By on August 25, 2014

2013-ford-taurus-sel-20l-ecoboost-grille-and-badge-photo-529274-s-1280x782

Though it won’t be until next September when Detroit Three employees in Michigan will be able to opt-out of paying dues to the United Auto Workers, one Ford employee has gone ahead with legal action to recoup some of his dues now.

Detroit Free Press reports Ford tool-and-die maker Todd Lemire, with legal help from the National Right to Work Foundation, has filed charges against both the automaker and the UAW with the National Labor Relations Board on the objection to using a portion of his dues to support the Democratic Party, invoking his Beck rights to claw back $98 of dues over the past three months thus far.

If successful, the legal action would pave the way for others who don’t want to pay dues beyond core union activities, if at all, prior to the September 15, 2015 expiration date of the UAW’s current contracts with the Detroit Three. After that date, new contracts would allow all workers in Michigan the right to opt-out of paying any dues, the result of the state legislature’s passage of Michigan’s right-to-work law in 2012.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

67 Comments on “Employee Files Charges Against UAW, Ford Over Dues...”


  • avatar
    mikey

    Why not? Just give this guy,and anybody else that doesn’t want to pay dues a refund.

    While their at it cut all the benefits, seniority rights, and pensions. So I see the guy is a tool, and die maker. So when the boss asks him to do some electrical work, no sense calling the committeeman. Just get out your electrician tools.

    I don’t know why the guy doesn’t just quit, and take his trade to a non union shop? I’m sure the non union places will match his 100K a year, and provide a defined benefit pension.

    The guy either,r has a lot of guts, or he is phenomenally stupid. I wouldn’t have the nerve to show my face on the plant floor.

    “The right to work”…..For less.

    • 0 avatar
      HerrKaLeun

      Even in forced-labor states this part of the due should not be mandatory.
      MI, fortunately, is not a forced-labor state anymore.

      “I wouldn’t have the nerve to show my face on the plant floor.”
      This is exactly why this Mafia needs to go. How is a union in a Democratic country allowed to “enforce” membership either by law or by baseball bat?

      He doesn’t quit because he has a “right to work” without being member in a political organization or paying for a political party.

      Why should he quit? He probably works all day while his peers spend all day plotting political schemes.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @HerrKaLeun….With all due respect sir. Have you ever worked in a large, labour intensive, manufacturing facility?

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        At this point I’m a lot more concerned with public sector unions than private sector unions. If the UAW makes Fords a bad value I can buy something else (I actually have a Ford, BTW, because the price right). If (when) public sector unions financially destroy my city and state I have much bigger problems.

        But the gangster mentality that Mikey displays on this topic doesn’t help his cause. And there are a lot of people at, for example, Honda plants, that do work in “large, labour intensive, manufacturing facility” environments yet haven’t found a need for the UAW. It’s amazing so many people can work in such a tough environment drinking beer and smoking weed at lunch, as caught on video a while back at a Chrysler plant.

        If the UAW was/is violating employees’ Beck rights that is going to blow up much larger that this small case.

        And making Michigan a right-to-work state was a key move, it is going to help the state attract a lot more manufacturing, especially from suppliers and small, growing companies.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          mikey’s experiences are much different from any other manufacturing environment I’ve been subjected to. A UAW facility is just as different to a CAW facility in Toronto as a non union plant in South Carolina.

          Is one way of doing business better than the other? I can pick out several advantages of both kinds of labor.

          At the end of the day, I’d rather be tied to a OEM final assembly plant (cost center) that is unionized. My salary will be higher and job security will be better. The OEM plant is the top of the food chain in the value stream of a vehicle and a union pulls up everyone’s wages. It’s a known fact that a big three plant pays more than a Toyota and Honda facility for an engineer.

          • 0 avatar
            challenger2012

            Sir You are correct. But the union haters will not be deterred by logic or facts. I was a Field Engineer for GE. I worked in union plants and non union. Union plants were ALWAYS cleaner, safer and paid better. Being a professional, I was not in the union, but the difference between union and non-union was day and night. And the union guys, most of them, supported the union. No BS, just the truth.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            challenger2012,
            The flip side is the further you go down on the value stream, the more likely your job will be overseas if you aren’t dealing with non unionized direct labor.

