Crude Settles at Lowest Level Since 2005

[eolesen]

Management and labor have a symbiotic relationship whether you like it or not, so being joined at the hip isn't the problem.

With WN, you have several unions who appear to be joined at the hip with management when it comes to keeping the company profitable. They practice the same concepts of JLT/PLI without all the gnashing of teeth y'all seem to have, yet their unions also seem to manage to look out for their members. I'm sure there are others as well who don't take the lapdog approach yet manage to maintain a proactive working relationship.

If they're able to strike the balance between working with management while still protecting their members, why can't AA's unions manage to do that, or anyone elses' for that matter? You can blame AMR's management for what happens at AMR, but it doesn't explain why there are so many other poor management/labor relationships in the US.

 

[Bear96]

Are you claiming that the 92% where given an option to have a union?

Sure. Unless they are exempted from the protections of the NLRA, they are free to form a union should they so desire.

Most of the 92% you speak of also do not have a contract.

I don't have a contract at my current (NLRA-exempt) job either. Your point?

Your simplistic black or white anti worker view is why people here say to ignore you.

I am very pro-worker. I am anti-unionista rhetoric that doesn't match the realities or needs of today's economy and workforce.

The fact that 92% dont have unions is due to many reasons.

Absolutely.

But are you unwilling to take any responsibility (even a little teeny weeny bit) for the fact that the hard-line stance on many positions, as voiced by you, may turn some workers off? Or admit that others may be turned off by the corruption that goes on in some unions?

Where unions are going wrong is they are doing what you want them to do.

???

What do I want unions to do? How are unions doing it?

Bear, do you know how many corporations pay just a little bit more to keep unions off their property?

Yes, I am very well aware of that.

Just like unions spend lots of money to try to get onto a company's property.

Where I disagree most with you is that you seem to find more fault with "antiquated" union philosophy than "traditional" corporate greed.

I have said many times that the current pay structure for the top CEOs is out of line. Not sure what else you want me to say or do. What you are seeing is my response to those here who deny there are any flaws in the union movement. There are many of those people here, and they are very prolific -- so I have made lots of responses to them. If Glenn Tilton were to come on here and defend his and his CEO colleagues' pay packages, it likewise would prompt me to respond.

 

[Bob Owens]

Sure. Unless they are exempted from the protections of the NLRA, they are free to form a union should they so desire.

Ok, what are the protections of the NLRA?-by the way airline workers do not fall under those provisions.

The fact is that companies routinely fire people who try to bring in unions.

I don't have a contract at my current (NLRA-exempt) job either. Your point?

Exactly, you are an employee at will. You have no protections. If they think you are too ugly, they can fire you.

I am very pro-worker. I am anti-unionista rhetoric that doesn't match the realities or needs of today's economy and workforce.

We see that with your ignorance of the "realities" that those who want unions face. The fact is you are anti-worker.

But are you unwilling to take any responsibility (even a little teeny weeny bit) for the fact that the hard-line stance on many positions, as voiced by you, may turn some workers off?

The only workers who would be turned off by taking a stance against unneccisarily giving up 25% of their pay are morons. So no I dont think that most workers are turned off by my position.

Or admit that others may be turned off by the corruption that goes on in some unions?
???

Now there you are making sense. I myself am very turned off by union corruption especially since I'm a victim of it. Its corrption that needs to be eliminated, not unionism.

What do I want unions to do?

From what you are saying here "match the realities or needs of today's economy". In other words work for less.

How are unions doing it?

Thats exactly what they are doing. Selling out their members and getting them to work for less.

I have said many times that the current pay structure for the top CEOs is out of line.

That does not make you pro-worker. It makes you pro-stockholder and pro-decency but not neccisarily pro-worker.

Not sure what else you want me to say or do. What you are seeing is my response to those here who deny there are any flaws in the union movement.

Who here denies that, except for Bill and HSS?