[WideRight05]

There is the possibility of a Joe Biden presidential campaign in 2016. Biden has an undefeated record that shows nothing but pure greatness. I saw on the news today that the presidential debates for 2016 may not happen due to the fact that Biden once killed somebody with truth. If he were elected as president, our debt would be gone, the economy would see growth like never before, and our relations overseas will be better than ever.

http://news.yahoo.com/biden-jokes-2016-p...ction.html

[Truth]

Biden is senile now. By 2016, he will be living in a sanitarium for the incompetent. All those hair plugs dulled his senses.

[TheRealVille]

Biden is senile now. By 2016, he will be living in a sanitarium for the incompetent. All those hair plugs dulled his senses.

I will never pull a Biden lever, unless his opponent is just a total idiot, and apparent union buster.

[Hoot Gibson]

I will never pull a Biden lever, unless his opponent is just a total idiot, and apparent union buster.

If you vote for Obama, then you will be voting for Biden. He is making so many gaffes on the campaign trail, that I just got tired of posting them. Nobody closely associated with Obama will be a viable presidential candidate in 2016.

[TheRealThing]

If you vote for Obama, then you will be voting for Biden. He is making so many gaffes on the campaign trail, that I just got tired of posting them. Nobody closely associated with Obama will be a viable presidential candidate in 2016.

If we even see the year 2016. We are undergoing a "fundamental transformation" right now. As a matter of fact, we are 4 years into said transformation. Gone, is confidence from around the world that if America should need to unsheathe her terrible swift sword, the determination and wherewithal to do so, would come without question. In stead, in this day in time, with the US GDP being less than the national debt for the first time ever, and with the fearsome US military facing decimation at the hand of our own spineless lawmakers, America's once unquestioned superiority (under a second Obama term), is arguably destined by design for global also-ran status. Further, our own economic woes threaten to unseat us as the world's financial leader. These represent the true outcomes of Obama's leadership. Along with a gridlocked congress (another first) a self imposed energy crisis, and the Benghazi Scandal which, this administration is ignoring seemingly without voter repercussion. Why is there any question as to whether to oust this guy?

[TheRealVille]

If you vote for Obama, then you will be voting for Biden. He is making so many gaffes on the campaign trail, that I just got tired of posting them. Nobody closely associated with Obama will be a viable presidential candidate in 2016.

I meant Biden for 2016 President. But, I better not say never, the republicans might put Sarah or Michelle up.

[TheRealVille]

BTW TRT, have you looked at Romney's labor tab on his page. How does that strike you?

[Hoot Gibson]

I meant Biden for 2016 President. But, I better not say never, the republicans might put Sarah or Michelle up.

:hilarious: Did you not say that you were prepared to vote for McCain in 2008 until he put Palin on his ticket? If so, what is the difference in voting for a ticket where a total idiot like Biden would be a heartbeat away from the top spot? Maybe I have you confused with one of the other posters who will still admit that they voted for Obama and will do so again, no matter what his record has been.

[TheRealThing]

BTW TRT, have you looked at Romney's labor tab on his page. How does that strike you?

This is an old argument that you and I have gone over time and again. I am not disposed to support every parasite that says me too. The building trades can only be morally responsible for the actions of build trades membership. You don't understand the fight that transpired and the process that generated the world's finest craftsmen. My position is we barter the best in knowledge, character, innovation, productivity, and cooperation with our long list of employers/clients buildiing our nation's structures, from schools and hospitals and infrastructure, to the plants and mills of American industry. It's hard, it's dangerous and demands the cream of the crop to fulfill.

We're not politicians, and we don't have long enough coat tails for everybody who works with their hands to get on board with the big boys. The attempts of organized labor to do just that has predictably watered down our ability to negotiate. Heck, if everybody goes union where is the distinction that would command the elite level of wages and benefits we are so proud to have earned through sweat and determination? That might be over your head but, look at it like this, if everybody was a doctor, what would happen to the health care industry? (That is, in a world where presidents don't destroy the health care industry with amaturish governmental controls)

Apart from all of that. For a bunch of construction workers to pool their hard earned dues dollars, in an effort to influence state and federal legislators in a way that is unfairly favorable to themselves is unethical. And in the end, nets them a thrashing like they got up in Wisconsin. I call that buying one's own problems.