            It’s a fact of life. Higher direct and indirect labor costs = less likelihood of your plant being in a first world country.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            Since when are engineers union?

          • 0 avatar
            Kelvininin

            Huh… Interesting Challenger2012. I was also a field engineer for GE. My experience was very different than yours. I worked globally in union and non-union facilities. The union facilities were often dirty, far less efficient, lower quality, often less safe, always more expensive by a land slide, always more challenging to get work done, always slower. If the assignment was at the tail end construction, when layoffs were approaching, we had to deal with theft, sabotage, and intentional work slowdowns.

            As for compensation, the total benefits packages were not that dissimilar, however union jobs made more money inherently because they were slower.

            I finished school with an engineering degree, and a neutral opinion of unions. Now having worked in the field for more than a decade, if I could choose my assignments, I would choose non-union every time. Non-union jobs were always higher quality, lower cost, better at meeting the schedule demands, and often safer.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          +1 Racer. Public employee unions should absolutely not exist, period.

          • 0 avatar
            usernamealreadyregistered

            A private sector union negotiates with management for a larger piece of a cake that both management and labor helped bake. A public sector union negotiates with elected officials to get the taxpayers to buy the cake.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Exactly UNAR. Then, the public union gives a kickback to the politicians who gave them the contract. The circle of life.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        …He probably works all day while his peers spend all day plotting political schemes…

        Hence why he had the spare time to become a political cause celeb and file a lawsuit with the backing of a political organization.

        Typical feeling from the other side of this argument, give me the benefits, but I don’t want to pay for it.

        What – my pension and health benefits go away, I lost my seniority, you’re freezing my pay, no more over time. Ahhhhhh…heaven.

    • 0 avatar
      Johnny Canada

      @ Mikey.

      So if you’re in the UAW, it’s “vote Democrat” and get the goodies, right?

      Is that the connection? And no, I’m not being a smarty pants…I’d just like your opinion is all.

      • 0 avatar
        jpolicke

        Well, theoretically the UAW might support Republicans, just as pigs might become members of the ALPA.

        • 0 avatar
          bomberpete

          BS. It was Nixon who pardoned Jimmy Hoffa.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Was that before or after he disappeared?

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            Head over to opensecrets.org. 11 out of the top 20 political contributors are unions. 97% of their money goes to Democrats. BTW, (evil) Koch Industries is #37.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            @Roader – Right-wing propaganda runs strong in this one. So in the most TECHNICAL sense this is true. Except they only count non-Super PAC money that has identities attached to it. When you hunt down the Super PAC donor dinners and mailings and such the Koch’s are near the top as well as Sheldon Adelson.

            The fact that a privately held coalition of citizens who fight for the right to organize and protect the rights of workers have a lobbying arm that promotes candidates that align with their views is almost always blasphemous to these people. Yet they never seem to get too hairy about K-street lobbyists who work for the management that spend multiple factors more on wining and dining the right-wing political machine.

            It isn’t a this or that argument, the left is still pro-business but they’re also pro-worker in a way that allows for symbiotic behavior. But that’s a lost cause in these halls.

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            “When you hunt down the Super PAC donor dinners and mailings and such the Koch’s are near the top as well as Sheldon Adelson.”

            Xeraner, can you provide a source? In any case, Harry Reid is doing his level best:

            youtube # vP7V0hrt1aw

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @Johnny Canada……I’m as Canadian as you are. UNIFOR, and before that, the CAW, and before that the UAW, “leadership”, all supported the far left NDP.

        The “leadership” support of a particular party, doesn’t guarantee a vote from the rank and file.

        • 0 avatar
          Johnny Canada

          OK, so when the rank and file doesn’t support the Union Leadership choice of “left wing” political parties, I’m sure you can understand why someone would be angry that their dues are heading into the coffers of a party they disagree with?

          Your thoughts?

          • 0 avatar
            mikey

            Oh yeah……back 20 years ago the CAW blindly supported the NDP. Many of the. membership strongly disagreed, with this policy. At one point local 222 voted to disassociate ,and sever all ties with theNDP.

            We were 20,000 strong at that time,and the leadership reluctantly went with the majority.

            Now in 2014 ,we have less than 4500 active GM Oshawa members. The older senior guys are just waiting for the next package to come down the pipe.. The younger folks are more concerned, with wether or not they’ll have a job in 2016.

