Forums | MacLife

isaly wrote:

let me ask you this, kev. . .

How many people that supposedly say unions have gone too far are actually IN unions, enjoying decent relatively stable wages and bennies and some degree of protection of their personal time and space?

Exactly how many school yard bullies have you overheard  say "Oh, I really shouldn't have done that" ?
How many total pricks regret their behavior?

And just to clarify one more time, over half of my family is in unions and votes straight party Dem.

Tallgeese wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

isaly wrote:

All this courtesy of a union which some right wing nut would tell you is supposed to be a bad thing. . . HOW?

I don't think anybody said it was a bad thing for the workers...

Anti-union laws are usually called "right-to-work" laws, implying that workers are better off nonunion.

You mean "right-to-fire" laws? ;)

Regardless of what it's called, it's primary support comes from the business lobby, not the workers.

isaly wrote:

let me ask you this, kev. . .

How many people that supposedly say unions have gone too far are actually IN unions, enjoying decent relatively stable wages and bennies and some degree of protection of their personal time and space?

I know most of the working class folks I hear bustin' on unions don't enjoy their benefits. I think it's easy for propagandists to seize on the frustration of working class people who feel taken advantage of because. . . well. . . they are being squeezed pretty darned hard.

Many people earn a slightly higher dollar figure than I, but it doesn't bother me because I earn pretty decent benefits plus the ability to plan my private life with impunity.

I was a member of Teamsters for several years.
Because I was not for five years, they STOLE my retirement fund.

Shortly after I found other employment, UPS went on strike.
Vast majority of employees at the hub I worked at were part timers making ~ $100 a week after taxes and union fees (15 hours).

They did get a raise, but they would have had to work for UPS for many years (I believe 5), far longer than vast majority of employees stay, in order to make up the wages they lost by going on strike.

That strike did not benefit the workers. It may have benefited the truck drivers, but the truck drivers already made a sweet income.

Last edited by resedit (2008-01-23 2:50 am)

Farmerkev wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Anti-union laws are usually called "right-to-work" laws, implying that workers are better off nonunion.

You mean "right-to-fire" laws?

Regardless of what it's called, it's primary support comes from the business lobby, not the workers.

Yes, quite true.
Then again, they can always just leave the states and go where the business climate is better.

Do you really want to compare the economic conditions of right-to-work states vs. non right-to-work states?

dvpierce wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

You mean "right-to-fire" laws?

Regardless of what it's called, it's primary support comes from the business lobby, not the workers.

Yes, quite true.
Then again, they can always just leave the states and go where the business climate is better.

Do you really want to compare the economic conditions of right-to-work states vs. non right-to-work states?

Compared to blue collar jobs that have moved overseas?

resedit. . . I doubt the teamsters "stole" your retirement fund. Did they steal anyone else's? If they did steal it, kindly explain the particulars of how they did so.

Generally, these retirement plans are plans where you contribute a set amount each pay. You "vest" in a given number of years. . . commonwealth of PA used to be 10, it changed to 5 during the Ridge admin.

After you vest you're entitled to an annuity or a lump sum distribution and a smaller annuity on retirement. If you leave before you vest you get whatever you contributed plus the simple interest to your date of termination. This is the law. Generally the unions do not manage these retirement funds themselves. There may be exceptions, if there is please enlighten me. There is a set procedure for getting your money plus interest back if you leave before vesting, it may take a couple of months. You have to go through the financial institution that actually manages the money to get it back, generally, the union does not do this for you, at least mine doesn't. Retirement fund deductions/contributions and union dues deductions should be distinct line items on your pay receipt.

I looked at some Teamsters Pension Trust information on the web, there are employer trustees and union trustees, certainly there would be union trustees to attempt to steer the investments in a manner consistent with the aims but I don't see where the union itself manages the fund. the union likely helps negotiate management rates and other stuff in return for the guarantee of a large pool of investment capital.

Your Plan is administered by independent, third-party organizations whose only obligations are to you and your fellow participants. All information about your benefits is kept strictly confidential.

I highly doubt your money was stolen by the union, perhaps it was stolen by a person in a position to do so who could have worked for your employer or the financial institution, perhaps some idiot co-worker told you you don't get it back and you believed him?

Last edited by isaly (2008-01-23 5:40 pm)

I was a part time employee. I was a college job and I knew I wouldn't be there for 5 years, but it still had to come out of my paycheck and I still can't have it.

. . . seems to me, res, that you knew about it beforehand and took the job anyway. You likely willingly signed a piece of paper that gave them your consent because you deemed some aspect of the job worth it, despite the hit. That, my friend, is not theft. It borders on extortion, and perhaps you should have considered not taking the job if you weren't happy with that arrangement. . . but you did. To say the Teamsters "stole your retirement fund" given the particulars, is BS. You accuse a union of stealing when you willingly signed away rights to that money. . . regardless of how unhappy you were about it.

What it amounts to, res, is more unsubstantiated lies about unions.

Oh, Kev, do you think the union "stole" his money?

Farmerkev wrote:

Nope.
I just got a kick out of your rationalization.

So, is it a very very bad thing that people can be fired for no reason?

Well...

Farmerkev wrote:

I would make an exception for firings to avoid paying full retirement and other nasty tricks in that vein.

you apparently do.

I mean, you have to admit: a union will pretty much prevent nasty tricks of that sort.

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

Nope - the only way I can ever get my money back is if I work a teamsters job again to get my 5 years. Trust me - I tried. I tried several times.

Most pension funds are like that.  I'm sure somewhere in the papers you signed when you were hired, there was a note that it doesn't vest until 5 years of employment.

If a current employer takes back the 401(k) deductions made to your account because you quit after 8 months, are they stealing that money, too ?

I thought they could only take back the matching funds, not the deductions from your check?

Or does that vary?

hey kev, I said that it's close to extortion. It's likely res needed a job and the immediate benefits outweighed the hit he took. It's a bad thing that any organization can put a person in that sort of situations. BUT he claimed that the union STOLE his money, which it didn't. . . plain and simple.

Words have meanings, kev. Conversation is worthless unless we say the truth. Perhaps resedit is dull witted and doesn't know the difference between [outright theft] and [compelling a person to sign an agreement that in some way deprives him]. I don't think so though. I don't think resedit likes the position he was put in. . . but I do think he chose the term "stole" as a substitute for "put me in a position I didn't like because they can".

There is no contradiction in anything I have said. There was no rationalization involved. I do not agree with what the teamsters did to res. . . but he submitted to it voluntarily and then called it theft. I also still think it's very very bad that a person can be fired for anything less than a compelling reason. The former has no bearing on the latter. There is no analogy here.

Now. . . do you get that or are you going to continue to mince words in an effort to substantiate your non point?

Dishonesty, especially the level to which you take it, is NOT an attractive quality.

resedit wrote:

It was with the union that I signed the agreement with, and it was either sign it or not be allowed to join the union - in which case I would not be allowed to work for UPS. If that's not signing under duress, what is?

so, If I sign an agreement that I don't like with a private company because I need a job, is that signing under duress as well?