There aint any around here so i guess that makes them weak. Co tried to hire some and we told them aint gonna happen they backed down and hired union hands. I work up nort,
Results 1 to 10 of 27
Thread: Non-Union Workforce
08-07-2006, 01:54 AM #1sammylu57 Guest
How strong is the Non-Union workforce as far as dragging up what they are doing and going in to break strikes. Does anyone have any current first hand information?
LIVE LONG AND STONG BROTHERS- S.
08-07-2006, 09:52 PM #2
08-09-2006, 01:15 AM #3
Organised non-union linemen??
If the non-union linemen were organised enough to have a great effect on the union force they would be organised labor.
Aside from some States in the US and a Province in Canada where the governments are supporting business and enacting laws that reduce the rights of organised labor (union) workers in an attempt, often successful, to reduce labor cost (wages) the line trade is predominately union, mostly IBEW. It seems many non-union linemen who get experienced and are willing to move often go to where the wages are better and that usually spells union. That’s the reason for so many white ticket linemen in California right now.
That’s not to say if we had another Ronnie Regan movement that unions would not be in trouble again and fighting for our livelihoods. Union linemen have much more to fear from politicians than non-union hands.Have Trampbag, Will Travel
Everyone who comes here brings a little joy.
Some when they come in. Others when they leave.
08-09-2006, 07:58 AM #4
Wake Up Boys
Echoes of a Broken Strike
By Charles J. Whalen
Saturday, August 5, 2006; A19
This week marks the 25th anniversary of one of the most devastating strikes in modern U.S. labor history. On Aug. 3, 1981, more than 12,000 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off their jobs. It was not the first illegal strike by public-sector workers, but conventional means of resolving such cases failed to impress President Ronald Reagan: He discharged and permanently replaced those who would not promptly return to work. The U.S. labor movement has never recovered, and working families across the nation continue to pay the price.
In the immediate aftermath of the PATCO strike, many observers reported that Reagan's action marked a turning point in U.S. labor relations.
History has shown this assessment was right on the mark. If it is true that the strike is labor's "only true weapon," as some unionists suggest, then practically the entire movement has been disarmed. This also indicates that the legal right of workers to organize and bargain collectively has little real meaning.
In 2005 American labor disputes led to 22 major work stoppages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From the end of World War II until 1981, the annual number was about 10 times that -- and sometimes much higher. A major reason for the sharp decline: Reagan's headline-grabbing dismissal of PATCO workers emboldened employers across the nation. Overnight, it became legitimate to threaten striking employees with permanent replacement.
Private-sector companies have had the right to permanently replace workers during bargaining disputes since 1938. Until 1981 few employers took advantage of this option. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, there was only one documented use of permanent replacements for about every 80 major work stoppages, according to a calculation by Joseph A. McCartin of Georgetown University. In the first 10 years after 1981, however, there was one documented use of permanent replacements for every seven work stoppages.
In the wake of Reagan's action against PATCO, a number of unionized firms demanded major concessions and threatened permanent replacement as the alternative. Many unorganized workers quickly got the message, and employers have often driven home the point during organizing drives. The result has been downward pressure on workers' wages.
There are also more visible costs. The use of permanent replacements during a 1987-88 strike against International Paper by its union in Jay, Maine, "tore the community apart," according to research by Julius Getman of the University of Texas law school. After the strike was broken, some union members returned to work alongside their replacements, and even years later, area residents on all sides of the dispute felt surrounded by hatred and bitterness at work and in the community. Getman reports that eventually even the company's chief executive concluded that replacing strikers "was a major mistake that cost the company more than a billion dollars."
The labor movement has, of course, taken the biggest hit. In 2005, 12.5 percent of U.S. workers were union members, according to the Labor Department. In 1983, the first year for which comparable data are available, the membership rate was 20.1 percent.
Through the International Labor Organization (ILO), governments around the world have declared that the right to strike is part of the freedom of association. In short, it is a human right. The ILO has also found that the U.S. permanent-replacement doctrine undermines that right.
In the 1990s, efforts to outlaw the use of permanent replacements were defeated by opponents who painted the bill as "special interest" legislation. Yet, just as labor's gains long benefited many more than those who were unionized, labor's losses since the early 1980s have adversely affected a much larger share of the workforce than that belonging to unions.
Labor watchers knew the PATCO episode was a watershed, but it's unlikely that even the most pessimistic witnesses expected it would cast such a long, dark shadow.
The writer is a labor-market economist and editor of Perspectives on Work, a journal published by the Labor and Employment Relations Association.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
08-11-2006, 11:22 PM #5
Something to think about
Ronnie Regan (USA), Margaret Thatcher (UK) and Brian Mulroney (Canada) - enemies of union labor. Workers, union or otherwise, can be sure your wages have been seriously affected by this trio.
Next time you walk down the street and see the army of homeless you can thank these three for all the misery suffered by these people as well. I read a statistic at Christmas 2005 in our church bulletin that homelessness was increased from around 100,000 to over 1,000,000 in the USA during the first 2 years of Ronnie Regan’s Presidency. The number of homelessness in the UK, particularly London, in 1987 was astonishing. Cardboard boxes by the thousands appeared around some of the train stations around 9PM and were “moved on” early in the morning by a “friendly” rapping on the box homes by police. Couldn’t have the sensibilities of the commuters upset now, could we?
Regan, Thatcher and Mulroney are long gone, thank goodness, but the homeless have continued to increase.
Interestingly as unions continued to loose strength throughout the ‘80’s and ‘90’s and into the 21st century the homeless problem continues to increase.
Maybe we can find a few politicians to become permanent replacement homeless.Have Trampbag, Will Travel
Everyone who comes here brings a little joy.
Some when they come in. Others when they leave.
09-30-2007, 11:15 AM #6murph1 Guest
you guys are right on the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! keep it up!!!!!!!!!! murph
10-03-2007, 11:26 PM #7Oregon Lineman Guest
Being non union means that if you are told to go try break a strike you probably go, That is if you want to keep your job. Of course if we were all organized then the companies would have to deal with us all fairly. Because there would be no one to call to break a strike. They would have to try and break it with their ratty management personel. Which most of them have no idea what it is we do for a living
10-04-2007, 09:44 AM #8lineman-up Guest
i am non-union and would never cross any line or take food off any other working mans table. there is some real pieces of crap both union and non-union. a couple of years ago i went to a job interview at a place where the lineman were on strike ( not knowing they were on strike) well i should say i drove 3 hours to the place, where a striker spit on me. i called the guy that set up the interview and told him i would be interested in the job once the strike was over. but that i thought it was pretty crappy to even call me and not inform me of the situation, about as crappy as that puke that spit on me. does the union hand out these blinders or just brain-wash this crap into peoples heads. you never hear much about non-union guys bashing union guys, but union guys seem to think they are real superior for some reason.
10-04-2007, 09:45 PM #9
you never hear much about non-union guys bashing union guys, but union guys seem to think they are real superior for some reason.
No not superior maybe smarter........ You would be welcomed by most any union to join and you would enjoy benefits and comoraderie .You would also come to understand that non union guys actually drive the wage rate down.I spect thats what you mistakenly think of as bashing. As far as skills go , Ive seen em on both sides couldnt rope their ass with both hands and likewise some were a pleasure to watch work ,smooth as silk. Stop and think about it ..... wouldnt it be way easier to deaL with individuals than a collective bargaining agreement. Dont like a guy runnem off kinda thang. Unions are for the benefit of ALL members. They set standards and expect journeymen to comply with em( do all of em live up to em?.. nope) but neither do all non union Journeymen. If your boss told you to do something that was unsafe or hit the road who would back you if you refused? I can answer that if your union. And if your not I spect you have a tough an unecessary decision to make
10-04-2007, 10:06 PM #10Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
VERY well said!!!01.20.09