            In short, nobody really gives a—— where their union dues go.

            This is the new reality of the private sector union world

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Yeah, I’m sorry the arguments don’t really hold water. Whatever the social leanings of unionized manufacturing workers are they’re economically the most supportive left-wing economic structure. In fact this has been routinely noted in literature on this subject that white working class voters favor the Republican party by about a 55/45 margin (on average) but if those workers are unionized it’s about 70/30 Democrat which is sufficient to end the discussion on majority rule in a democracy. Never mind that a right-wing union has ever right to form, win elections, get them the benefits they wish and support candidates that seek to make their job illegal.

            At some point can we stop the pretense and just admit you’re partisans seeking a moral or constitutional support for your partisan behavior?

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “The “leadership” support of a particular party, doesn’t guarantee a vote from the rank and file.”

          Pretty close, though. Check out what the public unions pulled off in the recent provincial election. Most members vote how their leadership badgers them to.

          • 0 avatar
            mikey

            In the recent provincial election, the leader of the right wing party, promised to dump 100,000 government jobs.

            Shockingly, anybody that was remotely connected to a government job, {union or non union} didn’t vote for the dude.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            When there are so many of those people that they can sway the election results from the people that actually have to pay for those jobs, there’s a bit of a problem. In Ontario, 1 in 5 people work in the public sector.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Ah the tiresome arguments of a petty right-winger desperate for the moral victory. If the situation is 1 in 5 work for the government that’s pretty average for the modern western state. I wish people wouldn’t be shocked because in every western country the national government is the biggest employer. The bureaucracies that are needed to maintain the social welfare and run a modern country is massive and will always consume the most employment.

            Never mind that your private business is still being supported by the public at large. You use the roads I pay for, you use the police & fire, the utilities in most Western countries as well. I mean it isn’t as if the taxes are exceedingly high or undervalued in any western country. The US has the lowest taxes in the western world and we actually receive a decent return on it. The slow whining sound I hear about them is more or less an extension of ignorance and willful stupidity.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Because something is the status quo, doesn’t mean it is inherently good. Just because the government has gradually boated to a point where over 40% of our income is taken to support it, doesn’t mean it’s all necessary. Especially in our case where an alarmingly large part of tax revenue is spent on servicing billions debt created directly by high proifle corruption and waste. Or as you would call it “stimulus”.

            Of course, government can do no wrong, even when they pander specifically to the interests of public unions and city exclusive pet projects at the expense, not benefit of the majority.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      No tax refund for you? After all, we wouldn’t want to have to send you to a communist gulag we kept you out of before the wall fell.

      Now it sounds kind of silly doesn’t it?

      The only reason he gets the benefits of the union is because he has to take them to have the job he has at Ford. What right did the union really have (fundamental right, not legal one) to lock up all the tool and die jobs at Ford so that no one could compete to be an employee except their members?

      If you union guys think the union is so great, why hide behind a law that makes Ford only hire and pay members. Let them hire on the free market and let the new employees decide to negotiate their own deal or join themselves?

      • 0 avatar
        challenger2012

        How about if you don’t want to work in a union shop, go some place else?

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Lol, so you advocate a free job market EXCEPT for union shops? You have unwittingly shown light upon the hypocrisy of the closed shop laws. Well done.

          • 0 avatar
            challenger2012

            LC You are putting words in my mouth. My stance is if the work place is union and you don’t want to work in a union shop, go some place else. The same holds true for a non union establishment. If the majority do not want a union, then there is no union and 100% are non union workers. If the majority wants a union, then eveyone is 100% union. Seems logical to me. Where am I wrong?

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I didn’t put words in your mouth, I just pointed out the equivalent position.

            The union was presumably necessary because management had too much power. The union is supposedly an equalizer to make things more fair. Unionization is about fairness supposedly.

            Let’s ignore the lack of fairness towards management that doesn’t actually have to do anything unethical at all to lose his right to employee who he wants.

            Let’s address the folks who do not want union representation. Let’s say you live in a town where the biggest employer is a union auto plant, but you don’t want to join the union. So go work at Wal Mart?

            In a closed shop state, you must join the union to get the job, and then wait for a chance to vote out the union. Of course, the union is trying to ensure not that the best workers are hired, but that the most union loyal workers are hired. Once the union wins a single vote, the non union workers in the community are the ones who now are the victims of a power imbalance.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Ok, LC, so the new guy in order to get hired by Ford offers to work at 90% of an Union job. The next guy at 80%, the next one at 70%. See how quickly these arguments fall apart? No, of course you don’t because you don’t understand the meaning of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING because you’re an idiot. I’ve been patient but at some point the patience wears out reading the stupidity, you mind as well be arguing some school yard bully technique.

        The corporation doesn’t want you to collectively bargain because they have all the money and all the tools. We have a surplus of labor in society and have had such since the end of the 19th century. Without a form of collective bargaining people become the lowest common denominator in these situations. So stop being a dim-wit and actually read some of the crap you spew out before you hit the ‘submit comment’ button. You’ll appreciate not looking like a fool sometimes.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Lol, you said nothing to make my argument fall apart. So what if people are willing to work for less than the union demands? So what if the workers all decide they won’t work for the offered wages? So? What?

          You act like you know what will happen when your actual experience is about nil. You ignore any bit of history that doesn’t fit your narrative.

          And take it easy on the bile man.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            So what? Then wages depress. This is all standard history, look at the 19th and early 20th century, look at today where wages have begun to be depressed again. Following that the non-standard pay scale tends to create uneven wages between workers who are hired in slack and lean years. So it creates a complicated dynamic of doing the same job for more or less than others.

            I know you’ll keep the blinders but you have to realize out there in the real world if you talked to an economist they would laugh in your face.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Yes, obviously, if people are willing to work for less than the wage paid for the job would be less. That’s academic.

            IWhat I don’t know is how many times I have to ask, “So what”, before you start adding value judgements where people who stick with the reality of economics will stop nodding their heads?

            So what?

            Is that it? Cost of labor is reduced for that good involved. Well, so what? I’m happy. Maybe my next car will be from the company who now can make them cheaper. I can list the benefits of this situation for pages and pages and you just say wages are depressed like it violates the 11th commandment and add snarky ad hominem? Really?

            Okay, at least the ad hominem was less hateful, but still…

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            “…look at the 19th and early 20th century, look at today where wages have begun to be depressed again.”

            Go over to gapminder(dot)org and look at late 19th/early 20th Centuries. Run Gapminder World with just the US. The period 1880 to 1910 saw amazing – stunning, really – improvement in the average person’s life.

    • 0 avatar
      scottcom36

      Lemire doesn’t object to paying dues to the union for the purpose of protecting his job and benefits. He objects to paying dues that are used to support a political party.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @ scottcom36 Okay, fair argument. So why doesn’t he gather up some like minded people, and take the issue on with the National Union.

        If a majority of the membership want a bigger say in where their dues go, their is steps that can be taken.

    • 0 avatar
      mechaman

      You’d be surprised how much nerve such people have. You’d also be surprised how effective not talking to someone or eating lunch with them can be. That being said, I’ve never seen anyone physically retaliate against a strike breaker. Even so, there is a term for people who want to get the use of something without the paying for it, in time or effort. If you decide to absent yourself from a group, by any means, you no longer, in practical terms, want to take part in whatever comes along with being part of that group … I am thinking of a religious order that expells members who break publicly sworn to conduct protocols. Harsh? Maybe. But the person DOES swear in public to conduct themselves in a certain way. Now, after they are expelled, they can still attend their church meetings, but they are not allowed full access to activities that members in good standing are. Sounds logical to me: no pay to union, no access to union benefits. Like grievances.

  • avatar
    challenger2012

    While he is at is, please file a law suit for me to get my money back for the Republicans wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based upon lies and deceptions. And another law suit for all the money given freely to the Wall Street Crowd. I lost my job in 2009 due to the crooks on Wall Street. Is anyone with me? Anyone else want a refund for money taken against their will. What about paying for troop in other counties like Japan etc?

    • 0 avatar
      jpolicke

      Suggest you contact your Democratic representatives who voted to authorize those military actions based upon the same intelligence and assumptions. While you’re talking to them ask about what their CRA did for the mortgage industry.

      • 0 avatar
        challenger2012

        If I lie to you, and you make a decision based upon my lies, can I say it is your fault, for you made the choice? Why? Because I lied to you to make the choise in the first place. Same here, the Republicans pushed lies to influence votes for a war. Am I lying on this point? Were lies presented as facts? Remember the WMD’s, Yellow Cake, etc. that somehow were never found. Does this ring a bell?

