Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What are "Teamsters"

feeder wrote:
As a non-union worker, I am firmly in favour of scabs getting beaten. If a union shop strikes, and the owners want to continue running, then non-union staff (ie management) can pick up the slack.

Scabs deserve whatever violence is visited upon them.

Up with the proletariat, comrade! Little Red Book! Little Red Book!

 Seaward wrote:

feeder wrote:
As a non-union worker, I am firmly in favour of scabs getting beaten. If a union shop strikes, and the owners want to continue running, then non-union staff (ie management) can pick up the slack.

Scabs deserve whatever violence is visited upon them.

Up with the proletariat, comrade! Little Red Book! Little Red Book!

Trolled by Seaward? I'm honoured.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What are "Teamsters"

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (often just known as Teamsters) is a large nation wide Union in the United States.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What are "Teamsters"

If you've ever seen one guy doing some work and six guys watching the one guy do some work, you've seen Teamsters.

 Seaward wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What are "Teamsters"

If you've ever seen one guy doing some work and six guys watching the one guy do some work, you've seen Teamsters.

This is also true

Relapse wrote:
I used to work in a cabinet shop that had the issue of whether or not to vote to unionize came up. I was a young kid and all for a union until I found out it was the teamsters that was the union trying to organize us.
I started questioning what teamsters had to do with cabinet making, the situation was getting ugly, and the union got voted down.
I believe there was another attempt to organize a few years after I left the place, but it ended up burning to the ground before any votes were taken.

Our union is the Metallos, historically born out of the regroupment of metal sheet workers.

My (part-time) job is in entertainment.

It doesn't have any bearings whatsoever. A strong union is one with a large funding, therefore it's better if it's not too limited by job definitions. Anyhow, the interests of workers are usually the same everywhere. Safer working conditions, higher wages, more flexibility from management, etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

feeder wrote:
If you are pro-union, then how would you prevent a scab from crossing a picket line?

You don't. You accept that the right to strike only allows YOU to refuse to work, it doesn't allow you to use the threat of violence to force other people to stop working.

No, it stops everyone engaged under the same job definition after the collective convention has passed. In countries which do not have an antiquated sets of labour laws.

How is Obamacare affecting this situation, is my question?

 Ouze wrote:
How is Obamacare affecting this situation, is my question?

Negatively, of course.

Whatever side you are on.

 Seaward wrote:

feeder wrote:
As a non-union worker, I am firmly in favour of scabs getting beaten. If a union shop strikes, and the owners want to continue running, then non-union staff (ie management) can pick up the slack.

Scabs deserve whatever violence is visited upon them.

Up with the proletariat, comrade! Little Red Book! Little Red Book!

You know, people say a lot of horrible things on the internet. This is up there for some of the more disgusting things I've read and all the more so because it's sincere.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

feeder wrote:
If you are pro-union, then how would you prevent a scab from crossing a picket line?

You don't. You accept that the right to strike only allows YOU to refuse to work, it doesn't allow you to use the threat of violence to force other people to stop working.

No, it stops everyone engaged under the same job definition after the collective convention has passed. In countries which do not have an antiquated sets of labour laws.

The only one talking about labor laws from the middle ages in this thread is you and feeder. I don't need your permission, or a union's or any one else for me to engage in a private contract to sell the sweat of my brow to any one and the fact that you think it's okay to use mob violence to enforce your will on others is blatantly disgusting. You don't want to work? Fine, get out of the way of the people who do want to work.

And people WONDER why the hell I don't even like associating with my trade's guilds.

 Ratbarf wrote:
It is, the missing part of the picture is where if Chrysler were to fire their entire workforce and start from scratch the union would likely riot. I mean, it's one thing to have the ability to freely negotiate contracts, it's another to be threatened with violence if you don't like what one side wants and decide to shop elsewhere. Or have you never heard of scabs getting beaten up?

The problem isn't with the potential for violence/strike action. The problem is that there is no such thing as freely negotiating contracts. When you employ a workforce, then you undergo the costs of setting them up, training them up, and all that other investment. And when the employee takes on a job he might relocate, or commit to a car loan or mortgage and that means he needs to needs to his job at that pay level.

