Page 1 of 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 111

Thread: Missouri rejects right to work.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    88,165

    Default Missouri rejects right to work.

    Nicely done.
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,028

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Right to work should be called right to break unions
    Elect a clown expect a circus

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    3,010

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    right to work should be called freedom of choice

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    88,165

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    right to work should be called freedom of choice
    there’s plenty of non union firms in missiuri; should you like to work at one you’re free to do so. . .
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    3,010

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    there’s plenty of non union firms in missiuri; should you like to work at one you’re free to do so. . .

    and there's plenty of union jobs you can get in alabama (right to work state). the only difference is, i can take a union job and not be forced to join said union.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    88,165

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    You ainít gotta join a union at a unionized firm in Missouri either.
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    3,010

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    sounds like right to work then.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,649

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    and there's plenty of union jobs you can get in alabama (right to work state). the only difference is, i can take a union job and not be forced to join said union.
    You should also be free not to benefit when collective bargaining has achieved gains for the members.
    PaulF

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    3,010

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    You should also be free not to benefit when collective bargaining has achieved gains for the members.

    that's part of it, sure.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    15,045

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    You should also be free not to benefit when collective bargaining has achieved gains for the members.
    +1!
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,649

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    that's part of it, sure.
    I'm not sure , but I don't think it works that way.

    Most gains apply to all, Kinda like the 5 day work week.
    PaulF

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,433

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Nobody has to join a union, but if the union negotiates for you as an employee, you have to pay dues. The point of 'right to work' laws was to starve unions of funds by encouraging free riders who would get the benefits, but not pay the costs.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,649

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Nobody has to join a union, but if the union negotiates for you as an employee, you have to pay dues. The point of 'right to work' laws was to starve unions of funds by encouraging free riders who would get the benefits, but not pay the costs.
    If a company allows a Union in, yet hires folks who won't join the union, who is to say the company can't treat the non union employees the same as Union employees?

    Or is it like the old days?

    When I was in the Union, Local 104 Seattle, there were Union shops that hired only Union members, if you were hired you had to join the Union.
    PaulF

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    1,940

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    ah yes.. right to work.. in other words. "right to fire for any and all infractions, no matter how trivial"
    "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of Strength"

    -Edmund Burke

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    6,997

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    You should also be free not to benefit when collective bargaining has achieved gains for the members.
    I would be afraid of being punished by the meager gains that the union achieved. I am a much better employee than the other union guys and I want to be paid more. No promise of a pension or healthcare. Just pay me more because I do more.
    Life is complex.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    1,940

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    I would be afraid of being punished by the meager gains that the union achieved. I am a much better employee than the other union guys and I want to be paid more. No promise of a pension or healthcare. Just pay me more because I do more.
    sadly, not likely to happen. If you ask for more money than they think you are worth (not by how much you actually do) they will get rid of you and find somebody who can do the job for how much they are willing to pay.

    Most places do not care how much you do for the place as long as you don't do the least amount of work on the crew. If you go overboard and do a lot more, then they are happy to let you do it, it's a bonus to them.
    "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of Strength"

    -Edmund Burke

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    6,997

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    sadly, not likely to happen. If you ask for more money than they think you are worth (not by how much you actually do) they will get rid of you and find somebody who can do the job for how much they are willing to pay.
    And you don't see that as being bad for workers. I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    Most places do not care how much you do for the place as long as you don't do the least amount of work on the crew. If you go overboard and do a lot more, then they are happy to let you do it, it's a bonus to them.
    Perhaps that is why teachers do so little work. (Yea, I know that is not a fair representation of all teachers.)
    Life is complex.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,649

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    I would be afraid of being punished by the meager gains that the union achieved. I am a much better employee than the other union guys and I want to be paid more. No promise of a pension or healthcare. Just pay me more because I do more.
    $hity union you were in.

