And people wonder why the rust belt continues to have economic problems

[motivez]

Posts should be about the topic and not other posters.. we've had a few posts reported in this thread, please keep it civil moving forward, or thread bans will be handed out along with infractions

[bheld]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

he did have non-union workers, then the unions tried to get them to organize because it was bad for union business. The delevoper fires those that try to unionize because they will demand more money for the same work. See a union can pressure people to organize but a developer can't The "National Labor Relations Board" then steps in and starts an "investigation"

If they want to organize he should have to the right to fire them

The developer can pressure the workers by ending the project (or threatening to in this case). Firing the workers for organizing shouldn't be allowed because it obviously undermines the right to organize.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Canada doesn't have any film production crew unions?

They do, but a lot of American movies are actually filmed in Canada. A lot of movies that take place in NYC are filmed in Toronto lately... The reason for it really is the unions and state governments giving them a hard time.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Scrum

This is a higher risk job. These people may have killed someone due to their business practices. I don't see any problem with the unions wanting more money for their workers.

This isn't much different than a car insurance company charging you more because of a DUI.

If its ok for a private company to charge a person more because insuring them is a higher risk then is perfectly ok for workers to demand more for work that is a higher risk.

Its funny how the OP takes the side of the developer when he is facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for the death of a worker and completely ignores the other side - the workers themselves who work in those conditions.

Talk about irrational and unfair hatred of unions, you know they do serve a good purpose and though they can go too far sometimes, they are necessary to give workers a voice against the scum that wish to take advantage of them.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

The developer can pressure the workers by ending the project (or threatening to in this case). Firing the workers for organizing shouldn't be allowed because it obviously undermines the right to organize.

The workers can also pressure the developer by quitting. The right should be in both hands. And firing them doesn't undermine their right to organize. They can still organize. They can even organize and try to figure out how to find a new job. You do not have rights such as free speech and other things while on the job. When you're working for an employer you are on their property and their terms. The employer should not be on the terms of the employees.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

If its ok for a private company to charge a person more because insuring them is a higher risk then is perfectly ok for workers to demand more for work that is a higher risk.

But you act like the market does not work for people in high risk occupations. It does when it limits the number of people willing to take those risks for a given wage. They should be able to make such demands. It does not mean they have a right to any demands.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by bheld

The developer can pressure the workers by ending the project (or threatening to in this case). Firing the workers for organizing shouldn't be allowed because it obviously undermines the right to organize.

and ending the project helps this workers and the city out how? No one else is going to redo that building, so this would be really dumb to screw it up. 10-15$ an hour is better than nothing

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

If its ok for a private company to charge a person more because insuring them is a higher risk then is perfectly ok for workers to demand more for work that is a higher risk.

Its funny how the OP takes the side of the developer when he is facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for the death of a worker and completely ignores the other side - the workers themselves who work in those conditions.

Talk about irrational and unfair hatred of unions, you know they do serve a good purpose and though they can go too far sometimes, they are necessary to give workers a voice against the scum that wish to take advantage of them.

he is not facing criminal charges

The police are considering manslaughter, which is a criminal offense for which an individual could face a custodial sentence,” Bliss continued in her statement.

The agency also is looking into violations of the British Health and Safety at Work Act, which could trigger criminal prosecution and fines, Bliss said.

There should have been two different newstories, one about the investigation in Britain and the problems in Buffalo. But the article used to investigation coupled with asks from labor sources to make the developer look awful.

I agree there is a time and place for unions, but they need to be severely weakened in buffalo, so business can actually happen without getting bogged down by government investigations and other labor problems.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The workers can also pressure the developer by quitting. The right should be in both hands. And firing them doesn't undermine their right to organize. They can still organize. They can even organize and try to figure out how to find a new job. You do not have rights such as free speech and other things while on the job. When you're working for an employer you are on their property and their terms. The employer should not be on the terms of the employees.

Quitting and striking are two sides of the same coin, which is a drop in the supply of labor. One is organized and one is not. Workers should have the right to organize and form a united front just like people organize into corporations to advance their financial goals.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

and ending the project helps this workers and the city out how? No one else is going to redo that building, so this would be really dumb to screw it up. 10-15$ an hour is better than nothing

And that's probably what they're going to agree on. I'm not saying that the workers deserve what they demand, only that they have a right to demand what they want. Obviously the company is not going to pay that and they're sending messages through the media that they're not afraid of walking away completely.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by bheld

And that's probably what they're going to agree on. I'm not saying that the workers deserve what they demand, only that they have a right to demand what they want. Obviously the company is not going to pay that and they're sending messages through the media that they're not afraid of walking away completely.

yes and the unions are not negotiating from a strong point, but they have government regulations on this side. This developer is the only one that will take this project, or any downtown project for that matters. If he walks then the project will not get done. And that benefits no one.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

Quitting and striking are two sides of the same coin, which is a drop in the supply of labor. One is organized and one is not. Workers should have the right to organize and form a united front just like people organize into corporations to advance their financial goals.

You're essentially pro-union in this thread from what I've read and therefore I'm guessing you approve of striking tactics. Striking is basically quitting and expecting to have your job waiting for you after your demands are met. During that time there is no reason whatsoever that an employer shouldn't be entitled to fire everyone. Yet people who subscribe to union mentalities disagree.

And again, they have the right to organize. But the businesses should also have the right to employ people based on whether or not they're going to form a lobbyist group that is harmful to the business.

If I run a business I should be able to say I do not deal with groups of people, but rather the individuals. If they wish to protest their jobs, they're more than welcome to. But then I should be well within my liberty to hire people who will show up to work for me in the manner that I choose to run MY business.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You're essentially pro-union in this thread from what I've read and therefore I'm guessing you approve of striking tactics. Striking is basically quitting and expecting to have your job waiting for you after your demands are met. During that time there is no reason whatsoever that an employer shouldn't be entitled to fire everyone. Yet people who subscribe to union mentalities disagree.

And again, they have the right. But the businesses should also have the right to not speak to them if they wish.

If I run a business I should be able to say I do not deal with groups of people, but rather the individuals. If they wish to protest their jobs, they're more than welcome to. But then I should be well within my liberty to hire people who will show up to work for me in the manner that I choose to run MY business.

I'm pro-union and I agree with everything you are saying here.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'm pro-union and I agree with everything you are saying here.

I am not anti-union, I was raised in a democratic union household in a democratic union town. I just think it is time for my city to move away from such strong union protections and more towards business friendly policy. I see it like a pendulum, that swings back and forth. At least for Buffalo, the pendulum has swung to far towards the side of labor, IMO

[bheld]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You're essentially pro-union in this thread from what I've read and therefore I'm guessing you approve of striking tactics. Striking is basically quitting and expecting to have your job waiting for you after your demands are met. During that time there is no reason whatsoever that an employer shouldn't be entitled to fire everyone. Yet people who subscribe to union mentalities disagree.

And again, they have the right to organize. But the businesses should also have the right to employ people based on whether or not they're going to form a lobbyist group that is harmful to the business.

If I run a business I should be able to say I do not deal with groups of people, but rather the individuals. If they wish to protest their jobs, they're more than welcome to. But then I should be well within my liberty to hire people who will show up to work for me in the manner that I choose to run MY business.

If investors can organize into a group for mutual benefit then there's no reason labor can't do the same without risk of losing jobs.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

If investors can organize into a group for mutual benefit then there's no reason labor can't do the same without risk of losing jobs.

Yes there is. The reason being is that their job is literally owned by the employer.

Imagine for a second you sold your home and moved into an apartment. You put your life's savings into a cleaning business. You hire 5 employees for $15 an hour and you take on accounts cleaning local businesses at night. You're making ends meet, not exactly making a fortune, but slowly putting money away for your children's college education. Now imagine if your employees came to you one day and said they wanted $25 an hour, plus free benefits or they weren't going to show up to work until they got it. Are you telling me you as the business owner you shouldn't have the right to replace them? You should either suck it up or go out of business, even if it means you'd be taking losses?

Now lets say you start off with all new employees. And they're again talking about starting a union and striking. Shouldn't you be able to get new people in before they strike and harm your business? That should be your right. This is why I support right to work states. The employee should have the right to walk away at any time, but the employer should as well.

So while your employees had the right to organize you also should have the right to not deal with their organization if you so choose. You should have the right to tell your employees you are hiring them as individuals and will deal with them on the individual basis. You should be able to refuse to deal with unions. It's your business. And you should be able to employ whoever you desire.

[Publius]

I'd just like to point out direct proof of my comment that workers can cost their employers up to double their hourly wage when you include benefits packages, despite bheld repeatedly trying to say I'm wrong without offering a shred of evidence... In fact my post was actually a conservative figure when speaking of at the very least the auto industry.

From the news article a few days ago regarding GM's buyout offer to tens of thousands of employees (GM offers buyouts to all UAW members - Feb. 12, 2008):

The current veteran UAW member at GM today has an average base wage of $28.12 an hour, but the cost of benefits, including pension and future retiree health care costs, nearly triples the cost to GM to $78.21, according to the Center for Automotive Research.

By comparison, new hires will be paid between $14 and $16.23 an hour. And even as they start to accumulate raises tied to seniority, the far less lucrative benefit package will limit GM's cost for those employees to $25.65 an hour.

[bheld]

You were only wrong in trying to make it a rule of thumb that the cost of benefits is a function of wage.