And it isn't just employment. All business negotiation brings with it similar levels of entanglement. The idea of people individually contracting each business undertaking in their lives is a gross simplification. And it's because of this entanglement that so much exploitation is possible, and is one of the reasons that governments needs to step in and engage in the private sector.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The only one talking about labor laws from the middle ages in this thread is you and feeder. I don't need your permission, or a union's or any one else for me to engage in a private contract to sell the sweat of my brow to any one and the fact that you think it's okay to use mob violence to enforce your will on others is blatantly disgusting. You don't want to work? Fine, get out of the way of the people who do want to work.

And people WONDER why the hell I don't even like associating with my trade's guilds.

It isn't my will, it's the will of the majority of the workforce. Or do you now hate democracy?

feeder wrote:
I know what a scab is, and I think they are desperate losers at best and worthless scum at worst (depending on their motivation). I know that violence is a horrible thing, but in the end I feel it is a lesser of two evils.

That kind of idea really, really depends on why the union in question is on strike. If it's for improvements in basic worker safety, then crossing the picket line for cash is pretty odious. But the world is full of union pickets that are pretty stupid, the product of either militant union officials (often looking to expand their profile and advance up the food chain) or exploiting their positions in key industries to exort more cash for their already overpaid positions (wharfs are notorious for this).

The details matter.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The only one talking about labor laws from the middle ages in this thread is you and feeder. I don't need your permission, or a union's or any one else for me to engage in a private contract to sell the sweat of my brow to any one and the fact that you think it's okay to use mob violence to enforce your will on others is blatantly disgusting. You don't want to work? Fine, get out of the way of the people who do want to work.

And people WONDER why the hell I don't even like associating with my trade's guilds.

It isn't my will, it's the will of the majority of the workforce. Or do you now hate democracy?

Corrupt union bosses being the "majority of the workforce" sure "We're not getting enough kickbacks while stripping the people we represent of every spare penny" "Time for a strike then"

 whembly wrote:
See... this sort of attitudes is what gives unions a bad name... just saying.

Yep.

 sebster wrote:

feeder wrote:
I know what a scab is, and I think they are desperate losers at best and worthless scum at worst (depending on their motivation). I know that violence is a horrible thing, but in the end I feel it is a lesser of two evils.

That kind of idea really, really depends on why the union in question is on strike. If it's for improvements in basic worker safety, then crossing the picket line for cash is pretty odious. But the world is full of union pickets that are pretty stupid, the product of either militant union officials (often looking to expand their profile and advance up the food chain) or exploiting their positions in key industries to exort more cash for their already overpaid positions (wharfs are notorious for this).

The details matter.

I'd say that strikes for improvements in worker safety and the like are pretty rare in the modern day and age. OSHA and similar organizations exist in most first world countries and seems to have safety standards pretty well handled.

 whembly wrote:
Frankly, unions are losing the PR battle. Just look at MI for cripes sake! It's going to be a Right-to-Work state.

Yeah, the unions are losing, and losing bad. A simple, straight forward concept like 'its good for workers to have a body that is on their side' is being lost under a mass of manipulative and just plain boneheaded union behaviour.

The kind of militance that feeder is talking about is simply killing the unions. That kind of stuff needs to be left in the 1930s, where it made some kind of sense. But industrial relations have come a long way since then, and there are now industrial relations commissions and courts of arbitration that specialise in this stuff that can address grievances without needing to strike and beating up scabs.

The place for unions now is really as a worker's representative. Give simple, low cost legal advice. Come in and support a worker who is genuinely hard done by. Meanwhile, keep the costs of union dues down, because dropping memberships are a serious problem, because people see their $$$s disappear every pay, and all they get out of it is a meeting from a professional union guy who's never a worked a day in the trade he's meant to be representing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
You don't. You accept that the right to strike only allows YOU to refuse to work, it doesn't allow you to use the threat of violence to force other people to stop working.

Of course the ideal outcome is that you try to inflict your "minor beating" on someone who is carrying a gun, and you are shot to death in self defense.

Yep, and I dare say if the company can offer up a temp wage, and someone is willing to work at that temp wage and do a good enough job without experience/training that the company is happy to keep the situation going... then the strike is probably bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd say that strikes for improvements in worker safety and the like are pretty rare in the modern day and age. OSHA and similar organizations exist in most first world countries and seems to have safety standards pretty well handled.

Definitely agree - for the modernised world.

 sebster wrote:


The place for unions now is really as a worker's representative. Give simple, low cost legal advice. Come in and support a worker who is genuinely hard done by. Meanwhile, keep the costs of union dues down, because dropping memberships are a serious problem, because people see their $$$s disappear every pay, and all they get out of it is a meeting from a professional union guy who's never a worked a day in the trade he's meant to be representing.

That is precisely what unions do. And file griefs. But sometimes, only sometimes, you get an gakky employer who does a lock-out. In these cases, you need militant unions.

And it's funny that you present union reps has legal advice givers all the while berating them for not having worked a single day in the trade he is representing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


Definitely agree - for the modernised world.

Yeah, really, because everyone knows there's no sweatshop in the Western world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Corrupt union bosses being the "majority of the workforce" sure "We're not getting enough kickbacks while stripping the people we represent of every spare penny" "Time for a strike then"

You can only blame poor labour laws if that's actually what happens in your country.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Frankly, unions are losing the PR battle. Just look at MI for cripes sake! It's going to be a Right-to-Work state.

Yeah, the unions are losing, and losing bad. A simple, straight forward concept like 'its good for workers to have a body that is on their side' is being lost under a mass of manipulative and just plain boneheaded union behaviour.

The kind of militance that feeder is talking about is simply killing the unions. That kind of stuff needs to be left in the 1930s, where it made some kind of sense. But industrial relations have come a long way since then, and there are now industrial relations commissions and courts of arbitration that specialise in this stuff that can address grievances without needing to strike and beating up scabs.

The place for unions now is really as a worker's representative. Give simple, low cost legal advice. Come in and support a worker who is genuinely hard done by. Meanwhile, keep the costs of union dues down, because dropping memberships are a serious problem, because people see their $$$s disappear every pay, and all they get out of it is a meeting from a professional union guy who's never a worked a day in the trade he's meant to be representing.

The concept's great, the execution's horrible.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That is precisely what unions do. And file griefs. But sometimes, only sometimes, you get an gakky employer who does a lock-out. In these cases, you need militant unions.

I don't think you understand what a militant union means. A union that attempts negotiation, arbitration and all other processes and finally resorts to strike isn't militant. A union that takes an aggressive stance and threatens strike from the outset is militant.

And it's funny that you present union reps has legal advice givers all the while berating them for not having worked a single day in the trade he is representing.

I don't think you understand the concept of specialisation. A union can have both local reps and legal staff.

Yeah, really, because everyone knows there's no sweatshop in the Western world.

Seriously dude, think this stuff through... I mean, in the last, say, 40 years, the number of instances of exploited sweatshops workers in a modernised country forming a union and claiming their proper pay and conditions is exactly zero. This is because the conditions in those factories are already below the minimum legal standard, and are dependant on the exploitation of vulnerable workers who don't know their rightful rate of pay and proper conditions. Once the sweatshops is exposed, existing legal processes resolve the issue.

It just isn't what unions are for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The concept's great, the execution's horrible.

Sort of. I mean, the execution was great for a time, and a really important part of delivering the middle class we have today. The working conditions and pay we have today is due in no small part to the fights won by various unions around the world in the first half of the 20th century.

The problem is that the conditions in which they fought and won those rights are really the conditions we have today. Employers have neither the power nor the culture they once did, so taking up an aggressive, militant stance generally works against not only the interests of the employer but also of the employees. Unions that work with the employer to improve productivity and efficiency, with increased pay tied to those improvements can be a great success.

But instead the culture that the employer is the enemy carries on, despite being 50 years out of date.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The concept's great, the execution's horrible.

Sort of. I mean, the execution was great for a time, and a really important part of delivering the middle class we have today. The working conditions and pay we have today is due in no small part to the fights won by various unions around the world in the first half of the 20th century.

The problem is that the conditions in which they fought and won those rights are really the conditions we have today. Employers have neither the power nor the culture they once did, so taking up an aggressive, militant stance generally works against not only the interests of the employer but also of the employees. Unions that work with the employer to improve productivity and efficiency, with increased pay tied to those improvements can be a great success.

But instead the culture that the employer is the enemy carries on, despite being 50 years out of date.

Which would be the execution as it concerns us Sebs. The execution then was what was needed. The execution from then now is a clusterfeth.

 sebster wrote:

But instead the culture that the employer is the enemy carries on, despite being 50 years out of date.

With ~50% of recent college graduates un/underemployed, I'm not surprised.

 Ouze wrote:
How is Obamacare affecting this situation, is my question?

You took the words out of my mouth.

 whembly wrote:

feeder wrote:


Look, I said it was a lesser of two evils. I'm not gleeful or gloating about it. Generally crossing a picket line starts with shouting and shoving before degenerating into actual violence. It's not going to be a surprise. And clearly it's not legal.