    Best quality work around here was Union shops. However every group has its dead wood, Unions included.
    PaulF

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pompano Beach, FLorida
    Posts
    401

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    and there's plenty of union jobs you can get in alabama (right to work state). the only difference is, i can take a union job and not be forced to join said union.
    At the cost of having to live in Alabama? No thanks, there's a reason it's almost the poorest state in the country.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    88,165

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    At the cost of having to live in Alabama?
    i'll take alabama anyday over florida
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    44,965

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    That's damning with feint praise . . .

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    1,940

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    And you don't see that as being bad for workers. I do.
    It is bad, but it is also how business works in the US now. Do great work or go above and beyond your expectations, you are going to get MORE work, but nothing to show for it. While the theatre I work at is non-union, many of us are and the pay is above union scale. We still have the issue of dead wood because our bosses won't fire people. They rant, they rave, they rage, and they assign these people the worst shifts in "punishment" but they won't fire. Due to this I often wind up carrying a lot of their load. I hate it, but my sense of honour and pride in my work won't let me do otherwise. It's probably why I have high blood pressure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    Perhaps that is why teachers do so little work. (Yea, I know that is not a fair representation of all teachers.)
    If you really think Teachers do little work, you should talk to some. Several of my friends from college are teachers or professors now. One friend recently left teaching. She was making around 40K a year in Ok but once she added up how many hours she was actually putting in, she was down below $10 an hour gross. Between that, the complete lack of praise, and an ever growing class size (she was up to 30 kids) made her finally turn her back on her profession and go work for a lawyer where she makes more money, has time off, and gets praised for doing good work.
    "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of Strength"

    -Edmund Burke

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,854

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Nobody has to join a union, but if the union negotiates for you as an employee, you have to pay dues. The point of 'right to work' laws was to starve unions of funds by encouraging free riders who would get the benefits, but not pay the costs.
    Yes... just another, less direct, less honest style of union-busting.

    "Right to Work" -- Ain't it wonderful how creatively the propaganda can twist words??

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. -- George Orwell
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    2,074

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    If a company allows a Union in, yet hires folks who won't join the union, who is to say the company can't treat the non union employees the same as Union employees?
    Thats the tickle.

    If the union employees are getting better conditions that would drive employees to that union.
    The process was that legislation would step in and mandate lechery.

    Missouri rejects slow death, by a million cuts, of workers rights.
    Good on them.
    "People should be able to access these benefits [Social Welfare] as a matter of right, with no more loss of their own standards of self-respect than would be involved in collecting from an insurance company the proceeds of an endowment policy on which they have been paying premiums for years."
    Robert Menzies - Liberal Party (Conservative) Prime Minister of Australia.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    2,074

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Yes... just another, less direct, less honest style of union-busting.

    "Right to Work" -- Ain't it wonderful how creatively the propaganda can twist words??

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. -- George Orwell
    Work will set you free.
    "People should be able to access these benefits [Social Welfare] as a matter of right, with no more loss of their own standards of self-respect than would be involved in collecting from an insurance company the proceeds of an endowment policy on which they have been paying premiums for years."
    Robert Menzies - Liberal Party (Conservative) Prime Minister of Australia.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alameda, CA
    Posts
    10,756

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    It is bad, but it is also how business works in the US now. Do great work or go above and beyond your expectations, you are going to get MORE work, but nothing to show for it. While the theatre I work at is non-union, many of us are and the pay is above union scale. We still have the issue of dead wood because our bosses won't fire people. They rant, they rave, they rage, and they assign these people the worst shifts in "punishment" but they won't fire. Due to this I often wind up carrying a lot of their load. I hate it, but my sense of honour and pride in my work won't let me do otherwise. It's probably why I have high blood pressure.
    Are/will you getting a pension from your employers? My guess you won't.

    FYI: Some union employees get paid above UNION SCALE because they think do an excellent work and the employers are happy to have them. Ask me how I know.
    Last edited by Ted Hoppe; 08-08-2018 at 11:23 PM.
    Be wary of your critics, at peace with your decisions, and work hard to be a better man.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    1,940

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Hoppe View Post
    Are/will you getting a pension from your employers? My guess you won't.

