Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

I'm surprised that the small government folks on here seem to be turning a blind eye at the BIG government interference in the UAW VW union vote. Am I to understand that many of you support the Gov. and Senators of that state in threatening VW employees and even the company if they went against their wishes of a none union plant?

______________________________
And, Obama, representative of the Biggest Government, of course!

 

No Jank, the state government of TN went out of their way to lure VW into the area and build a factory.  They did, and then provided good paying jobs with benefits, for which the employees are grateful.  Now however, the UAW with its history of corruption, along with the German version of itself, hatched a plan to get into the pockets of the southern workers, as well as into the factories which the state initially lured here with the state monies. Does it not make sense that Tennessee does not want to go the way of the Michigan fiasco? Why is it so hard for you to realize the employees voted, and the majority said No.  So like your POTUS said, "get over it".

And as a voter, a tax payer, and person who owns a business and buys a business license, I would support exactly what Corker said.  How would the typical voter in his district feel about throwing money to a factory if it was unionized in light of the history of autoplants up north?

there is plenty of support for unions in the south (TVA has a union, teachers have a union, railroad workers have a union, and all of those have allowances in the legilature for tax breaks), but they know the secret to getting these plants here in the south has been to keep the UAW out of them.

And despite what Crash thinks, the stories do not show that VW America wanted the UAW in their workplace.  The current relationship with management and worker is pretty good.

Last edited by teyates
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Apparently dire (and other right wingers) only cares if government regulates businesses in favor of hurting the working man. 

 

 

Do you agree with laws that force workers to belong to an organization they may not want to be a part of?

We have a closed shop but you do not have to actually join but you do have to pay a fee for the cost of representation and benefits.  AKA you cannot be a freeloader!

Reuters reports this morning that Volkswagen’s “top labor representative” has threatened to block any future expansion plans in the South, citing conservative interference in the United Auto Workers vote in Chattanooga.

Quoting an interview with a German newspaper, the news service reports Bernd Osterloh, head of VW’s works council, as saying he can imagine further expansion in the United States, but it probably won’t be in the South unless some sort of labor representation is established in the Chattanooga plant. Workers in Germany have representation on corporate boards, giving them a say in citing decisions.

how on earth can the regressives NOT understand what VW officials are saying? this will be the THIRD time i've posted this quote... teyates can argue all he wishes.. i didn't make up the quotes... i just copied them straight from the article..

perhaps the vw officials are just kidding? perhaps they just said that so the 'liberals' would have something to argue about.. or perhaps the VW OFFICIALS WANTED THE PLANT TO GO UNION.

 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Apparently dire (and other right wingers) only cares if government regulates businesses in favor of hurting the working man. 

 

 

Do you agree with laws that force workers to belong to an organization they may not want to be a part of?

______________

 

No, I don't. I have always felt that the laws that protect workers should go both ways though. If we are going to make laws concerning union membership then we need to also ensure workers are still free to unionize if they wish to. Without government influence or coercion. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Apparently dire (and other right wingers) only cares if government regulates businesses in favor of hurting the working man. 

___________________________________
Now, Jank, retreat from the illogic of the party of permanent indignity for a moment.  Progressives complained because politicians spoke in favor of keeping the union out,  Whereas, no problem with Obama speaking in favor of the union.  If fairness is to apply, both would not speak.  However, in this case, the union, UAW, would harm the working man -- they have that history.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

Reuters reports this morning that Volkswagen’s “top labor representative” has threatened to block any future expansion plans in the South, citing conservative interference in the United Auto Workers vote in Chattanooga.

Quoting an interview with a German newspaper, the news service reports Bernd Osterloh, head of VW’s works council, as saying he can imagine further expansion in the United States, but it probably won’t be in the South unless some sort of labor representation is established in the Chattanooga plant. Workers in Germany have representation on corporate boards, giving them a say in citing decisions.

how on earth can the regressives NOT understand what VW officials are saying? this will be the THIRD time i've posted this quote... teyates can argue all he wishes.. i didn't make up the quotes... i just copied them straight from the article..

perhaps the vw officials are just kidding? perhaps they just said that so the 'liberals' would have something to argue about.. or perhaps the VW OFFICIALS WANTED THE PLANT TO GO UNION.

 

A quick scan of the article shows that the VW Labor Council wanted the plant to go Union. However, the workers in the Chattanooga plant do not share that sentiment. 

The VW factory wanted to have a "works council" to deal with like the European model. That is not a union at the factory but a council the management can go to with information that will be distributed to the workers and get the workers input on various subjects. There was no mention of a union required for that purpose and I am sure they can set that up without a union.

The Unions were necessary in certain industries and at certain times but over the years they have become something that they never were intended to be, my own opinion mind you.   I was a union member for 20+ years even after I was promoted into management I maintained my Union Dues although I was never allowed to vote even as a member but that was with the IBEW.   I cancelled my Union Dues when I chose to go non-Union as a Supervisor.  In my industry there was Union Supervisors with an Airlines and Railway supervisors union.  They did absolutely nothing but take our money/dues, and had no meetings, no efforts to gain us benefits or increased pay.  Our company counterparts (non-union) did far better so when we actually achieved a path to go non-union we actually saw the union, OUR UNION get off it's feet and get to the negotiations table.

 

The Union members and higher ups from New Jersey came into town at a hastily called Union meeting whereby they informed us of their glorious negotiations they did FOR US.  For those of us wanting to, wishing to go NON-Union we would have to PAY, continue to pay, for a period of five years an appreciation fee for allowing us to go Non-Union.  Get this we found a way to legally vote to go non-union, a path that was accepted by the company that would allow us to go non-union only the Union, which saw the writing on the wall, got hastily involved and negotiated a quick and dirty writ of paper releasing us from the union and in "appreciation" we were to continue to pay an amount equal to the dues we were paying now as an appreciation fee, or a lump sum that would total all those five years of dues at one time, and in turn the union would not fight us going non-union.   

 

When the Union management, from New Jersey, I swear not, looking like the Sopranos, were ask WHY do we have to pay for a right that we achieved on our own?  The place almost erupted as the Union chief boss stood up pointed a crooked finger just like a gun, shouting "shut up youse #^#&$" "if it wasn't for this Union you would have had no job in the first place".   To which the statement came that the only protection that the union ever did was through Union Shop whereby if a person wanted to not join the union they would have to forfeit their job.  Again when the fee was mentioned or ask to be justified I saw pure evil in the eyes and faces of those on the stage as they glared at the ones asking the question as if they had just signed a contract on their life.

 

One statement that the anti-UAW forces made in Chattanooga was citing ALL the industries that have went under and the one common denominator with All of them.  UNIONS.  I personally saw, in Indiana, an industry close down in the city I lived in.  The Union fought them and called strikes to achieve higher wages and benefits all at the time when the Company owners and management said there is no way they could pay what the union demanded.  There was several strikes which naturally crippled the company due to not having employees to work which then exacerbated an even worse situation, economically.   End result the contract was signed in order to get people back to work but the very contract that was signed broke the back of the Company and they declared bankruptcy  and cited the inflexible union negotiations as the chief cause.   

 

In the end it came out that the majority of workers actually wanted to take less wages and benefits for a short time in order to give the company a chance to catch up and compete but the Union had nothing to do with it.   The actual representatives, of the union, that did the negotiations were the ONLY ones to keep a job and paycheck coming.  All the workers and regular Union Members lost their jobs.   Look at what Unions, today, do with those dues that they collect, for the most part or in large part.  Much goes to political contributions to mostly ONE group of candidates.  Liberal Democratic candidates and doesn't matter if the rank and file Union membership don't want those dues spent in that fashion for they have NO representation within the Union for it's a perfect Dictatorship from within.  And people wonder why Unions are so distasteful in many people's opinion and eyes.  

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Apparently dire (and other right wingers) only cares if government regulates businesses in favor of hurting the working man. 

___________________________________
Now, Jank, retreat from the illogic of the party of permanent indignity for a moment.  Progressives complained because politicians spoke in favor of keeping the union out,  Whereas, no problem with Obama speaking in favor of the union.  If fairness is to apply, both would not speak.  However, in this case, the union, UAW, would harm the working man -- they have that history.

 

 __________________

 

Can you not see the difference in those two things dire? Let me help you..

 

Elected officials threaten to shut down a plant if the workers unionize. 

 

The president gives his support to workers who have unionized.

 

One is a threat by government to take away workers rights which is illegal. The other is support of those rights. 

 

I know its complicated when you are trying to twist your own ideology to fit this new twist the GOP has thrown you. I can't imagine following a party that can't see to keep their message straight. Are they against interfering in corporate/business and worker relations? Or are they going to threaten the businesses and the employees to force their own agenda? Apparently they will say and do both, depending on what day of the week it is and if it is approved by the Koch brothers. 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they have a union or not. What really bothers me about this is the threats from the state officials and so called "third parties" to  VW and the workers. 

 

Does that not concern you guys...even a little?

 

I also read yesterday where Gov. Haley of SC decided to once again stand in the way of workers rights. 

 

Her words...

 

"It's not something we want to see happen," she said after an appearance at an automotive conference in downtown. "We discourage any companies that have unions from wanting to come to South Carolina because we don't want to taint the water."

 

"They're coming into South Carolina. They're trying," Haley warned. "We're hearing it. The good news is it's not working."

 

Haley promised to keep fighting against union penetration.

 

"You've heard me say many times I wear heels. It's not for a fashion statement," she said. "It's because we're kicking them every day, and we'll continue to kick them."

 

 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Apparently dire (and other right wingers) only cares if government regulates businesses in favor of hurting the working man. 

___________________________________
Now, Jank, retreat from the illogic of the party of permanent indignity for a moment.  Progressives complained because politicians spoke in favor of keeping the union out,  Whereas, no problem with Obama speaking in favor of the union.  If fairness is to apply, both would not speak.  However, in this case, the union, UAW, would harm the working man -- they have that history.

 

 __________________

 

Can you not see the difference in those two things dire? Let me help you..

 

Elected officials threaten to shut down a plant if the workers unionize. 

 

The president gives his support to workers who have unionized.

 

One is a threat by government to take away workers rights which is illegal. The other is support of those rights. 

 

I know its complicated when you are trying to twist your own ideology to fit this new twist the GOP has thrown you. I can't imagine following a party that can't see to keep their message straight. Are they against interfering in corporate/business and worker relations? Or are they going to threaten the businesses and the employees to force their own agenda? Apparently they will say and do both, depending on what day of the week it is and if it is approved by the Koch brothers. 

 

 

The Unions and the Koch Brothers are no different. They both try to buy politicians to do their bidding.

 

I just read today that Unions will spend $300m in the midterm elections coming up. That is your answer on why many red state politicians are anti union.

Do you see any difference in unions and the Koch brothers?

 

Personally I would love to see campaign finance reform and stop the buying of our elected officials. That doesn't take away from the fact that elected officials are trying to stop workers from unionizing though. I support workers rights. We the people and all that silliness.

gbrk:   There are union workers and nonunion workers.  I read your post that says you were a union member for 20+ years in the IBEW.  You then chose to drop your union book.

I have worked for 40 years with a union book, retired in October and will pay union dues to that union for the rest of my life.  I was not always happy with the union, but I was loyal to it.

In my experiences, there are union workers, non union workers, and rats.  If a union goes on strike, the workers crossing the picket lines are scabs.  

From the information you gave in your post, You are a RATTY, SCAB, SUCK A S S.  

Originally Posted by gbrk:

The Unions were necessary in certain industries and at certain times but over the years they have become something that they never were intended to be, my own opinion mind you.   I was a union member for 20+ years even after I was promoted into management I maintained my Union Dues although I was never allowed to vote even as a member but that was with the IBEW.   I cancelled my Union Dues when I chose to go non-Union as a Supervisor.  In my industry there was Union Supervisors with an Airlines and Railway supervisors union.  They did absolutely nothing but take our money/dues, and had no meetings, no efforts to gain us benefits or increased pay.  Our company counterparts (non-union) did far better so when we actually achieved a path to go non-union we actually saw the union, OUR UNION get off it's feet and get to the negotiations table.

 

The Union members and higher ups from New Jersey came into town at a hastily called Union meeting whereby they informed us of their glorious negotiations they did FOR US.  For those of us wanting to, wishing to go NON-Union we would have to PAY, continue to pay, for a period of five years an appreciation fee for allowing us to go Non-Union.  Get this we found a way to legally vote to go non-union, a path that was accepted by the company that would allow us to go non-union only the Union, which saw the writing on the wall, got hastily involved and negotiated a quick and dirty writ of paper releasing us from the union and in "appreciation" we were to continue to pay an amount equal to the dues we were paying now as an appreciation fee, or a lump sum that would total all those five years of dues at one time, and in turn the union would not fight us going non-union.   

 

When the Union management, from New Jersey, I swear not, looking like the Sopranos, were ask WHY do we have to pay for a right that we achieved on our own?  The place almost erupted as the Union chief boss stood up pointed a crooked finger just like a gun, shouting "shut up youse #^#&$" "if it wasn't for this Union you would have had no job in the first place".   To which the statement came that the only protection that the union ever did was through Union Shop whereby if a person wanted to not join the union they would have to forfeit their job.  Again when the fee was mentioned or ask to be justified I saw pure evil in the eyes and faces of those on the stage as they glared at the ones asking the question as if they had just signed a contract on their life.

 

One statement that the anti-UAW forces made in Chattanooga was citing ALL the industries that have went under and the one common denominator with All of them.  UNIONS.  I personally saw, in Indiana, an industry close down in the city I lived in.  The Union fought them and called strikes to achieve higher wages and benefits all at the time when the Company owners and management said there is no way they could pay what the union demanded.  There was several strikes which naturally crippled the company due to not having employees to work which then exacerbated an even worse situation, economically.   End result the contract was signed in order to get people back to work but the very contract that was signed broke the back of the Company and they declared bankruptcy  and cited the inflexible union negotiations as the chief cause.   

 

In the end it came out that the majority of workers actually wanted to take less wages and benefits for a short time in order to give the company a chance to catch up and compete but the Union had nothing to do with it.   The actual representatives, of the union, that did the negotiations were the ONLY ones to keep a job and paycheck coming.  All the workers and regular Union Members lost their jobs.   Look at what Unions, today, do with those dues that they collect, for the most part or in large part.  Much goes to political contributions to mostly ONE group of candidates.  Liberal Democratic candidates and doesn't matter if the rank and file Union membership don't want those dues spent in that fashion for they have NO representation within the Union for it's a perfect Dictatorship from within.  And people wonder why Unions are so distasteful in many people's opinion and eyes.  

First Union dues by Federal Law cannot be spent on campaigns, only PACs can and they are voluntary.  Unions are pro labor so no mystery they would support mostly pro labor politicians.   You would not expect the NRA to support gun banners.  Second sometimes union members in management get benefits from the union. At my company they still get a B-Fund worth 7% of your salary to 255k for example.  We would not have a retirement B Fund in we were not union so I pay 3% dues but make 5% on that payment.  I am not in love with the union and grew up in a anti union household but it is a needed item in my profession in my opinion.

36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union

  1. Weekends
  2. All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
  3. Paid Vacation
  4. FMLA
  5. Sick Leave
  6. Social Security
  7. Minimum Wage
  8. Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
  9. 8-Hour Work Day
  10. Overtime Pay
  11. Child Labor Laws
  12. Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
  13. 40 Hour Work Week
  14. Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
  15. Unemployment Insurance
  16. Pensions
  17. Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
  18. Employer Health Care Insurance
  19. Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
  20. Wrongful Termination Laws
  21. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  22. Whistleblower Protection Laws
  23. Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
  24. Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
  25. Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
  26. Sexual Harassment Laws
  27. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 
  28. Holiday Pay
  29. Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
  30. Privacy Rights
  31. Pregnancy and Parental Leave
  32. Military Leave
  33. The Right to Strike
  34. Public Education for Children
  35. Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
  36. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

 

In some form or fashion unions had a hand in getting all these benefits and rights for American workers. Many of them are a direct result of unions. Others were heavily supported by unions. Tell me which ones you are against gbrk, or dire? 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union

  1. Weekends
  2. All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
  3. Paid Vacation
  4. FMLA
  5. Sick Leave
  6. Social Security
  7. Minimum Wage
  8. Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
  9. 8-Hour Work Day
  10. Overtime Pay
  11. Child Labor Laws
  12. Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
  13. 40 Hour Work Week
  14. Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
  15. Unemployment Insurance
  16. Pensions
  17. Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
  18. Employer Health Care Insurance
  19. Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
  20. Wrongful Termination Laws
  21. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  22. Whistleblower Protection Laws
  23. Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
  24. Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
  25. Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
  26. Sexual Harassment Laws
  27. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 
  28. Holiday Pay
  29. Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
  30. Privacy Rights
  31. Pregnancy and Parental Leave
  32. Military Leave
  33. The Right to Strike
  34. Public Education for Children
  35. Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
  36. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

 

In some form or fashion unions had a hand in getting all these benefits and rights for American workers. Many of them are a direct result of unions. Others were heavily supported by unions. Tell me which ones you are against gbrk, or dire? 

It's good to know that I can blame unions for social security.

We do have a lot to thank unions for. However they have become as corrupt as the companies we work for and our govt. officials. They are about putting money in their pockets, protecting bad employees. Seems if they want to remain strong they would want to make sure the company remains strong. They ran the auto industry out of Detroit, which is why the south got factories.

I sell cars and do not get Ot, paid holidays, 8 hour days, 40 hour work week. Many states do not protect wrongful termination . to the SS comment, blame your senate for that be a waste.

I do thank unions for lots, however they became corrupt and greedy. Many have to work two jobs due to 40 hour work week, to support their families.

 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union

  1. Weekends
  2. All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
  3. Paid Vacation
  4. FMLA
  5. Sick Leave
  6. Social Security
  7. Minimum Wage
  8. Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
  9. 8-Hour Work Day
  10. Overtime Pay
  11. Child Labor Laws
  12. Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
  13. 40 Hour Work Week
  14. Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
  15. Unemployment Insurance
  16. Pensions
  17. Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
  18. Employer Health Care Insurance
  19. Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
  20. Wrongful Termination Laws
  21. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  22. Whistleblower Protection Laws
  23. Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
  24. Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
  25. Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
  26. Sexual Harassment Laws
  27. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 
  28. Holiday Pay
  29. Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
  30. Privacy Rights
  31. Pregnancy and Parental Leave
  32. Military Leave
  33. The Right to Strike
  34. Public Education for Children
  35. Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
  36. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

 

In some form or fashion unions had a hand in getting all these benefits and rights for American workers. Many of them are a direct result of unions. Others were heavily supported by unions. Tell me which ones you are against gbrk, or dire? 

_____________________________________________________
Proof please!  I recognize several that are not true.  The 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford to get 3 shifts a day, plus a work-motion study from the late 19th century that showed effectiveness of workers dropping off after 8 hours.  Military leave existed before unions. Child labor laws date before unions, as well.

 

One should not use propaganda, without verifying its source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union

  1. Weekends
  2. All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
  3. Paid Vacation
  4. FMLA
  5. Sick Leave
  6. Social Security
  7. Minimum Wage
  8. Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
  9. 8-Hour Work Day
  10. Overtime Pay
  11. Child Labor Laws
  12. Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
  13. 40 Hour Work Week
  14. Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
  15. Unemployment Insurance
  16. Pensions
  17. Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
  18. Employer Health Care Insurance
  19. Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
  20. Wrongful Termination Laws
  21. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  22. Whistleblower Protection Laws
  23. Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
  24. Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
  25. Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
  26. Sexual Harassment Laws
  27. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 
  28. Holiday Pay
  29. Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
  30. Privacy Rights
  31. Pregnancy and Parental Leave
  32. Military Leave
  33. The Right to Strike
  34. Public Education for Children
  35. Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
  36. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

 

In some form or fashion unions had a hand in getting all these benefits and rights for American workers. Many of them are a direct result of unions. Others were heavily supported by unions. Tell me which ones you are against gbrk, or dire? 

_____________________________________________________
Proof please!  I recognize several that are not true.  The 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford to get 3 shifts a day, plus a work-motion study from the late 19th century that showed effectiveness of workers dropping off after 8 hours.  Military leave existed before unions. Child labor laws date before unions, as well.

 

One should not use propaganda, without verifying its source.

 

__________________________ 

 

 

 In 1924, Congress proposed a constitutional amendment prohibiting child labor, but the states did not ratify it. Then, in 1938, Congress passed the Fair LaborStandards Act.

 www.scholastic.com/teachers/ar.../history-child-labor 

 

40 hours work week became law in 1938 with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act this was passed in 1994.

 

The history of unions in the United States exploded in the nineteenth century with the founding of the National Labor Union (NLU) in 1866. Unlike today’s unions, the NLU was not exclusive to a particular type of worker. And although the NLU crumbled without making significant gains in establishing workers' rights, its founding set an important precedent in our country.

Soon after, the Knights of Labor emerged in 1869. This group’s membership peaked at about 700,000 and its efforts were focused on addressing key issues such opposition to child labor and demands for an eight-hour day.

 

 

The most famous labor union in history

 

In the history of America’s trade and labor unions, the most famous union remains the American Federation of Labor (AFL), founded in 1886 by Samuel Gompers. At its pinnacle, the AFL had approximately 1.4 million members. The AFL is credited with successfully negotiating wage increases for its members and enhancing workplace safety for all workers.

The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) under John L. Lewis and the larger AFL federation underwent a huge expansion during World War II. The AFL-CIO merger occurred in 1955.

Here you go dire. I really good read on the history of the 40 hour week and the role unions play in getting it for all Americans. 

 

http://richgibson.com/ShorterWorkWeek.html

 

In the midst of the last depression, the hungry days of the 30's, American workers won three important things: (1) the right to organize, strike and bargain, (2) social security and government welfare, and (3) a shorter work week. These victories, made law by the Wagner Act, the Social Security Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, resulted from rank and file rebellions throughout the country. They grew out of the logical progression from the plaintive, early-depression slogan, "Fight--Don't Starve", to the later, aggressive "Get Wise--Organize !" of the CIO.

But our victories went stale. The law which sanctioned organizing and strikes became an elaborate system of regulations designed to smash strikes. Programs of welfare became organizations of degradation and oppression rather than aid. The 40 hour week is a flimsy reality. Most families rely on two wage earners, overtime, public aid of some sort, or the underground economy for survival. Moreover, growing unemployment threatens the income of all wage workers.

So we must fight again. The parallels of the thirties and today are remarkable. Our needs are the same as our ancestors'; jobs, dignity, the right to organize and act, pay, assistance in the collapse. Another world war lurks ahead. And as the fledgling Congress of Industrial Organizations led the battles for workers justice over the violent opposition of the established AFL in the 30's, so does the rank and file movement in MSEA point the way today in the face of competing unions whose bosses are the privileged enemies of their members. Never-the-less, the 80's aren't the 30's. Fifty years changes plenty. Yet the challenges are the same: to win our demands as well as honest, representative unionism.

Let's examine a little segment of our history as workers: the struggle for a shorter work week. Today the 8 hour day is, in theory, the law of the land But only over 100 years ago a 16 hour day, 6 days a week, was common. From the textile mills to the mines, men, women and children lived, slept and died by machines. At the same time, a tiny minority built incredible fortunes. As one writer put it, " The golf links lie so close to the mill that almost any day the working children can look out and see the men at play."

The struggle for the shorter work week is the thread that ties together the history of American labor. The country's first union 1;the National Labor Union in 1866 issued its primary demand, "8 hours shall bethe normal work day." The NLU died. But the demand prompted action. In 1872 in New York City thousands of building trades workers stuck for the 40 hour week. Some won. But their g~~h-s were lost in a tide of depression. In 1877 Pittsburgh workers, led by striking rail workers, seized the city and adopted a shorter day. They were shot back to work by federal troops.

1886. Chicago. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (later the AFL) called for a national strike for the 8 hour day on May 1. Nearly one million American workers stopped work that day. The nations industrial centers were hushed.  Transportation halted. Some employers yielded concessions. Others sighted their targets.

Days later at a McCormick Harvester strike, cops fired into a picket line and killed 6 strikers. A protest demonstration was hurriedly scheduled for the next evening in Chicago's Haymarket Square. As the peaceful crowd of 3,000 disbanded in a rainy eve, someone (quite possibly a police agent) tossed a bomb into the ranks of the cops. They opened fire, killing four workers on the spot. Dozens were wounded.

In the aftermath, frenzied police raided meeting halls, union offices, and private homes. Dozens of unionists were arrested. Eight radicals were charged with murder.

Seven of them weren't present when the bomb was thrown. One was speaking from a platform, in full view of the police, when the explosion occurred. The eight were charged with "influencing" whoever may have done the crime.

Their trial was a sham. The jury was composed of people who openly proclaimed their belief in the defendant's guilt. An international movement demanded their freedom. The court, directed by a judge who later admitted he had "strained justice" , found the men guilty. Four were hanged in November, 1887. One was "found hung" in his cell. In 1893 the remaining 3 were pardoned by a governor who said they'd~been victims of a government conspiracy.

Since then Mayday has been recognized all over the world as a workers' holiday. But in the U. S., Mayday stands on its head, replaced by "Law Day" , a day to celebrate the unequal peace imposed on workers restrained by bosses' laws. But the last words of one of the Chicago radicals, August Spies, were prophetic;

"If you think by hanging us you can stamp out the labor movement, the movement from which the millions who toil in want and misery, expect salvation, then hang us! Here you will tread on a spark, but there and there, behind you and in front of you and everywhere flames blaze up. It's a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out."

In the 1890's, as wealthy families like the Morgans and Rockefellers tightened their monopolies in industry , Spies' words stood true. The first general strike in the deep south, led by an integrated workforce in New Orleans, won a shorter work day. In this period the U.S. waged two wars. We fought Spain. And the government waged a war on the Western Federation of Miners led by Big Bill Haywood. Casualties in the hundreds. couldn't stop the miners, historically among the most militant of all workers. They won the 8 hour day near the turn of the century.

Haywood went on to help organize the International Workers of the World which challenged the AFL philosophy of "More!" by demanding, "Abolish the Wage System!" Unlike the AFL, the IWW tried to organize ALL workers, employed and unemployed, rather than just collecting dues from skilled workers. The IWW denounced the racism which kept the AFL lily white and actively sought minority leaders. The Wobblies, as IWW's became known, quickly organized almost 1/4 million workers. In Michigan, they were especially active in the Upper Peninsula. But the Wobblies were smashed by a series of government raids led by Attorney General Palmer and an ambitious young agent named J. Edgar Hoover in 1920. But the Wobbly tactic of direct action over negotiation caught on.

Steelworkers struck in 1919. Over 300,000 workers demanded the 8. hour day. They were led by William Z Foster, a communist party organizer and later a founder of the CIO. Their 3 month strike failed. They remained stuck with a 12 hour day.

In the 20's, America danced. Then the bottom fell out. The banks closed. In the early 30's the resistance of workers was tempered by fear and self-blame. Over time workers saw the problem as systematic, a collective problem requiring collective action. Under the leadership of radicals from the disciplined communist party, workers again turned to direct action. A strike wave and rebellions swept the country. Unemployed workers refused to scab and joined picket lines. Employed and jobless people worked together to stop evictions and utility shut offs with mass actions in the streets. Their unifying demand was "Less Hours, More Pay--Fight for Jobs with a Shorter Work Day!" Meanwhile, the AFL, all white, male and craft based, joined the other side. The federation openly became an arm of management.

In the mid-thirties, after years of hesitancy, two major strikes blew the depression' dust back in the employers face.

San Francisco. 1934. Dockworkers strike for a 30 hour week and control of their hiring halls. Cops kill two strikers. Workers in the whole city down tools and walk. The AFL sponsors a back to work movement. It fails. According to strike biographer Mike Quinn:

"The paralysis was effective...industry was at a complete standstill. The great factories were empty and deserted. No streetcars were running. Virtually all stores were closed. The giant apparatus of commerce was a lifeless, helpless hulk.

"Labor had withdrawn it head. The workers had drained out of the shops and plants like lifeblood, leaving only a silent framework embodying millions of dollars of invested capital. In the absence of labor, the great machinery boomed as so much idle junk...Nothing moved except by permission of the strike committee. Labor was in control."

The strike lasted less than one week. Management caved in. The dockworkers won the shorter work week and began a history as one of the most militant and politically active unions in the country.

Christmas. Two years later. Workers at GM in Flint hit back at speed-up with demands for more pay, shorter hours, and union recognition. An action-based coalition of radicals and communists in the CIO's United Auto Workers union (organized to compete in auto with an AFL-backed company union) seized a Chevy plant. They fought the police and the government for 44 days. Women workers outside the plant drove off police gas attacks. The company recognized the union.

The plant "sit down" sparked similar actions everywhere. In the middle of the last depression the labor movement experienced the greatest outburst of unionism ever. CIO organizers couldn't keep up. Employees from soda fountain clerks to rubber workers seized control of their workplaces and called the union offices for advice on what to do next. Membership skyrocketed with action. There was little time for consolidation. Thus, it was the time when labor was least formally organized when the greatest gains were made.

But as WWII approached, the weaknesses of the union movement became primary. Many radical organizers abandoned the unions to fight fascism. Others obeyed the communist party's line " All out for the war effort--united front against fascism" and sought to prevent job actions during the war. A few, like the Mineworkers John L Lewis, led strikes during the war. But the divisions in the movement, skilled vs laborers, women vs men, minorities vs whites, were skillfully played by management. And some mis-leaders, finding bankrolls in their union jobs, became careerists, dropped the strategy of action , and called for peace and the status quo.

So MSEA's fight for the shorter work week, in its most ambitious sense, is an effort to pick up labors' flag again. No advance on the hours of work has been made in a major industry in nearly 50 years. Now it is time once more. Shortening the work week is desirable because it:

1) calls for a larger work force or threatens production levels . A shorter work week with no pay cut is another way of saying JOBS. So the shorter work week UNITES the entire work force as well as the jobless.

 

2) Limits the ability of management to impose speed-up and creates more leisure time.