If you are pro-union, then how would you prevent a scab from crossing a picket line? By agreeing to scab, one has already broken from his fellows.

I would rather a few scabs deal with their injuries for a few weeks than an entire shop full of workers lose their livelihood.

And sometimes, you can only look after yourself and your family.

Again... that 'ttude you're expressing here is why unions have a bad name...

For the record, I have no problems with unions. Just as I have no problems about big business. Both group can do good things just as well as bad things.

Frankly, unions are losing the PR battle. Just look at MI for cripes sake! It's going to be a Right-to-Work state.

In that vein I support the rights of scabs to use bulldozers to cross the picket lines.

Although I hate public unions as a joyous creature of crony labor, private unions should be allowed to exist. There should be no requirement however, that one have to join a union, or have any monies taken to support a union.

Of course if you disagree I support you fully. It means more jobs for us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

feeder wrote:
If you are pro-union, then how would you prevent a scab from crossing a picket line?

You don't. You accept that the right to strike only allows YOU to refuse to work, it doesn't allow you to use the threat of violence to force other people to stop working.

Of course the ideal outcome is that you try to inflict your "minor beating" on someone who is carrying a gun, and you are shot to death in self defense.

Works for me, and by that I mean, I want video and some popcorn!

When some pissant clerk union can close down one of the largest ports in the world, the union heads should be sent to a Mexican prison.

hotsauceman1 wrote:What are "Teamsters"

Technically a teamster is a guy that drives a wagon, or modern, a truck. The Union itself covers a wider range of jobs but for the most part they all involve logistics. Cabinet shops belong in the Carpenters union or similar which I think was what relapse had pointed out.

For a recent reference the Teamsters were the second largest union in Hostess and they voted to take a pay and benefits cut in exchange for thier jobs and some other compensations.

 sebster wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
It is, the missing part of the picture is where if Chrysler were to fire their entire workforce and start from scratch the union would likely riot. I mean, it's one thing to have the ability to freely negotiate contracts, it's another to be threatened with violence if you don't like what one side wants and decide to shop elsewhere. Or have you never heard of scabs getting beaten up?

The problem isn't with the potential for violence/strike action. The problem is that there is no such thing as freely negotiating contracts. When you employ a workforce, then you undergo the costs of setting them up, training them up, and all that other investment. And when the employee takes on a job he might relocate, or commit to a car loan or mortgage and that means he needs to needs to his job at that pay level.

And it isn't just employment. All business negotiation brings with it similar levels of entanglement. The idea of people individually contracting each business undertaking in their lives is a gross simplification. And it's because of this entanglement that so much exploitation is possible, and is one of the reasons that governments needs to step in and engage in the private sector.

NO. The problem IS with the potential for violence.

If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?

 Easy E wrote:
If you believe in "realpolitik" or have a "Hobbsian" world view; isn't the potential for violence a requirement of effective representation and bargaining?

If violence is permitted then, under that framework, we're back to the 1880s. Time to bring out the Pinkertons to shoot us some union strikers.

VIolence begets violence and should be avoided. When Frazzled is telling you this something has gone wrong.

This is interesting, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research further bolsters the economic case for worker freedom. The Institute's findings show that citizens in Right to Work states enjoyed faster growth and more purchasing power than their counterparts in forced unionism states over the past 10 years.... just gotta dig deeper to see if the numbers make sense (not familiar with the group either):
http://www.nilrr.org/files/NILRR%20FACT%20SHEET%20RTW%20States%20Benefit%202011.pdf (links to pdf, copy/paste get all funky)

Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2011 Update

Percentage Growth in Non-Farm Private-Sector Employees (2000-2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +0.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -5.5%
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -3.3%
Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Percentage Real Growth in Private-Sector Employee Compensation (2000-2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7%
(2000-2010) National Average . . . . . . . . . 4.3%
BEA; BLS

Cost of Living-Adjusted Compensation Per Private-Sector Employee (2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $56,575
Forced-Unionism States . . . . . . . . . . . $55,420
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55,896
Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC);
BEA; Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (BOC)

Also, I can't tell if these numbers include both private and public unions (I'm assuming that's the case).

I'd be interested to see what the numbers stacks up to on Unions in Private businesses compared to Public Unions (ie, SIEU).

Its a conservative funded group that actively fights unions, so of course their research isn't going to be surprising.