        Oh by the way, whether or not the CRA created bad loans that has nothing to do with the banks repackaging the loans and then reselling them, knowing full well the loans were bad. Any comment on that of is that part of the CRA as well? I bet not.

        • 0 avatar
          brainy435

          Liberals have been lying about being lied to for over a decade now. But the liberal shills will not be deterred by logic or facts.

          http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            They cannot take responsibility for their own actions. It is a life philosophy. Childhood forever.

          • 0 avatar
            challenger2012

            Hey Brainy. Maybe you should show me those MWD’s I was promised were in Iraq. I bet I and at least 100,000,000 Americans would like to see them as well. Any comment on that?
            I think it is awesome to blame the GOP/Bush lies on the Libs. Priceless. And you think you are brainy. That is priceless as well.

          • 0 avatar
            econobiker

            Hey, WMD were an easier sell for Bush Jr. than “The Saudi’s are losing billions by getting price undercut by Sadam’s black market oil for food/medicine dumping so we’ll help them out by running Sadam down until he’s in a hole under a garden unable to dump any more oil to fund new or rebuilt palaces and the second version of Uday’s stolen car collection.”

            I also personally believe that Marc Rich (may he R.I.H: Rest in Hell), or traders trained by him, had huge influence in the under pricing and distribution of the Iraqi black market oil. And who were Riche’s friends?- the Clintons et al, and maybe Eric “I helped with the pardon.” Holder.

          • 0 avatar
            brainy435

            lol, challenger mocks me, but in his very next post has to apologize because I was right. He probably doesn’t even realize it.

            Of course, back when I was part of the attacks on Iraq under Clinton just about every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq was reconstituting their WMDs. Sometimes intel, especially in secretive despotic regimes, turns out to not be true. Did Obama lie to everyone when he went after James Foley unsuccessfully? Of course not. Sadly, liberals can’t back out of the lie they’ve told for over a decade.

        • 0 avatar
          Roader

          Big fat liars:

          “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
          President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

          “Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
          Sec. of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

          “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
          Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

          • 0 avatar
            challenger2012

            Sir You are correct. I was not aware of these statements. I did check them out. So what this means is the the Dems/Clinton lied and the Reps/Bush swore to it with the result that thousands of Americans died based upon bulls*it lies from both political parties. So here is a question. If the GOP questions everything from the Dems, why didn’t they question the Iraq wheapons claims? The GOP has no problem questioning the Dems & Obama on everything else. Why no questions on Iraq? The GOP still led us into Iraq based upon lies whether Dem or GOP based. The GOP/Bush were in charge. It is their responsibility to back up their claims, not the Dems job.

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            A cynic would say that the Clinton administration was lobbying for war against Iraq to distract from the Monica scandal. A cynic would say that Bush invaded Iraq because ten years earlier Saddam hatched a plot to kill Bush’s daddy.

            Presidents lie, especially to distract from domestic woes. Libya, Syria, and now Iraq (again) are just the latest examples.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          challenger2012, the more likely explanation is that Republicans, Democrats, and intelligence agencies were simply wrong about Iraq’s WMD programs. I doubt they all worked together to intentionally deceive us. Part of the reason intelligence reports about Iraqi WMD programs were credible is because Saddam Hussein not only had chemical weapons in the past, but he had used them against the Kurds.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
          In addition, for a country with nothing to hide, Iraq was working pretty hard to block UN inspectors.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        You mean the republican majorities in both house and senate making the democratic votes inconsequential? Never mind that nobody outside of the right-wing noise machine is still pushing that high-requirement lending to minorities is what caused the failings of the mortgage industry. They had a 3% foreclosure rate in 2008. Meanwhile middle-class White America was foreclosing at almost six times that rate at the height of the crash. Never mind that the mortgage bubble was fueled by completely non-existent oversight and a monetarist agenda of ignoring infrastructure spending in favor of pumping credit into the market endlessly.

        So care to walk back your own BS or shall I just go ahead and keep it here on your plate so you can eat it later?