[TheRealVille]

This is an old argument that you and I have gone over time and again. I am not disposed to support every parasite that says me too. The building trades can only be morally responsible for the actions of build trades membership. You don't understand the fight that transpired and the process that generated the world's finest craftsmen. My position is we barter the best in knowledge, character, innovation, productivity, and cooperation with our long list of employers/clients buildiing our nation's structures, from schools and hospitals and infrastructure, to the plants and mills of American industry. It's hard, it's dangerous and demands the cream of the crop to fulfill.

We're not politicians, and we don't have long enough coat tails for everybody who works with their hands to get on board with the big boys. The attempts of organized labor to do just that has predictably watered down our ability to negotiate. Heck, if everybody goes union where is the distinction that would command the elite level of wages and benefits we are so proud to have earned through sweat and determination? That might be over your head but, look at it like this, if everybody was a doctor, what would happen to the health care industry? (That is, in a world where presidents don't destroy the health care industry with amaturish governmental controls)

Apart from all of that. For a bunch of construction workers to pool their hard earned dues dollars, in an effort to influence state and federal legislators in a way that is unfairly favorable to themselves is unethical. And in the end, nets them a thrashing like they got up in Wisconsin. I call that buying one's own problems.

Are you in favor of right to work states? Romney thinks every state should be a right to work state.

[TheRealThing]

Are you in favor of right to work states? Romney thinks every state should be a right to work state.

Like I said, you don't understand the fight that transpired and the process that generated the world's finest craftsmen. I heard this very same argument in Texas in the early to mid 70's. BA's and union officials, stewards, heck, everybody said that going 'right to work' would totally kill the union. Well, Brown and Root came and sort of went. And unions contiued to flourish and are still the roosters of their field. Union's life blood isn't contracts and political alliances that prohibit right to work laws, it's their level of expertise, and ability to produce the best product.

It amazes me to listen to you go on and on about what you think is important. Where change applies to matters dealing with social justice, you're all about it, bring on the gay and lesbian rights legislation and bring on ObamaCare, give everything to everybody in the form of government entitlements, women should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies, even murder their babies for the sake of convenience, and with government funding, which means I have to help pay for these hellish acts of slaughter. But, you're not about to take any backwater when it comes to any changes on the labor scene. That's where you stand firm in drawing a line in the sand. You can't have it both ways, that's the nature of the fight that I think you have yet to rise to a level of understanding on, though you do participate. Conservatives resist this idea of wholesale liberal change just to please those who are not disciplined enough to live by our society's long accepted standards of work and morality. Liberals want to keep adding more and more pollutants to the recipie until it is no longer recogizable, while calling those who offer wise council small minded and passe.

[TheRealVille]

Like I said, you don't understand the fight that transpired and the process that generated the world's finest craftsmen. I heard this very same argument in Texas in the early to mid 70's. BA's and union officials, stewards, heck, everybody said that going 'right to work' would totally kill the union. Well, Brown and Root came and sort of went. And unions contiued to flourish and are still the roosters of their field. Union's life blood isn't contracts and political alliances that prohibit right to work laws, it's their level of expertise, and ability to produce the best product.

It amazes me to listen to you go on and on about what you think is important. Where change applies to matters dealing with social justice, you're all about it, bring on the gay and lesbian rights legislation and bring on ObamaCare, give everything to everybody in the form of government entitlements, women should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies, even murder their babies for the sake of convenience, and with government funding, which means I have to help pay for these hellish acts of slaughter. But, you're not about to take any backwater when it comes to any changes on the labor scene. That's where you stand firm in drawing a line in the sand. You can't have it both ways, that's the nature of the fight that I think you have yet to rise to a level of understanding on, though you do participate. Conservatives resist this idea of wholesale liberal change just to please those who are not disciplined enough to live by our society's long accepted standards of work and morality. Liberals want to keep adding more and more pollutants to the recipie until it is no longer recogizable, while calling those who offer wise council small minded and passe.

Do you think unions can flourish in right to work states?

[vector]

I will never pull a Biden lever, unless his opponent is just a total idiot, and apparent union buster.

there had better be a third party

[WideRight05]

^ I'm sure they could probably clone somebody and have the clone run.

[SKINNYPIG]

Do you think unions can flourish in right to work states?

Don't know about unions, but I think hard working Americans can.

Do you put unions before God and country?

[TheRealVille]

Like I said, you don't understand the fight that transpired and the process that generated the world's finest craftsmen. I heard this very same argument in Texas in the early to mid 70's. BA's and union officials, stewards, heck, everybody said that going 'right to work' would totally kill the union. Well, Brown and Root came and sort of went. And unions contiued to flourish and are still the roosters of their field. Union's life blood isn't contracts and political alliances that prohibit right to work laws, it's their level of expertise, and ability to produce the best product.

It amazes me to listen to you go on and on about what you think is important. Where change applies to matters dealing with social justice, you're all about it, bring on the gay and lesbian rights legislation and bring on ObamaCare, give everything to everybody in the form of government entitlements, women should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies, even murder their babies for the sake of convenience, and with government funding, which means I have to help pay for these hellish acts of slaughter. But, you're not about to take any backwater when it comes to any changes on the labor scene. That's where you stand firm in drawing a line in the sand. You can't have it both ways, that's the nature of the fight that I think you have yet to rise to a level of understanding on, though you do participate. Conservatives resist this idea of wholesale liberal change just to please those who are not disciplined enough to live by our society's long accepted standards of work and morality. Liberals want to keep adding more and more pollutants to the recipie until it is no longer recogizable, while calling those who offer wise council small minded and passe.

Texas is one of the biggest non union working states that there is. Union construction workers can hardly find a job there. Most travel out of TX, to non right to work states. Wages are low for construction workers. Go ask TX and LA union workers how they are fairing since their states went right to work. BTW, I think everybody should have the right to work non union, just not on union jobs.




Speaking of "kind of came and went Brown and Root", they are now the biggest non union contractor, and do work all over the US.

KBR, Inc. (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root) is an American engineering, construction and private military contracting company, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, headquartered in Houston. The company also has large offices in Arlington, Birmingham, Newark, Delaware and Leatherhead, UK. After Halliburton acquired Dresser Industries in 1998, Dresser's engineering subsidiary, The M. W. Kellogg Co., was merged with Halliburton's construction subsidiary, Brown & Root, to form Kellogg Brown & Root. KBR and its predecessors have received many contracts with the United States military including during World War II, the Vietnam War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
KBR is the largest non-union construction company in the United States.[2] The company's corporate offices are in the KBR Tower in Downtown Houston.[3][4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_(company)

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Are you in favor of right to work states? Romney thinks every state should be a right to work state.

Absolutely and without any reservation whatsoever.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Do you think unions can flourish in right to work states?

Of course not. And that is why I support right to work. Unions, while good in theory, have proven to be bad in practice. The union concept is not bad per se. The problem rests with their leaders.

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree with Romney. People are endowed by their Creator with the right to work. No government and no union should infringe upon that right.

[TheRealVille]

Of course not. And that is why I support right to work. Unions, while good in theory, have proven to be bad in practice. The union concept is not bad per se. The problem rests with their leaders.

I was asking the question to a fellow union guy.

[TheRealVille]

I agree with Romney. People are endowed by their Creator with the right to work. No government and no union should infringe upon that right.

You think non union people should be able to go on union jobs and work non union, with the union still being made to represent non union workers? That's exactly what happens. Why can't non union workers work on non union jobs, and union workers work on union jobs. Non union has the upper hand in that scenario anyway, non union represents about 90% of the labor force anyway. As far as construction, they' got about that same percentage of work, 90% of it. Explain to me why they should be able to come on our jobs? Isn't 90% of the work enough for them?

[Hoot Gibson]

You think non union people should be able to go on union jobs and work non union, with the union still being made to represent non union workers? That's exactly what happens. Why can't non union workers work on non union jobs, and union workers work on union jobs. Non union has the upper hand in that scenario anyway, non union represents about 90% of the labor force anyway. As far as construction, they' got about that same percentage of work, 90% of it. Explain to me why they should be able to come on our jobs? Isn't 90% of the work enough for them?

Because they are not your jobs - you did not create those jobs and you have no right to hold a monopoly on them. If unions can convince two people to allow them to represent them, then let the union represent them in negotiations with the company. If 60 percent want union representation, then let the union represent the 60 percent who want them. It is pretty simple. If the union can negotiate higher wages and better benefits for the people that they represent, then good for them. If the owner of the company wants to pay the people who are not represented at a different rate, then that should be fine too. If business owners want to negotiate an exclusive deal with a union to provide labor, then I am okay with that too, but the law should not grant unions monopoly power over any employer over the objections of the owner.