 

3) Answers phony forced labor programs and minimum wage schemes by demanding real jobs for people at better rates of pay.

 

4) Puts the offensive back In our hands. Allows us to determine our strategy over the long haul. A strike is a tactic. A shorter work week is substance.  Most importantly, we can learn from the lessons of the past. By truly fighting for a shorter work week we can challenge the entire labor movement, as well as keep our own honest. The battle for a shorter work week is a way for us to win.


 

Originally Posted by 1130:

We do have a lot to thank unions for. However they have become as corrupt as the companies we work for and our govt. officials. They are about putting money in their pockets, protecting bad employees. Seems if they want to remain strong they would want to make sure the company remains strong. They ran the auto industry out of Detroit, which is why the south got factories.

I sell cars and do not get Ot, paid holidays, 8 hour days, 40 hour work week. Many states do not protect wrongful termination . to the SS comment, blame your senate for that be a waste.

I do thank unions for lots, however they became corrupt and greedy. Many have to work two jobs due to 40 hour work week, to support their families.

 

Corruption exist in probably every organization even churches.  We had 5 people fired last year who were union members so you can get fired.

 

Regarding #32, that's a door that should have stayed shut.  Here's why.

 

I know soldiers were granted leave as far back as the Civil War so if we're going to use "military leave" to attempt to show involvement by the unions in the military, lets see how some of the rest of the examples apply:

 

How many times has the military exercised their "right to strike?"

 

Or a 40 hour work week?  Weekends?  Overtime pay?

 

Did you know pensions were paid by the Federal government to Confederate veterans and their widows?

 

Using military "leave" as a single example of union contributions to the work force is grasping at straws.

 

BTW, during the short time I worked for IP in the early 60's, I did not belong to the union, but I enjoyed higher than minimum wages, shift differential, overtime, weekend compensation, double time on holidays and if that holiday fell on a weekend and I was working Graveyard shift, I could bring home a week's paycheck in a weekend. And when they went on strike, not being eligible for union benefits, I pushed logs at a sawmill rather than draw unemployment.  Had I stayed, if not salaried, no doubt would be a union man and probably hard core.

 

But then I followed two different career paths serving my city, state, and country.  In my arenas, unions have no place.  During "ramp ups," leave is cancelled across the board.  You get "time off" when the job is finished unless there is time to do another job.  "Overtime" is 24/7/365/20.  Strike and they've got a bunk for you at Leavenworth.  And yet I receive pensions that historically predate any union involvement.  Union "benefits?"

 

Now self "employed," I was thinking about forming a one-man union, but then, I work for a pretty good boss and I can't beat his benefits.

 

BTW, anyone who pays their taxes serves their country.  Just sayin'.

 

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

gbrk:   There are union workers and nonunion workers.  I read your post that says you were a union member for 20+ years in the IBEW.  You then chose to drop your union book.

I have worked for 40 years with a union book, retired in October and will pay union dues to that union for the rest of my life.  I was not always happy with the union, but I was loyal to it.

In my experiences, there are union workers, non union workers, and rats.  If a union goes on strike, the workers crossing the picket lines are scabs.  

From the information you gave in your post, You are a RATTY, SCAB, SUCK A S S.  

First of all I didn't chose to drop I retired or more specifically was put on disability or I'd still be working and still be a member.   I became a member as a function of being in a Union Shop situation even though I was in a Right to Work State.  At the time I went to my first supervisor position it was actually a Union Supervisor position so I had to join the Supervisor's Union ARASA.  Due to being totally useless and ineffectual as well as failure to do just about anything, up and until they saw our group had actually found a way around the Union membership for Supervisors, at which time they actually tried to make some kind of appearance by having our local chairman stop by each locale and talk to members but it was too late.

 

We did choose to drop that union and it was a very ugly matter.  From personal experience and what I saw I have no doubt that the Mob is fully entrenched in the ARASA Union and also saw some of the strong arm tactics that they use.  Even though I didn't have to I made a personal decision to remain an IBEW member for the duration of my employment even though, from within the Union I was viewed as a second class citizen and not allowed to vote on any matters.  To them I was management even though I paid my dues and wanted to be a member.  

 

I don't believe all unions are bad, I do believe that many have been corrupted and others have become ineffectual and too rigid in that they have been responsible for bringing some companies down.  The combination of Union rigidity and poor politicians have put the US and much of the industry that remains in dire shape as for competition.  Other nations protect their workers and industry while we sabotage ours.   

 

My only argument with some of the staunch Union members are that sometimes there is no middle ground or no compromise.  Many will say they will not even eat in a restaurant if the building was not built with Union labor such as Union Carpenters, Union Plumbers, Electricians etc.  For that very reason one of my best friends still will not eat at anything that occupies the revolving tower up at the Marriot or Renaissance Tower.  Having convictions like that are fine if the person wants to go that route but usually these people are hypocritical in the end.  They make a big show about not dining in restaurants that are built with non-union labor yet they have no problem living in a home that was not built with Union Labor.  They didn't use Union Carpenters and Union Roofers and Union Plumbers all which were paid far more salary than the labor that actually built their homes.  Problem was that the money was coming, then, out of their pockets so they made financial decisions based upon their budget and what they could afford.

 

Many companies are run the same way.  Many companies make decisions based upon there bottom line and others based upon returning the best payout to their stockholders.   In short they are doing exactly the same thing as you and everyone else when they contract or build a home.  Unions though are needed to counter two types of industry and people.  Those that are such that they want to put their people in servitude and are not openly willing to be fair with people.  The other reason is employee safety.  If not for Unions then industries like Mining, Railroads etc would never have developed an interest in Safety and provided a safe workplace for their people.  

 

The irony is, at least with the Railroad Industry, Safety provides a greater bottom line for them.  In the age of litigation Industry began to find out that the safer their workers worked the less payouts for injuries that they had to make so Employee Safety became at times a tool against the employees.   Minor injuries that were no fault of the employees could get them fired  or affect their job and many employees found themselves working in a totally familiar situation for different reasons.  Now Safety was a tool used  by the company and with it they threatened people's livelihood and jobs.  Unions are still needed and necessary in some situations but not all and some Unions have done good while others have been, in part, responsible for the death of some Industries and some Unions became puppets of the mob and organized Crime while others just became an industry unto themselves.   No one brush can be used to paint all situations but as for myself, unlike your impression, I did remain, willingly, a Union Member in the IBEW until I worked no more and retired.

 

Crash,

 

It is my understanding based on what you've previously posted that you inherited and now run a business your family started over a quarter-century ago.  I presume that's left you little time if any to have any personal union affiliations.

 

So my question is, do any of your employees have any affiliations with a union.  Not asking which one, just if they do.

 

And if none, do you pay them union wages and if not, why not?

 

Thanks.

 

 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Here you go dire. I really good read on the history of the 40 hour week and the role unions play in getting it for all Americans. 

 

http://richgibson.com/ShorterWorkWeek.html

 

In the midst of the last depression, the hungry days of the 30's, American workers won three important things: (1) the right to organize, strike and bargain, (2) social security and government welfare, and (3) a shorter work week. These victories, made law by the Wagner Act, the Social Security Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, resulted from rank and file rebellions throughout the country. They grew out of the logical progression from the plaintive, early-depression slogan, "Fight--Don't Starve", to the later, aggressive "Get Wise--Organize !" of the CIO.

But our victories went stale. The law which sanctioned organizing and strikes became an elaborate system of regulations designed to smash strikes. Programs of welfare became organizations of degradation and oppression rather than aid. The 40 hour week is a flimsy reality. Most families rely on two wage earners, overtime, public aid of some sort, or the underground economy for survival. Moreover, growing unemployment threatens the income of all wage workers.

So we must fight again. The parallels of the thirties and today are remarkable. Our needs are the same as our ancestors'; jobs, dignity, the right to organize and act, pay, assistance in the collapse. Another world war lurks ahead. And as the fledgling Congress of Industrial Organizations led the battles for workers justice over the violent opposition of the established AFL in the 30's, so does the rank and file movement in MSEA point the way today in the face of competing unions whose bosses are the privileged enemies of their members. Never-the-less, the 80's aren't the 30's. Fifty years changes plenty. Yet the challenges are the same: to win our demands as well as honest, representative unionism.

Let's examine a little segment of our history as workers: the struggle for a shorter work week. Today the 8 hour day is, in theory, the law of the land But only over 100 years ago a 16 hour day, 6 days a week, was common. From the textile mills to the mines, men, women and children lived, slept and died by machines. At the same time, a tiny minority built incredible fortunes. As one writer put it, " The golf links lie so close to the mill that almost any day the working children can look out and see the men at play."

The struggle for the shorter work week is the thread that ties together the history of American labor. The country's first union 1;the National Labor Union in 1866 issued its primary demand, "8 hours shall bethe normal work day." The NLU died. But the demand prompted action. In 1872 in New York City thousands of building trades workers stuck for the 40 hour week. Some won. But their g~~h-s were lost in a tide of depression. In 1877 Pittsburgh workers, led by striking rail workers, seized the city and adopted a shorter day. They were shot back to work by federal troops.

1886. Chicago. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (later the AFL) called for a national strike for the 8 hour day on May 1. Nearly one million American workers stopped work that day. The nations industrial centers were hushed.  Transportation halted. Some employers yielded concessions. Others sighted their targets.

Days later at a McCormick Harvester strike, cops fired into a picket line and killed 6 strikers. A protest demonstration was hurriedly scheduled for the next evening in Chicago's Haymarket Square. As the peaceful crowd of 3,000 disbanded in a rainy eve, someone (quite possibly a police agent) tossed a bomb into the ranks of the cops. They opened fire, killing four workers on the spot. Dozens were wounded.

In the aftermath, frenzied police raided meeting halls, union offices, and private homes. Dozens of unionists were arrested. Eight radicals were charged with murder.

Seven of them weren't present when the bomb was thrown. One was speaking from a platform, in full view of the police, when the explosion occurred. The eight were charged with "influencing" whoever may have done the crime.

Their trial was a sham. The jury was composed of people who openly proclaimed their belief in the defendant's guilt. An international movement demanded their freedom. The court, directed by a judge who later admitted he had "strained justice" , found the men guilty. Four were hanged in November, 1887. One was "found hung" in his cell. In 1893 the remaining 3 were pardoned by a governor who said they'd~been victims of a government conspiracy.

Since then Mayday has been recognized all over the world as a workers' holiday. But in the U. S., Mayday stands on its head, replaced by "Law Day" , a day to celebrate the unequal peace imposed on workers restrained by bosses' laws. But the last words of one of the Chicago radicals, August Spies, were prophetic;

"If you think by hanging us you can stamp out the labor movement, the movement from which the millions who toil in want and misery, expect salvation, then hang us! Here you will tread on a spark, but there and there, behind you and in front of you and everywhere flames blaze up. It's a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out."

In the 1890's, as wealthy families like the Morgans and Rockefellers tightened their monopolies in industry , Spies' words stood true. The first general strike in the deep south, led by an integrated workforce in New Orleans, won a shorter work day. In this period the U.S. waged two wars. We fought Spain. And the government waged a war on the Western Federation of Miners led by Big Bill Haywood. Casualties in the hundreds. couldn't stop the miners, historically among the most militant of all workers. They won the 8 hour day near the turn of the century.

Haywood went on to help organize the International Workers of the World which challenged the AFL philosophy of "More!" by demanding, "Abolish the Wage System!" Unlike the AFL, the IWW tried to organize ALL workers, employed and unemployed, rather than just collecting dues from skilled workers. The IWW denounced the racism which kept the AFL lily white and actively sought minority leaders. The Wobblies, as IWW's became known, quickly organized almost 1/4 million workers. In Michigan, they were especially active in the Upper Peninsula. But the Wobblies were smashed by a series of government raids led by Attorney General Palmer and an ambitious young agent named J. Edgar Hoover in 1920. But the Wobbly tactic of direct action over negotiation caught on.

Steelworkers struck in 1919. Over 300,000 workers demanded the 8. hour day. They were led by William Z Foster, a communist party organizer and later a founder of the CIO. Their 3 month strike failed. They remained stuck with a 12 hour day.

In the 20's, America danced. Then the bottom fell out. The banks closed. In the early 30's the resistance of workers was tempered by fear and self-blame. Over time workers saw the problem as systematic, a collective problem requiring collective action. Under the leadership of radicals from the disciplined communist party, workers again turned to direct action. A strike wave and rebellions swept the country. Unemployed workers refused to scab and joined picket lines. Employed and jobless people worked together to stop evictions and utility shut offs with mass actions in the streets. Their unifying demand was "Less Hours, More Pay--Fight for Jobs with a Shorter Work Day!" Meanwhile, the AFL, all white, male and craft based, joined the other side. The federation openly became an arm of management.

In the mid-thirties, after years of hesitancy, two major strikes blew the depression' dust back in the employers face.

San Francisco. 1934. Dockworkers strike for a 30 hour week and control of their hiring halls. Cops kill two strikers. Workers in the whole city down tools and walk. The AFL sponsors a back to work movement. It fails. According to strike biographer Mike Quinn:

"The paralysis was effective...industry was at a complete standstill. The great factories were empty and deserted. No streetcars were running. Virtually all stores were closed. The giant apparatus of commerce was a lifeless, helpless hulk.

"Labor had withdrawn it head. The workers had drained out of the shops and plants like lifeblood, leaving only a silent framework embodying millions of dollars of invested capital. In the absence of labor, the great machinery boomed as so much idle junk...Nothing moved except by permission of the strike committee. Labor was in control."

The strike lasted less than one week. Management caved in. The dockworkers won the shorter work week and began a history as one of the most militant and politically active unions in the country.

Christmas. Two years later. Workers at GM in Flint hit back at speed-up with demands for more pay, shorter hours, and union recognition. An action-based coalition of radicals and communists in the CIO's United Auto Workers union (organized to compete in auto with an AFL-backed company union) seized a Chevy plant. They fought the police and the government for 44 days. Women workers outside the plant drove off police gas attacks. The company recognized the union.

The plant "sit down" sparked similar actions everywhere. In the middle of the last depression the labor movement experienced the greatest outburst of unionism ever. CIO organizers couldn't keep up. Employees from soda fountain clerks to rubber workers seized control of their workplaces and called the union offices for advice on what to do next. Membership skyrocketed with action. There was little time for consolidation. Thus, it was the time when labor was least formally organized when the greatest gains were made.

But as WWII approached, the weaknesses of the union movement became primary. Many radical organizers abandoned the unions to fight fascism. Others obeyed the communist party's line " All out for the war effort--united front against fascism" and sought to prevent job actions during the war. A few, like the Mineworkers John L Lewis, led strikes during the war. But the divisions in the movement, skilled vs laborers, women vs men, minorities vs whites, were skillfully played by management. And some mis-leaders, finding bankrolls in their union jobs, became careerists, dropped the strategy of action , and called for peace and the status quo.

So MSEA's fight for the shorter work week, in its most ambitious sense, is an effort to pick up labors' flag again. No advance on the hours of work has been made in a major industry in nearly 50 years. Now it is time once more. Shortening the work week is desirable because it:

1) calls for a larger work force or threatens production levels . A shorter work week with no pay cut is another way of saying JOBS. So the shorter work week UNITES the entire work force as well as the jobless.

 

2) Limits the ability of management to impose speed-up and creates more leisure time.

 

3) Answers phony forced labor programs and minimum wage schemes by demanding real jobs for people at better rates of pay.

 

4) Puts the offensive back In our hands. Allows us to determine our strategy over the long haul. A strike is a tactic. A shorter work week is substance.  Most importantly, we can learn from the lessons of the past. By truly fighting for a shorter work week we can challenge the entire labor movement, as well as keep our own honest. The battle for a shorter work week is a way for us to win.

________________________________________________________
I suggest you study a bit more in depth.

 

"May 1, 1926:

Ford factory workers get 40-hour week

On this day in 1926, Ford Motor Company becomes one of the first companies in America to adopt a five-day, 40-hour week for workers in its automotive factories. The policy would be extended to Ford's office workers the following August. 

 

Henry Ford's Detroit-based automobile company had broken ground in its labor policies before. In early 1914, against a backdrop of widespread unemployment and increasing labor unrest, Ford announced that it would pay its male factory workers a minimum wage of $5 per eight-hour day, upped from a previous rate of $2.34 for nine hours (the policy was adopted for female workers in 1916). The news shocked many in the industry--at the time, $5 per day was nearly double what the average auto worker made--but turned out to be a stroke of brilliance, immediately boosting productivity along the assembly line and building a sense of company loyalty and pride among Ford's workers.

 

The decision to reduce the workweek from six to five days had originally been made in 1922."

http://www.history.com/this-da...ers-get-40-hour-week

 


 

 

You don't get rich by taking in each others wash.  The higher pay ended workers looking for other jobs and engendered an efficient assembly line, which was Ford's real accomplishment -- first cars that the middle class could afford. 

 

Back then, the US had about 100 car companies -- mostly handicrafted one at a time and only affordable by the wealthy. 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

Reuters reports this morning that Volkswagen’s “top labor representative” has threatened to block any future expansion plans in the South, citing conservative interference in the United Auto Workers vote in Chattanooga.

Quoting an interview with a German newspaper, the news service reports Bernd Osterloh, head of VW’s works council, as saying he can imagine further expansion in the United States, but it probably won’t be in the South unless some sort of labor representation is established in the Chattanooga plant. Workers in Germany have representation on corporate boards, giving them a say in citing decisions.

how on earth can the regressives NOT understand what VW officials are saying? this will be the THIRD time i've posted this quote... teyates can argue all he wishes.. i didn't make up the quotes... i just copied them straight from the article..

perhaps the vw officials are just kidding? perhaps they just said that so the 'liberals' would have something to argue about.. or perhaps the VW OFFICIALS WANTED THE PLANT TO GO UNION.

 

I hope that Teyates does not fall into the same pit that dire  is in, which is disregarding all the facts, even those that come straight from the mouth of the people involved, if the facts oppose what Fox tells them.

PLEASE Tey, don't go there !! I have enjoyed your post too much.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×