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    The real problem here is the excessive mingling of employment with partisan politics. This guy is one example; Hobby Lobby’s successful suit against the AHCA is another.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    …National Right to Work Foundation…

    More like the National Race To The Bottom China Will Have It Better Than Us If We Have Our Way But At Least You’ll Have A Job Foundation…

  • avatar
    Waterview

    I think some of the best and brightest are twisting the nature of Mr. Lemire’s lawsuit into a union or non-union argument when, in fact, it simply seems to involve the process through which he is reimbursed for political expenditures by the union with which he disagrees.

    Perhaps next year he will decide to opt out of paying dues altogether, but let’s wait for that domino to fall before we start throwing slurs, shall we?

  • avatar
    Commando

    30 or more years ago Mr Lemire would have been politely accompanied into The Hall to discuss the situation. No Lawyers.
    Shame. Now only lawsuits, feet dragging, lawyers getting rich, government agencies getting involved, and all of it making the news. Are things really better now?

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      If we get the thugs out of our businesses, then absolutely yes.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Read this book before you keep ranting like a fool. It’s getting tiresome here to listen to all these right-wing meme arguments about the actual role of the mob in unions. I know Jacobs, a nice guy, he’s a bit hung up on his own vision of mobsters but his book is a perfectly good example of understanding the relationship they had with organized labor.

        Mobsters, Unions, and Feds
        The Mafia and the American Labor Movement
        James B. Jacobs

  • avatar
    mikey

    No CJ, it won’t put the thugs out of our businesses. If nothing else the dissension generated will just put fuel on the fire.

    I don’t believe that there should be any grey area. You have a union shop, or you don’t.

    I’d like to hear the views from the first line supervisors on the shop floor.

  • avatar
    mechaman

    Had a good laugh at the discussions, recalling an incident at my employ years ago: we were on strike (and the reasons would surprise you, but I won’t digress) and one of the members, pressured by his wife, crossed the picket line. The strike ended about a week later, and he got what the rest of us did .. and no, no one bothered him about what he did. However, he cursed the union rep out, blaming him for the strike, just after he crossed the line. A week after work restarted, he had a dispute with a supervisor, and went to the same union rep to grieve..and interestingly, the first thing out of his mouth was, “I’ll bet you ain’t gonna do nothin’ for me.” The union rep told him, “You are still part of the union. And I am going to have your back. Now what you gotta do is go home and think about what YOU did, in your idle moments.” Oh, and as a side point, it’s common to hear people talk about ‘union bosses’, because it sounds so much like ‘mob bosses’, but no one calls CEO’s and such ‘Business Bosses’, when they do the same thing that Union leaders do…

  • avatar
    mikey

    I got a true story. Fall of 96, I’m on picket duty, mid morning, nice sunny Oct day. There was maybe 20 of us, all middle aged guys, and a few women, some had just dropped their kids off at school.

    A big white 15 passenger van pulls up. All younger men, casual dress. Were thinking, some $hit is going to happen. A fair size lad ,late 20’s good shape guy, gets out of the passenger side front door, and approached us. Takes out a pack of smokes, offers them around. The rest of his crew is still in the van with the engine running.

    So after a little small talk, weather, sports etc, the dude says “are you guys going to let us into the plant”? We all kinda looked at each other. Our answer “no”.

    The guy wished us a good day. He opens the van door, and we can hear him plain as day, “No way guys, I had a good talk with them strikers and they refused us entry”

    The Van pulled away, and the driver tapped his horn. We can see them all high fiveing each other.

    I guess we just gave the office guys a day off. They were probably heading for the golf course.

    I guess one could interpret that as a confrontation with the Union Thugs.

    • 0 avatar
      mechaman

      Yeah, I remember when the office people were told that they’d need to come in and run some machines to get out some urgent orders. That lasted less than ONE shift.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • bullnuke: In 1969 (the year Uncle Sam forced me to seek out the US Navy to escape that Crazy Asian War ™),...
  • ttacgreg: Interesting math there. Assuming said Silverado is getting 20 mpg, that means that 18 cents will take my...
  • ttacgreg: More like a narrative to mislead and anger people. A whole lot of politics is just a battle of narratives.
  • MitchConner: Owned a couple of Fords with the 2.0. Good engine. Decent power. Not buzzy like their smaller ones....
  • ttacgreg: Yeah you got to come for inflation. I Remember a number of different prices for different items in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber