Why are people crossing Davis picket lines ?

[obedon]

Why are some associates crossing Davis picket lines when they voted to strike? Isn't that like taking a nice sharp knife and stabbing thier co-workers in the back? Iv'e heard managers are working double shifts at Davis trying to help get the work out. Iv'e heard they hired temp workers and they have a hand full of scabs working to get the jobs out. They have diverted alot of work comming into Philadelphia lab to thier lab in New York and thier Texas lab. I'm sure the workers at these facilities feel the extra work thats been thrust upon them. Only the Philadelphia associates are on strike the lab in New York is covered by a different union than the one in Philadelphia. Apparently the workers in these facility enjoy working for sub standard wages.

[idispense]

Most people are fickle and weak , they vote with their dollars not their brains or principles.

More work = overtime= more money in their own pockets.


Customers do the same: pay less = more money in their own pockets


Why are there no jobs in North America ? It is a looping cycle .

If people thought about their actions and consequences , had principles then things would be different.

There has been a large overall shift to CHEAP , that cycle has not finished. CHEAP overseas labs can produce more efficiently than North Amercian labs , as long as the workers hold out for more it will self destruct even Davis jobs.

How do the internet vendors produce cheaper than you and I ? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction . Here you see the effect on the front lines of Davis.

[Chris Ryser]

More work = overtime= more money in their own pockets.

Not quite the case.........................when I had a lot of work in my former lab which was one of two unionized ones in Canada and asked the guy to put in 2-3 hours of overtime for a few days, they refused, because the 1 1/2 hourly pay for overtime usually would put them into the next higher tax bracket with more deductions and they would end up not even getting the real hourly wage for the overtime, so we would get behind in the work and lost clients.

[chip anderson]

Most people join a union because of coercion or it's the only way to get a job. Most would be much happier if they could have the job without the union. Most when voting for a strike, it's because they don't want to go against the louder voices in the union. If they can cross the picket line without fear of being beaten, having thier house burned or family threatened they will cross the line because they need the job.

Except for momentary situations which have them angry about something no one would voluntarily join a union. Most would even do things "not in my job description (like cleaning up the mess they made on the floor) were it not for fear of the union.

A very large portion of union members would object to union political contributions if they had the cajonies and clout to put an end to such.
The situation was different prior to 1940, but it's not 1940 anymore.



Chip

[idispense]

Not quite the case.........................when I had a lot of work in my former lab which was one of two unionized ones in Canada and asked the guy to put in 2-3 hours of overtime for a few days, they refused, because the 1 1/2 hourly pay for overtime usually would put them into the next higher tax bracket with more deductions and they would end up not even getting the real hourly wage for the overtime, so we would get behind in the work and lost clients.

You are wrong Chris. That example actually reinforces the theory that people vote with their dollars. Your workers voted to not work because they personally did not put more dollars in their pockets .

Had your workers been able to put more money, not less , in their pockets then they would have helped you out.

Again we have the viscious cycle. Those workers woould have made more money staying home cutting their own lawn than paying someone to cut it. They would have made more doing home renovations for cash .

Your work environment was wrong . Your workers were thinking like business owners , the ywere thinking about their own bottom line.

Had you offered them a viable solution to that then you would have had them lined up at the door to work for you .

[Chris Ryser]

Had you offered them a viable solution to that then you would have had them lined up at the door to work for you .

Of course I could have offered cash and they would have lined up for overtime............however at the next union contract negotiation the union repesentatives would wanted that in black and white on the contract so that they could could get that difference in union dues, and so would the Revenue Canada by taking me to court for not declaring salaries and make the tax deduction the proper way.

[idispense]

That is absolutely true Chris , but it does not alter the concept & theory that "people vote with their dollars" . What you are talking about is regrressive laws that have stifled our competitive edge. And that is different from why your workers would not work for you.

A business owner and managers job is to solve problems and bottlenecks to production and sales. You did not solve that problem in a meaningful way.

The internetters do that by appealing to their customers " vote with their dollars motivations" .

Internetters recognised that law compliance was a detriment and worked around it.

Wal Mart succeeds based solely on this theory. Shove the production offshore and eliminate the work laws . Penalize the unionized suppliers if the deliveries are not on time and make them deal with the unions . employ part time workers, close stores that unionize.

Jobs are leaving this Continent not because our work force can't do the job , but rather because our business owners can't compete with our own laws .

The business owner and the worker both voted with their own dollars . That theory still holds true.

As i said in a different thread , you have to think like the internetter or think like the Great Glasses offender in order to deal with that problem.

Regulators long ago realized that their own jobs would be secure in this disaster of an environment as long as they controlled the release of information to the people they regulate. Regulators survive by hiding transparency and accountability. If they did not then Opticians and optometrists would vote with their own license fee dollars and can the lot of them, as their is no reward .

[idispense]

When you closely look at the theory " people vote with their dollars " it is easy to understand why and how Great Glasses succeeded. They offered 3 pair for the price of one and threw in a FREE eye exam as well . Those prices appealed to the public and the perception of saving more money so there would be more money left in their pockets.

Now the regulators let it happen and continue because they also voted with their own dollars. Had they tried honestly to shut it down that would have used up more of their revenue. Had they actually upheld the mandate to protect the public then they would have had to advertise constant warning s to the public and that also would have used up their coffers.

[Speed]

Maybe they are realizing that they can just channel the work to other locations. Unemployment is still very high. It may ba a bad time to strike.

[idispense]

[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

Of course I could have offered cash and they would have lined up for overtime.............

You could not have offered them cash Chris , because you are different:

First you have morals,principles and ethics that prevented that from happening

Second you are also controlled by the 'people vote with their dollars" theory. For you to pay them cash you would have had to take it out of your own after tax dollars and that would mean less money in your pocket , so you were naturally prevented from doing so.

Third , as you mentioned , in looking after what would be right for the worker you now would have regressed into the politics of unions and faced penalties to help the worker.
The union would now want it in writing so they could get their share. The union votes with their dollars too you know.

Fourth the regressiveness of it all put all of the participants in a viscious spiral and race to zero. Only China is going to win. We have not hit bottom yet.

The really interesting thing here is this: when you try to legally put more money in your pocket eventually the regressive nature of "legal" puts a back spin on everything such that "saving" money is more productive , therefore we favor the illegal businesses and actually close down the legal .

There is no taxation on money kept through obtaining savings .

[cocoisland58]

Why are some associates crossing Davis picket lines when they voted to strike?

Are you saying that union members are crossing the picket line and working? Seems unlikely. Management will always cross, they have to keep the business running if possible. Temp workers cross because they have no fear of crossing a picket line. It's not the old days when the union would simply call in the muscle to make sure that didn't happen.

[Johns]

You could not have offered them cash Chris , because you are different:

First you have morals,principles and ethics that prevented that from happening

Second you are also controlled by the 'people vote with their dollars" theory. For you to pay them cash you would have had to take it out of your own after tax dollars and that would mean less money in your pocket , so you were naturally prevented from doing so.

Third , as you mentioned , in looking after what would be right for the worker you now would have regressed into the politics of unions and faced penalties to help the worker.

Chris may be all of those things (have morals,principles and ethics), but there is much more to it than that. Paying an employee cash is one of the most stupid things a business can do. When you pay an employee cash, they "own" you. They now have information that you are involved in an illegal (at the local, regional, and federal level) activity, and unless you want to go to jail, you, the employer, must bow to their every demand. Do people pay in cash? Sure, but it is a recipe for disaster, and an extremely short sighted way to do business.

[Johns]

Why are some associates crossing Davis picket lines when they voted to strike?

On another thread, I posted a link to the union's website. Look at how many companies are unionized, and how many are not. (They only listed a handful of those that are not). They have no strength, and they obviously have no support from other unions.

Let's look at just one small aspect of their business, their deliveries:

How do they get their inbound materials to them? UPS, or FedEx? If it is UPS, why is are unionized drivers delivering to a company that is being striked against? If it is FedEx,why are they using non union drivers? Lower prices...hmm. Better service? Hmm...

The bottom line is that that this union, like most, has convinced it's employees that the only way to make a decent living is by joining the union, and paying the dues. The fact is, the only people that benefit from unions are the bosses at the top. The employees are nothing more than fodder, to be thrown out, and used as pawns to keep the union dues flowing to the top. In the end, the bottom employees take the heat, and pay the consequences, while acting as a buffer to those at the top.

Here's a local union story that took place last month:

http://starbeacon.com/local/x9411186...-with-hospital

Do you want to know why they won't release details of the agreement? (I have friends in the printing business) It's because while the nurses gained more benefits, the amount of their raises was actually cut by 75%, when compared to the major hospital system in the next city. The union did not want it published because it would show just how weak they really are. The nurses were focused on benefits, not future pay, so they didn't even notice. The union needed to make it look like that had put pressure on the hospital, when in reality, five years from now, the employees will be paid less than their counterparts. Again, the goal of the union is to keep it's members paying their dues, and keeping the bosses at the top fat and happy.

[Johns]

s

The situation was different prior to 1940, but it's not 1940 anymore.Chip

Chip is correct. The unions came to my office some years ago, and tried to do it covertly. An employee gave me the guys card and I called him. I asked why he was "sneaking around" trying to come into my shop. He said he knew how employers would fight the unions and "that's just the way it's done".

I told him that I would organize a meeting of my employees, and he could give them the pitch. I would even buy the pizza. The pizza arrived at 6:30, it was eaten by 6:45. The meeting, scheduled for 7:00pm, never happened, as the employees left as soon as the pizza was gone. Of course, I had explained to them exactly what the purpose of the meeting was, and using absolutely no coercion, nor intimidation, explained what life would be like if we were to unionize.

From the time the meeting was organized to the time it took place, was about 3 weeks. In that time, the more ambitious of my employees called some of the union shops in NY (there are none in our area), and talked to some of the employees of those shops. The union, with the help of the Optical Dispenser's Board web site and others, obtained a list of my employees and barraged them with literature... none of which was convincing enough to sway them.

It's not the 1940's anymore. The economy is different, work conditions are not even close to what they were, automation has taken the place of many workers, and for the most part, union are irrelevant.