    FYI: Some union employees get paid above UNION SCALE because they think do an excellent work and the employers are happy to have them. Ask me how I know.
    yes, I thankfully get above Union scale. Not to brag, but the Theatrical Employees where I am are some of the highest paid in the business. You need to be on Broadway or some of the houses in Chicago to make more than we do
    "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of Strength"

    -Edmund Burke

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alameda, CA
    Posts
    10,756

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    yes, I thankfully get above Union scale. Not to brag, but the Theatrical Employees where I am are some of the highest paid in the business. You need to be on Broadway or some of the houses in Chicago to make more than we do
    tell me about your pension.
    Be wary of your critics, at peace with your decisions, and work hard to be a better man.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    2,074

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Hoppe View Post
    tell me about your pension.
    Its universally compulsory.
    My employer has to put 9.5% of my pay into a pension of my choosing.
    A law brought in by a union run political party - the Labour Party - to accommodate foreseeable demographic shifts (aging population and growing old-age-pensions bill).
    "People should be able to access these benefits [Social Welfare] as a matter of right, with no more loss of their own standards of self-respect than would be involved in collecting from an insurance company the proceeds of an endowment policy on which they have been paying premiums for years."
    Robert Menzies - Liberal Party (Conservative) Prime Minister of Australia.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alameda, CA
    Posts
    10,756

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    Its universally compulsory.
    My employer has to put 9.5% of my pay into a pension of my choosing.
    A law brought in by a union run political party - the Labour Party - to accommodate foreseeable demographic shifts (aging population and growing old-age-pensions bill).
    That is a quite nice law and benefit.

    In the US... most pensions are things of the past. The corporate interests take them in refinancing deals and desolve the companies. The company leadership and financiers take the money. Most Americans are tricked to think thier 401k are a pension. Many lose it like they did in 2008 and don’t recover. The companies that employed the folks for years don’t owe anything. The right to work part of the thread here is the other tool companies use to wipe long term off thier books further minimizing the contribution of labor.
    Be wary of your critics, at peace with your decisions, and work hard to be a better man.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Douglasville, Ga
    Posts
    4,801

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Hoppe View Post
    That is a quite nice law and benefit.

    In the US... most pensions are things of the past. The corporate interests take them in refinancing deals and desolve the companies. The company leadership and financiers take the money. Most Americans are tricked to think thier 401k are a pension. Many lose it like they did in 2008 and donít recover. The companies that employed the folks for years donít owe anything. The right to work part of the thread here is the other tool companies use to wipe long term off thier books further minimizing the contribution of labor.
    He didn't specify what the pension pays out though. We know the company puts 9.5% of his pay in a pension "of his choosing" but what are the options to choose from? Is that 9.5 percent of his total pay or 9.5% in addition to his pay?

    It is possible to get quite a good pension via a 401k if they are contributing 9% in addition to what you make. Sure you can lose, but how many have lost "guaranteed" pensions?

    We really need more info to know if it's a good benefit or not.
    Tom

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alameda, CA
    Posts
    10,756

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Wilkinson View Post
    He didn't specify what the pension pays out though. We know the company puts 9.5% of his pay in a pension "of his choosing" but what are the options to choose from? Is that 9.5 percent of his total pay or 9.5% in addition to his pay?

    It is possible to get quite a good pension via a 401k if they are contributing 9% in addition to what you make. Sure you can lose, but how many have lost "guaranteed" pensions?

    We really need more info to know if it's a good benefit or not.
    a 401k is different than a pension. To conflate the 2 is an error. A properly run pension will last the lifetime for the worker and often transferable to spouse and falls under the guidelines for the Federal and state regulations. A 401k is finite based on investment plus interest - once used up... it is gone. No matter what happens to the individual finances, the pension will more likely be there as long as they live.

    the small percentage you would invest on your own plus the pension verses the 401k... you most likely will come out ahead given a long long life. More over as a general rule, people who work for companies and unions manage pensions have better and cheaper health insurance all the way to receiving quality Medicare and cheaper quality health insurance access which works with Medicare.
    Last edited by Ted Hoppe; 08-09-2018 at 02:48 AM.
    Be wary of your critics, at peace with your decisions, and work hard to be a better man.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    2,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Wilkinson View Post
    He didn't specify what the pension pays out though. We know the company puts 9.5% of his pay in a pension "of his choosing" but what are the options to choose from? Is that 9.5 percent of his total pay or 9.5% in addition to his pay?