[TheRealVille]

Because they are not your jobs - you did not create those jobs and you have no right to hold a monopoly on them. If unions can convince two people to allow them to represent them, then let the union represent them in negotiations with the company. If 60 percent want union representation, then let the union represent the 60 percent who want them. It is pretty simple. If the union can negotiate higher wages and better benefits for the people that they represent, then good for them. If the owner of the company wants to pay the people who are not represented at a different rate, then that should be fine too. If business owners want to negotiate an exclusive deal with a union to provide labor, then I am okay with that too, but the law should not grant unions monopoly power over any employer over the objections of the owner.

Then you should be for someone to study your trade on the internet, until they train themselves to be as good as you, without a college education, and then hire onto the same type job as you, without a college degree?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I was asking the question to a fellow union guy.

What is a "union guy"?

[Hoot Gibson]

Then you should be for someone to study your trade on the internet, until they train themselves to be as good as you, without a college education, and then hire onto the same type job as you, without a college degree?

FYI, I have worked with several outstanding programmers who have no college degree and my degree is not really related to my profession. Computer technology advances so quickly, it is much better to hire somebody who understands that education should be a lifelong process that does not end with a piece of paper than somebody who sees a college degree as a meal ticket.

I am not a big believer in using college degrees, professional licenses, or unions as a tool to artificially keep salaries high. If you are a high school freshman who is a great programmer, then some company will be willing to pay you top dollar as soon as you want to drop out of high school. Pay should always be tied to performance, not to credentials, IMO.

One of the smartest people with whom I have ever worked, IMO, was a mine section foreman in Logan County, who was a high school dropout but a genius when it came to managing and motivating people. It is wrong when organizations like the AMA or Society of Professional Engineers work to inflate members' salaries at the expense of the general public and it is wrong when unions do the same. People should be paid for the value of the service that they provide not because they belong to some club.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I think it is fine for a union of workers to get together to negotiate for their own benefit. I also think it is fine for a company to bring in non-union workers to replace the union workers if they so choose.

That sounds democratic to me. It is called freedom.

[TheRealVille]

What is a "union guy"?

TheRealThing.

[TheRealThing]

I think it is fine for a union of workers to get together to negotiate for their own benefit. I also think it is fine for a company to bring in non-union workers to replace the union workers if they so choose.

That sounds democratic to me. It is called freedom.

Union workers by definitiion, are more highly skilled. When clients invest huge sums of capital to build plants, factories, mills, hospitals, schools and the like, they normally prefer the surety that is represented with union construction firms and labor. Getting down off of the soap box for just a minute, I can speak to the matter of unioin built versus non-union built structures from first hand experience. Sometimes, even going in and tearing out structure that failed to meet specifications. I can't imagine anybody allowing a non-union entity to construct a nuclear facility for example. Being able to count on professional craftsmen is the calling card of union labor. It's about training, skill level and management. I have said for years, that we union folks risk too much with our efforts to manipulate the market and legislators. What we can buy, others can certainly up the ante on.

[Hoot Gibson]

Union workers by definitiion, are more highly skilled. When clients invest huge sums of capital to build plants, factories, mills, hospitals, schools and the like, they normally prefer the surety that is represented with union construction firms and labor. Getting down off of the soap box for just a minute, I can speak to the matter of unioin built versus non-union built structures from first hand experience. Sometimes, even going in and tearing out structure that failed to meet specifications. I can't imagine anybody allowing a non-union entity to construct a nuclear facility for example. Being able to count on professional craftsmen is the calling card of union labor. It's about training, skill level and management. I have said for years, that we union folks risk too much with our efforts to manipulate the market and legislators. What we can buy, others can certainly up the ante on.

Union members are not more skilled by definition. Maybe that is generally the rule in construction but it is certainly not true in coal mining. Unions have many highly skilled members but they also carry a lot of dead wood that would never be tolerated in a non-union shop. I have not looked at the numbers in a few years, but non-union coal mines operating in similar conditions tended to be much more productive than their union counterparts. Part of the reason was the strict work rules that the BCOA contract required mine operators to follow.

For example, in underground coal mines where continuous miners are used, the skill of the continuous miner operator can make or break an operation. I worked in a mine where the best continuous miner operator was, because of seniority, classified as a continuous miner operator's helper and the only time that he was allowed to run the miner was when the more senior operator was absent. The operator was not incompetent but he was just not nearly as good an operator. Everyday that the operator ran the continuous miner, it cost the company money.

On a surface mining operation, the same is true of the front end loader operator who cleans coal. Some guys have a knack for cleaning coal with a minimal loss of the product and some do not but on union operations, management did not have enough control over the work force to match people to equipment to maximize profits.

I saw the same thing with mechanics and electricians. Men had jobs because of seniority who were far less competent than others having more skill but less seniority. Sometimes mines would set idle for entire shifts until the best man for the job arrived, who might be a second or third shift electrician or mechanic. Union contracts required everybody to be offered overtime on an equal basis, so to call out a more competent electrician would result in a union grievance and likely loss by the company in arbitration.

In my experience, non-union coal miners had equal or superior training to their union counterparts but the loss of companies' right to effectively manage their employees was the biggest factor that accounted for the non-union mines having higher productivity rates.

Maybe Old School can comment on the productivity of UMWA vs. non-union coal mines.

[TheRealThing]

Union members are not more skilled by definition. Maybe that is generally the rule in construction but it is certainly not true in coal mining. Unions have many highly skilled members but they also carry a lot of dead wood that would never be tolerated in a non-union shop. I have not looked at the numbers in a few years, but non-union coal mines operating in similar conditions tended to be much more productive than their union counterparts. Part of the reason was the strict work rules that the BCOA contract required mine operators to follow.

For example, in underground coal mines where continuous miners are used, the skill of the continuous miner operator can make or break an operation. I worked in a mine where the best continuous miner operator was, because of seniority, classified as a continuous miner operator's helper and the only time that he was allowed to run the miner was when the more senior operator was absent. The operator was not incompetent but he was just not nearly as good an operator. Everyday that the operator ran the continuous miner, it cost the company money.

On a surface mining operation, the same is true of the front end loader operator who cleans coal. Some guys have a knack for cleaning coal with a minimal loss of the product and some do not but on union operations, management did not have enough control over the work force to match people to equipment to maximize profits.

I saw the same thing with mechanics and electricians. Men had jobs because of seniority who were far less competent than others having more skill but less seniority. Sometimes mines would set idle for entire shifts until the best man for the job arrived, who might be a second or third shift electrician or mechanic. Union contracts required everybody to be offered overtime on an equal basis, so to call out a more competent electrician would result in a union grievance and likely loss by the company in arbitration.

In my experience, non-union coal miners had equal or superior training to their union counterparts but the loss of companies' right to effectively manage their employees was the biggest factor that accounted for the non-union mines having higher productivity rates.

Maybe Old School can comment on the productivity of UMWA vs. non-union coal mines.

Of that you may be sure. I have provided an excerpt and a link below to substaniate my position as it applies to the building trades only. I have no doubt but that what you say is true and that you have first hand knowledge of what you speak. No disrespect intended but, a nuclear facility is a notch up from coal mining. Only certified craftspeople, verified on-site through testing proceedures, are even allowed to perform many of the functions associated with construction at that level. I agree that to no small degree, craftsmanship is a matter of personal integrity. But, on the other hand, 4 and 5 year apprenticeships and on the job training requirements assure a measure of compitence that non-union firms just cannot match.

I came through in the 60's and I'm not just blowing gas here.
EXCERPT---
We recommend several actions to mitigate the risks associated with the limited availability of highly-qualified personnel:

• NSSS vendors and EPC contractors should complete the plant design(including the routing of small bore piping, tubing, and conduit to the maximum amount practical) prior to starting construction, prepare a detailed construction schedule, and plan for sufficient
staffing for rapid response teams at the point of work for problem resolution. To the maximum extent possible, personnel with experience designing and building nuclear units should be used to design and construct GEN III+ units. These steps are needed to sustain the high labor productivity rates necessary for achieving the desired construction schedules
and project costs. The past consequences of not having this level of design completion and project preparation have been that labor requirements and construction schedule durations were often doubled.

• EPC contractors as a group should negotiate and sign a national labor agreement with major labor unions to provide flexibility in staffing nuclear construction projects (e.g., allowing union members from different areas to work at any nuclear plant construction site). This step helps ensures the needed construction workers will be available.
END---


http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/reports/mpr...102105.pdf