Is it because I hate unions?  No, I don't hate unions.  The potential cost of being protested outweighs the benefit of reviewing their bid.

I'm happy to be corrected if any of my assumptions are wrong.  Particular as it related to the SHAME ON people because I have no special knowledge there.  I merely advocating my position and looking those with other opinions to do the same.

[Hometown]

Somehow I don't buy your argument that you are equally divided on union or nonunion.  And anyone ever tell you you are a repressed writer.  Bet you tear up those pleadings.  San Francisco, non-union?  Oh, Cannon, you do need my help.  And you are due a little humble-izing from the big man in the clouds.  Bless your heart.

[nathanm]

Union good.  Employers bad.   That's the end of it.  Anyone who says otherwise is stupid and brainwashed, no matter how reasoned their opinion or open their attempt to discuss it.  The union was spied on during the midcon strike but the bombings were no big deal.  Union Town New York is awesome, Detroit doesn't count.  Union jobs pay more, companies can't be driven out of business.  Companies owe their workers more, workers don't owe employers anything.  There are two sides to the story and both labor and employers have a roll to play.  Either or both being unreasonable is bad for both.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that employees ought to look out for their own interest, which is generally aligned with unions, while management ought to look out for theirs.

And yes, some IT workers make great money. Most are toiling away for not a lot. A couple years back someone wanted to pay me 42k a year for a full time job, and I've got over 10 years experience in the field. Not very good. Better than the average Oklahoman, sure, but not at all commensurate with a decade of specialized experience.

[cannon_fodder]

Somehow I don't buy your argument that you are equally divided on union or nonunion.  And anyone ever tell you you are a repressed writer.  Bet you tear up those pleadings.  San Francisco, non-union?  Oh, Cannon, you do need my help.  And you are due a little humble-izing from the big man in the clouds.  Bless your heart.

 

Yes, yes I have been told I am a repressed writer.  And yes, I do tear up pleadings and briefs.   

But honestly, I have no ill will towards unions.  They are at the core a group of people looking out for their interests.  Management is a group of people looking out for the owners interest.  Both are subject to abuse (unions by becoming big business themselves and management by looking after their own interest instead of owners).  I don't see an inherent favoritism towards either side and continue to advocate the position that either side can abuse their position.  A company is no better, or worse, for using union labor unless it comes with a benefit to the consumer (operating engineers in Tulsa have standards for their operators, apprenticeship programs, etc. so you understand you are getting a good crew).

I have no actual knowledge of San Francisco, but other than the port most of the wealth is generated from commerce, not industry.  And commerce is generally non-union (IT, banking, transactions, etc.).   On a side note, a friend has a 1300 sq. ft. 2 bedroom apartment rent controlled since the '89 quake at Franklin and Green.  While this gives me a built in hotel in the middle of San Fran, I still have to hate her a little.

And don't worry about humbling me.  I get beat down enough in the court room from time to time to know my place.  I appreciate the discussion with you, as always.  But we may have to just disagree.