    It is possible to get quite a good pension via a 401k if they are contributing 9% in addition to what you make. Sure you can lose, but how many have lost "guaranteed" pensions?



    We really need more info to know if it's a good benefit or not.


    It's against pre-tax income.
    There's over a hundred superannuation companies competing for my decision.
    Last year I got 12.4% in my accumulated funds, compound. ��
    My calculations say I'll be wealthier after I retire than now, in real terms, assuming I live to 87 and don't use it all up drinking in the first year.
    My job advertised a role for $x not including super (it's called superannuation, abbreviated to super). That's what I apply for and get paid, all jobs advertise salary ex-super (I think legally this is how it must be so you can compare apples). The 9.5% is called employer contribution. But that's all kind of academic and only means comparing salaries is easy.

    It is a fantastic system, but if you are on the bottom end of earnings you'll not do well. Also when Mum stops work for a year for new bub, she pays no super - so there's a big gap between men and women at retirement.

    However - unions, I'm a fan!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by gypsie; 08-09-2018 at 08:42 PM. Reason: punctuation was a mess
    "People should be able to access these benefits [Social Welfare] as a matter of right, with no more loss of their own standards of self-respect than would be involved in collecting from an insurance company the proceeds of an endowment policy on which they have been paying premiums for years."
    Robert Menzies - Liberal Party (Conservative) Prime Minister of Australia.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Douglasville, Ga
    Posts
    4,801

    Default Re: Missouri rejects right to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Hoppe View Post
    a 401k is different than a pension. To conflate the 2 is an error. A properly run pension will last the lifetime for the worker and often transferable to spouse and falls under the guidelines for the Federal and state regulations. A 401k is finite based on investment plus interest - once used up... it is gone. No matter what happens to the individual finances, the pension will more likely be there as long as they live.

    the small percentage you would invest on your own plus the pension verses the 401k... you most likely will come out ahead given a long long life. More over as a general rule, people who work for companies and unions manage pensions have better and cheaper health insurance all the way to receiving quality Medicare and cheaper quality health insurance access which works with Medicare.
    Tell that to all the people I know that had a pension that no longer exists, or was greatly reduced. I never said they were the same, but to say they aren't without risk is misleading. Pension funds are often underfunded. (Edit, I did say possible to have a good pension via 401k but that should have read retirement, not pension) My pension as it originally existed is gone, and I will get maybe 25% of what it would have been. It was frozen in bankruptcy.
    Last edited by Tom Wilkinson; 08-09-2018 at 05:16 AM.
    Tom

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Douglasville, Ga
    Posts
    4,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    It’s against pre-tax income.
    There’s over a hundred superannuation companies competing for my decision.
    Last year I got 12.4% in my accumulated funds, compound. 😀
    My calculations say I’ll be wealthier after I retire than now, in real terms, assuming I live to 87 and don’t use it all up drinking in the first year.
    My job advertised a role for $x not including super (it’s called superannuation, abbreviated to super). That’s what I apply for and get paid, all jobs advertise salary ex-super (I think legally this is how it must be so you can compare apples). The 9.5% is called employer contribution. But that’s all kind of academic and only means comparing salaries is easy.

    It is a fantastic system, but if you are on the bottom end of earnings you’ll not do well. Also when Mum stops work for a year for new bub, she pays no super - so there’s a big gap between men and women at retirement.

    However - unions, I’m a fan!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    So you for fund payout is based on interest earnings over the life of the superannuation fund, correct?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Tom

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •