[mtbr]

ziggy wrote:

Sapio wrote:

Axeman wrote:

That doesn't work. In shops where unionized and non-unionized workers are combined, there are NASTY problems. Westinghouse in Hamilton tried this and non-unionized workers were assaulted, had their cars vandelized, etc. The idea of choice sounds nice, but isn't practical.

Why are there "NASTY problems" and what caused them?

Ask the union guys,they get pissy when a non union guy is in their shop.

the non-union guys work too fast.

[romanP]

Axeman wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The mines in the elk valley are represented by the
Steelworkers,operating engineers,UMWA and the Greenhills worker association which is the breakaway non union association of the steelworkers started by the guys.

Guess which one's are still working and not going through shut downs?

Yeah, and look at the auto industry. Toyota isn't unionized and they're the only car company in the black right now. Their product is quality and their demand has remained strong throughout the current economic crisis.

That's because Toyota keeps pouring money into research for better, more efficient vehicles instead of begging for subsidies to keep doing the same old thing.

[Sapio]

romanP wrote:

Axeman wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The mines in the elk valley are represented by the
Steelworkers,operating engineers,UMWA and the Greenhills worker association which is the breakaway non union association of the steelworkers started by the guys.

Guess which one's are still working and not going through shut downs?

Yeah, and look at the auto industry. Toyota isn't unionized and they're the only car company in the black right now. Their product is quality and their demand has remained strong throughout the current economic crisis.

That's because Toyota keeps pouring money into research for better, more efficient vehicles instead of begging for subsidies to keep doing the same old thing.

I would say it is a mix of both.

[Axeman]

Sapio wrote:

Why are there "NASTY problems" and what caused them?

The union didn't want non-unionized workers in the plant and made their lives a living hell. The unionized workers went on work-to-rule campaign about it and the management backed off. It started with outsourcing parts & tool distribution, then spread to "temp" workers and warehouse staff. Then the assaults and vandalism, along with the work-to-rule, began.

[Sapio]

Axeman wrote:

Sapio wrote:

Why are there "NASTY problems" and what caused them?

The union didn't want non-unionized workers in the plant and made their lives a living hell. The unionized workers went on work-to-rule campaign about it and the management backed off. It started with outsourcing parts & tool distribution, then spread to "temp" workers and warehouse staff. Then the assaults and vandalism, along with the work-to-rule, began.

So why did they not want the non-unionized workers there?

[ziggy]

Sapio wrote:

Axeman wrote:

Sapio wrote:

Why are there "NASTY problems" and what caused them?

The union didn't want non-unionized workers in the plant and made their lives a living hell. The unionized workers went on work-to-rule campaign about it and the management backed off. It started with outsourcing parts & tool distribution, then spread to "temp" workers and warehouse staff. Then the assaults and vandalism, along with the work-to-rule, began.

So why did they not want the non-unionized workers there?

Because their scared they will take their jobs.

[Sapio]

ziggy wrote:

Because their scared they will take their jobs.

I though Unions were there to protect their jobs. If Unions are so good then why would people not join them?

[acidcomplex]

ziggy wrote:

acidcomplex wrote:

ziggy wrote:

So far not one person from CLAC has got back to any of the 60 or so guys they took dues off of.

wow you keep checking with all 60 people to make sure of this eh? Uh huh

Tough to do when they live all over Canada but ya,about 20 of them.

So how do you know none of them got there check to this day if you dont talk to all off them. ?

[ziggy]

Quote:

So how do you know none of them got there check to this day if you dont talk to all off them. ?

Because I do.They cant pay just one guy,it has to be every single person that they took dues off of.

Dues are tax free,that's why it's such a big deal,not to mention the benefits some got such as dental and medical,they have to pay that back out of their own pocket.
I'm not sure if you know how unions work or not but cancelling a collective agreement after 3 years is a big deal and technically their in big shit as is the company that said CLAC was representing the workers.

CLAC stands for christian labour association of Canada in case you didnt know,their actually a rat union that was formed to outbid the other unions,some folks on the coast will remeber the shitty roof work they had done back then when clac was allowed to bid on work that was previously only available to union shop.

CLAC also admitted they screwed up.If it's anything like Alberta then they can donate those dues to charity legally with my permission.

[acidcomplex]

ziggy wrote:

Because I do.They cant pay just one guy,it has to be every single person that they took dues off of.

OH my bad "you just do" sweet cant wait to use that against you in a future article lol

ziggy wrote:

I'm not sure if you know how unions work or not

I do very well thanks been part of one for many years

[ziggy]

acidcomplex wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Because I do.They cant pay just one guy,it has to be every single person that they took dues off of.

OH my bad "you just do" sweet cant wait to use that against you in a future article lol

ziggy wrote:

I'm not sure if you know how unions work or not

I do very well thanks been part of one for many years

Dont think you do or you would know how serious revenue canada takes tax evasion.
It's not me they have to answer to,or dont you get that part?

[ziggy]

Sapio wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Because their scared they will take their jobs.

I though Unions were there to protect their jobs. If Unions are so good then why would people not join them?

Some people would rather negotiate their own contract then pay someone to do it for them.The unions protect their members because it means dues coming in to pay the exec's so they dont have to go get a real job.It also means a steady influx of cash into the union pension fund which also insures the exec's get a healthy retirement without ever having to work for it.

[Chumley]

ziggy wrote:

Sapio wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Because their scared they will take their jobs.

I though Unions were there to protect their jobs. If Unions are so good then why would people not join them?

Some people would rather negotiate their own contract then pay someone to do it for them.The unions protect their members because it means dues coming in to pay the exec's so they dont have to go get a real job.It also means a steady influx of cash into the union pension fund which also insures the exec's get a healthy retirement without ever having to work for it.

I was thinking, if unions negotiate as a group for better pay because the members aren't good at negotiating their own wages, then if there were no unions, wouldn't that mean all those guys would be out there undercutting your job bids?

[ziggy]

Why do you think CLAC was formed?
Ask the people on the left coast that can still remember the leaky condo roof scandal.

They had protectionist measures in so only BC union members got the work,mostly 115a(operating engineers)because the work could only go union clac was formed and they undercut all the big unions jobs on the coast and did some major damage.

CLAC also put marine pipeline out of bussiness in Alberta undercutting the wages and because they were a union,they got the work.

[Axeman]

Sapio wrote:

So why did they not want the non-unionized workers there?

I'd have to do some research to try and remember, but I suspect that the union figured if the company could do without SOME unionized workers, it was a first step to having NO union in the shop.