the winnipeg sandbox
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

the winnipeg sandbox » winnipeg sandbox.. » business... » union posts article contradicting itself.

union posts article contradicting itself.

+3
Triniman
grumpy old man
Deank
7 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

ufcw.org has linked to this article
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008832761_opinb10schmitz.html

the article states how "workers should have the right to NOT have to attend workplace meetings where they are where they are subjected to their employer's opinion on religion, politics, charitable giving or unions"

LOL... but I guess the same about having to belong to a union and attend Union meeting does not apply eh?

the article further states.

"but some who want to maintain this unfair control over workers are trying to hold back the legislation."

I dont get it.. is the union for or against this legislation?

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

For it when convenient.

Against it when not.

This is pretty much straight forward. Why don't you get it?

Triniman

Triniman
general-contributor
general-contributor

All will be explained when the history of unions and the labour movement in Canada is on display in the temple honouring socialism, possibly with Gary Doer as the CEO. You know it as the rights musuem, something that I and many like-minded folks have been opposed of. The chiefs, Doer, lesbians, union and labour supporters and members and minority groups will love it.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Way to spin it Triniman. At least you are consistent. I'll grant ya that.

Triniman

Triniman
general-contributor
general-contributor

If Doer loves it, then that's reason enough to be opposed to it. I don't trust him, maybe some do.
I can rest assured that I'm not perpetuating any Doer-socialist agenda...
My conservative views are consistent, even when it comes to this museum. I can't say that for all conservatives on this forum.

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

So...I think this is the ULTIMATE abuse of a union and it's ridiculous rules.

When I went to college, it was to become a teacher...though I was determined NOT to join the extortion agency known as the "teacher's union". In fact, I was hoping I'd have enough dedication to fight them and shut them down.

Here's one good reason for a union to finally be abolished:

Union Abuse

http://www.photage.ca

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

yeah our Feds do the same except they do it when there is simply no work for the unionites to do. So any Fed government that thinks it will slash costs by reducing the number of workers, is sadly mistaken.

Reading some of the cases from your link I have to ask. Why does it take so long for an investigation and a hearing? Should be that week.

grumpyrom

grumpyrom
major-contributor
major-contributor

"Once their hearings are over, they are either sent back to the classroom or fired. But because their cases are heard by 23 arbitrators who work only five days a month, stints of two or three years in a rubber room are common, and some teachers have been there for five or six. "

So apparently they don't have the right to due process before losing their jobs? Blame the fact that the arbitrators work one week a month. Do you honestly feel it's best to just fire teachers because someone accused them of something without a fair independant hearing?

Did you even read the entire article or did you stop at " 700 NYC teachers are paid to do nothing". If their hearing is turned down they are fired...period. The problem lies in how long it takes to get a hearing, not in the process itself.

grumpyrom

grumpyrom
major-contributor
major-contributor

Deank wrote:ufcw.org has linked to this article
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008832761_opinb10schmitz.html

the article states how "workers should have the right to NOT have to attend workplace meetings where they are where they are subjected to their employer's opinion on religion, politics, charitable giving or unions"

LOL... but I guess the same about having to belong to a union and attend Union meeting does not apply eh?

the article further states.

"but some who want to maintain this unfair control over workers are trying to hold back the legislation."

I dont get it.. is the union for or against this legislation?

Deank, at my place of work your free to choose to donate your union dues to a charity of your choice and I have never been forced to attend ANY union meeting save for a brief 15 minute presentation during my new hire orientation. You are never forced to pay anything to the union, but you are still a "member" protected by the collective agreement regardless of your choice.

Really dispicable practice if you ask me, allowing members to forward their dues to charity and yet still recieve the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement.

Goth_chic

Goth_chic
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

When I was a member of CUPE I paid union dues and had no idea where the money went. We were never given a choice...I would've gladly donated my dues to a charity.

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

I didn't say the workers should be fired.

I said the union rules are stupid.

As apparently are the government officials allowing it to continue.

The city could save MILLIONS of dollars just by hiring more arbitrators. Heck....they could even hire full-blown judges and save money.

But the union rules forcing the teachers to go sit in a room cause they can't be "reassigned" makes no sense. Make them work in the offices, or do cleaning work, or maintenance. Put them through some sort of retraining program. Make them teach adult courses (many schools in NYC have adult classes at night).

http://www.photage.ca

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

"Really dispicable practice if you ask me, allowing members to forward their dues to charity and yet still recieve the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement."

I would have to agree with that statement. You are then forcing the other union members to support people who wont support themselves.

Freeman

Freeman
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

So what if I don't want to pay dues, and I don't want to give to charity and I'd rather make my own deal with my employer rather than have the union do it. Can I still work there?

grumpyrom

grumpyrom
major-contributor
major-contributor

Freeman wrote:So what if I don't want to pay dues, and I don't want to give to charity and I'd rather make my own deal with my employer rather than have the union do it. Can I still work there?

You sure can...it's called the non-bargaining unit and roughly 1/3 of the jobs fall into that category.

grumpyrom

grumpyrom
major-contributor
major-contributor

Deank wrote:"Really dispicable practice if you ask me, allowing members to forward their dues to charity and yet still recieve the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement."

I would have to agree with that statement. You are then forcing the other union members to support people who wont support themselves.

Not forcing anyone to support them, just allowing them the opportunity to contribute the same amount as all other members BUT still have the freedom to divert their contributions to a different cause should their own personal beliefs prevent them from paying dues to the union. Kinda flexible if you ask me.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

Yeah flexible for the one guy, but not so flexible for the guy actually paying his union dues eh? Dont pay union dues... dont get union protection.

Seems a little ludicrous, but then again perhaps they are just learning from the local drug dealers... first hit of Angel Dust is always free.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

I wonder if the folks choosing to donate to a charity do so in complete anonymity? I wonder what kind of pressure might be brought when those opposed to a union don't show up when there are divisive issues such as strikes? I wonder how may unions have this uber-gracious way of avoiding union memberships?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

the winnipeg sandbox » winnipeg sandbox.. » business... » union posts article contradicting itself.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum