Labor Lockout Lingers At Honeywell Nuclear Plant 252
Hugh Pickens writes "Federal News Radio reports that in Metropolis, Illinois, the nation's only site for refining uranium for eventual use in nuclear power plants, some 230 union workers locked out by the company since last June take turns picketing and warning of possible toxic releases into the community while they're not at their jobs. Even in better times, the plant has been a source of concern. In September 2003, toxic hydrogen fluoride was released in an accident. Three months later, seepage of mildly radioactive gas sent four people to the hospital and prompted the evacuation of nearby residents. Now a recent safety inspection by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that temporary workers brought in by Honeywell weren't properly trained and were cheating on tests, and that Honeywell had neglected to report liquids that were released into the air. Metropolis' troubles began last spring when efforts to negotiate a new contract broke down at the Honeywell plant. Honeywell opted not to let the union employees work without a contract, citing the lack of bargaining progress and what it called the union's refusal to agree to provide 24 hours of notice before any strike."
Coverage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?
Re:Coverage? (Score:5, Informative)
If you want good reporting on labor from anything but a business perspective (ie how will this effect share value), you have to look at the media of the labor movement itself, not the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media. On the Metropolis Honeywell workers in particular, I suggest these two [archive.org] episodes [archive.org] of Labor Express radio. Another good source for labor news is the Industrial Worker [iww.org], the paper of the IWW.
Re:Coverage? (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like a job for... SUPERMAN!
Re:Coverage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not disregard, just take in multiple sources and evaluate the truth for yourself.
Sure, unions have issues with corruption (just like every organization of humans ever), but sometimes--perhaps this case is an example--sometimes they actually do fight injustice.
Re:Coverage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
you have to look at the media of the labor movement itself, not the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media
Nope, he's saying to believe his link over any other source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a cop once told me, there are always two stories and THEN the true story.
Re:Coverage? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about quoting the whole sentence instead of selectively picking the part that makes your point?
If you want good reporting on labor from anything but a business perspective (ie how will this effect share value), you have to look at the media of the labor movement itself, not the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His mind is already made up; he's read the corporate propaganda and can't be bothered to look at the other side.
It's worth checking both sides info (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps it might be worth you checking both sides' information before coming a conclusion as well? Though I am afraid your line "No thanks - I've had enough of union rhetoric for one life time" suggests you'll only "disregard one sides propaganda in favour of the other sides propaganda".
Sounds like you're both equally at fault here.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't want to read either side's propaganda. They both say the other side is lying, so you end up with a heaping pile of bullshit and no way to figure out what's true and what's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Take for example the recent situation where the Association of Flight Attendants union filed "interference" claims against Delta when the workforce voted against AFA unionisation - the AFA press release and literature was quite damning, more than 50 pages of accusations against Delta. Deltas response was equally self centered.
Looking deeper into it and you will find plenty of Delta workers
Re: (Score:3)
Unions have nothing to do with the above case - its already completely and utterly covered under existing employment law. Its a clear cut case of sexual harassment and any dismissal would have been an easy case of unfair dismissal for a tribunal or court to hear - the fact that there is no union doesn't alter the
Take a guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?
Hmmm. Union workers are locked out of their jobs by their employer. I wonder why that didn't make the news, when any case of a union considering a vote on talking about thinking about announcing the possibility of maybe polling to take a vote on a half-day strike makes the news immediately?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. because they would make all their cars in China.
Re:Take a guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
many people outside of unions do work 12 hour days, 6 days a week. they just do it in other countries. preventing off shoring is equivalent to saying we want to make the ignorant in the labor force still employable so everyone will pay a tax (in higher prices) to fund their life style even though they can't contribute nearly as much anymore. I'm not against what unions have done, but why does any of it need to be codified into law? Well educated and skilled workers don't have the problems you imagine be
Re: (Score:2)
There is no labour contract in force, so those jobs are not the union workers any longer.
It's so much cheaper to hire Abullah and Al Kaida to work for half of what the unions wanted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's safe to assume that you are against unions in general and see no benefit in collective bargaining?
Anyway it appears you are placing blame completely on the workers who perform the work, and none on the company that actually controls the work, the pay, the safety of the operations, and the working conditions. How dare the employees ask for better working conditions or negotiate a contract! They should be happy with what they get..
Re:Take a guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places if a union gets in at your work place you have to join or quit - you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places a union can call a unionization vote year after year after year until they get in.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places unionization can stagnate a workforce rather than improve it - seniority based on nothing more than time spent in the job, rather than merit based seniority? What rubbish.
I dislike the fact that the unionized workforce can withdraw their labour at any time, by following certain rules, while the employer has no equal ability - they have to wait until the contract is no longer in force before they have the right to lock out the workforce, while the union can call strike action whenever it likes.
I have seen far far too many examples of unions being the worst of two choices for all involved, I have seen far far too many examples of unions seeking to simply hurt the employer because the employer wouldn't give in to their demands lock stock and barrel.
I'm not an employer, I'm a 31 year old software developer. I have no stake in unions other than my opinion, but what I have seen of modern unions I have, largely, disliked to the extreme.
Maybe I've been improperly influenced by my exposure to union actions (largely the aviation industries woes over the past few years, as aviation is a personal interest of mine - British Airways issues with Unite are particularly disgusting imho), but then I see the same issues outside of my particular circle of interest, so I don't think its that.
And no, I'm not saying its all the workers fault, but their union certainly did fail to come to an agreement, so its not all the employers fault either.
Re:Take a guess... (Score:5, Informative)
That's a bit misleading.
I see benefit in collective bargaining, but I am against unions as they have made themselves today.
Why not support unions that are more democratic than the traditional unions? The UE and the IWW are member run and as democratic as possible.
you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.
In most of the US you don't have to join a union to work in a union shop. Now, you have to pay the same costs as dues to support the infrastructure (stewards, negotiators, etc) that benefits you, but you don't have to actually join the union.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places a union can call a unionization vote year after year after year until they get in.
Sounds like democracy to me. Hell, why not have automatic elections every year for ALL workplaces where workers can choose which, if any, union they wish to join?
the union can call strike action whenever it likes.
Almost every union contract has a no-strike clause. Strikes tend to happen before a contract (strike for recognition), or after a contract expires.
Re: (Score:2)
These union guys are like mafia. In my work place I have to pay them (it is automatically taken from my paycheck). I don't want them to represent me but I don't have a choice.
The first thing these guys did when they took over was to remove all work incentives like merit raises etc. and so far have only defended people who should be kicked out for not working. Once there was a potential strike situation and they started telling me that I could not come to work even I don't have anything to do with them. They
Re: (Score:3)
I was moderating this topic, but I'm going to have to burn those mod points to point out just how fucking stupid of an equivocation the phrase "
In most of the US you don't have to join a union to work in a union shop. Now, you have to pay the same costs as dues to support the infrastructure (stewards, negotiators, etc) that benefits you, but you don't have to actually join the union." is. That is seriously the dumbest fucking sentence above an 8th grade reading level I think I've seen someone write.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it goes too far to conflate being covered by the collective agreement and "joining", although I'd agree that paying full dues to the union is tantamount to joining.
If the collective bargaining agreement says, "these are the rules for promotion", then obviously that's binding for all employees in a certain position whether they're union or not. The whole *point* of such rules is to protect union members from management favoritism (e.g. retaliating against a good worker for joining the union by passing
Re:Take a guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of states, including the one I live in, has laws in place that establishes that all shops shall be "open" shops. This means that membership in a union can never be a requirement for a job.
The workers are allowed to vote no each and every time. Most of these yearly votes are due to a few disgruntled workers trying to "stick it to the man" and inviting union organizers to meet with the rest of the work force. The work force can still vote no.
Like it or not this protects more innocent workers than bad. If the employee was not performing his duties well enough then he should have been fired a long time ago. However, a senior employee is more expensive than a new hire so this rule is to prevent economic incentive from being the sole reason for ending an employee's career at a plant.
Not entirely true. Labor has to hold up their end of the collective bargain. An employer can lock out the workforce if there is enough evidence that labor isn't honoring the contract. But you are right, there are a few restrictive contracts that USED to exist that gave workers too much power. Economic realities have forced both sides of the agreement to make compromises. A local union used to have a rule against training for multiple job titles, which meant that if a person didn't show up for work the rest of the manufacturing shift couldn't fill in for the missing worker. That rule hasn't existed in their contract for at least a decade.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have state laws that are ironically named "Right to Work" laws. These laws give the employer the right to fire any employee for any reason with the exception of reasons that unlawfully discriminate against the worker. To make matters worse, the employers in my state are not required to disclose the reason for the termination. This provides legal cover.
So have I, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. This hurts the union workers more than the company. The company will simply move its plant somewhere else. The union's freedom to determine their working conditions isn't guaranteed to be risk free. This in theory should keep them honest. If the employer can't pull up stakes and take their business elsewhere what incentive is there that keeps the unions "honest"?
Companies risk paying too much for labor and Labor risk asking too much from companies. The point of collective bargaining is to establish a balance between the two. There needs to be a risk associated with giving too much to one side in order to incentivize the negotiations. Otherwise why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
Illinois not being one of them. The are most definitely a "you're joining the union bub" state.
Re: (Score:2)
"You cannot have a job without a labour contract (whether an individual one or a collective one)"
I've heard that if you lived in some European countries that might be true. But I live in the U.S. And most workers here are employed without contracts. I've got an employee handbook. But on the first page it says "Nothing in this handbook should be interpreted to grant an employee a right to employment or continuance of any working conditions, etc. ... (Employer) reservers the right to repeal, modify, a
Tonight's News Was Brought to You By .... (Score:2)
I've said it before. The idea that the news media has a liberal bias is bullshit. News media has a corporate (and therefore conservative) bias. The bias is often (as in this case) not demonstrated by spin they put on a story, but by the lack of coverage on important issues that the media's sponsors don't want you to hear about.
Re: (Score:3)
Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?
Doesn't take a conspiracy to notice that its "only" 200 temporarily locked out, in an era of multi-thousand permanent downsizings everywhere else.
In 2006, two hundred out of work may have made the news. In 2010, two hundred out of work is called the local unemployment line "dept of workforce development" or whatever they're called.
There was a lot of gallows humor locally when the local unemployment office put itself in the parking lot of the local tech/trade school. "theres a reason they're planning on ne
Re:Coverage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except maybe the tiny fact that these 230 workers are being locked out of a nuclear plant with a less than stellar safety record. Who's monitoring the radioactive materials during this lockout?
Funny the government can prevent a union from striking if the industry is considered too important to our nation's infrastructure (eg. Railroads, Air Traffic Controllers), but this same government won't get involved in a labor dispute that may put a community at risk like at a nuclear plant. Funny how government intervention seems to favor the employer and not the employees.
Is that contraversial enough for you?
Re:Coverage? (Score:5, Informative)
Except maybe the tiny fact that these 230 workers are being locked out of a nuclear plant with a less than stellar safety record. Who's monitoring the radioactive materials during this lockout?
You fell for the advertising. Sorry. Don't feel bad, a lot of people are paid a lot of money to trick people like you.
This plant just converts semi-refined ore into refined fuel. Before its cooked in the reactor, reactor fuel is about as radioactive and harmful as granite. The Co-60 and Sr-90 and other nasties come from fission, not a fuel for fission. There is no serious radioactive danger from the plant, at least compared to other substances in the plant, such as HF.
The biggest problem they have is containment of hydrofluoric acid. Apparently they have a quite an astounding safety violation history. F-ing bucket chemists. However, that stuff doesn't just leap out of the carboy like a caged animal and burrow into your groundwater, it requires a tech at the lab bench to screw up. Whom by definition is not there during a lockout.
We're not talking about locking the workers out of three mile island during the meltdown. Some of the (paid) clowns in the media trying to rile things up, they might be talking about that, or as close as they can get without libel / slander suits, but that does not by any means make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
No I didn't fall for the advertising. The hazards that are present during operations do not completely go away when operations stop. I assume that the chemicals are being stored somewhere on premise. Who's monitoring it?
The word radiation doesn't scare me. If the safety regulations are to be believed then I should be glowing in the dark by now. However in the case of the Honywell plant, how are the chemicals being stored and what about the radioactive fuel that is no longer inert yet not delivered? Meltdow
Re: (Score:2)
No I didn't fall for the advertising. The hazards that are present during operations do not completely go away when operations stop. I assume that the chemicals are being stored somewhere on premise. Who's monitoring it?
In theory they could have just locked the door behind themselves and ran for it, although that seems unlikely.
Alternatively, in theory, the HF is a liquid acid you simply store it in teflon lined carboys / barrels on a shelf. Not challenging, done all the time. Stack the barrels over a bed of decon material, which is probably how they're usually stored, in case they leak. The hexaflouride can be reduced to U metal using sodium, resulting in a pile of sodium fluoride (as in your toothpaste) and U metal.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I'd agree except for this:
Emphasis
Re: (Score:2)
Whom by definition is not there during a lockout.
Read the summary. Temp workers were brought in. Incompetent temp workers, who haven't been working there long and don't have the institutional knowledge of how to run things. Leading to exactly the problem described.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the summary. Temp workers were brought in. Incompetent temp workers, who haven't been working there long and don't have the institutional knowledge of how to run things. Leading to exactly the problem described.
No habla eenglays.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
I'm quite annoyed by the people who are here pretending to care about the environment and safety of the public. Most people yelling about safety in these comments are just here because it contains the words nuclear and/or radiation. If they really care, they should be asking how it compares to other situations that happened near us, such as: the Gulf Oil leak, the Massey coal mine collapse, the Natural Gas power plant explosion in CT, the Natural Gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno CA, any non-
mr burns and homer simpson (Score:2)
mr burns and homer simpson
Re: (Score:2)
Not all railroad strike occur on a corridor. We had a labor dispute at a railroad company that only serves to deliver railcars from the local waterfront to the mainline being operated by CSX. The national railroad infrastructure was never being threaten, but the federal government stepped in and prevented the workers from striking.
Oh yea we have these vehicles that run on interstates that compete with railroads. We call them trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
After then complete their IT training / become a video game developer in 24 hours certificate, as per the radio commercials promising $75/yr, the kids can walk across the parking lot to the unemployment office
You can't collect unemployment insurance payments unless you have worked for at least a year.
Re: (Score:2)
After then complete their IT training / become a video game developer in 24 hours certificate, as per the radio commercials promising $75/yr, the kids can walk across the parking lot to the unemployment office
You can't collect unemployment insurance payments unless you have worked for at least a year.
"gallows humor" does not achieve its fame because of its accuracy. Its still funny, even if not true.
I am told that for decades the advice at the unemployment office was "go to the tech school and get a new career", hence the move to their parking lot, but now that ALL fields are imploding, I'm not sure that an unemployed and experienced carpenter will necessarily be better off as an unemployed and inexperienced welder. Although, I suppose its something to do, rather than watch Oprah all day.
Re: (Score:2)
Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?
My B.S. detector is going off.
Am I the only one taking note of "Federal News Radio" as being pretty much unheard of? The name sounds like a network, yet it is apparently a single station, WFED a directional AM station in Washington D.C.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/ [federalnewsradio.com] It's strange that the website shows 1500 AM, but doesn't even mention the call letters. I'm surprised to see so many stories listed on the website, and puzzled that the large buttons near the top of the page don't link anywhere.
The story ma
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like "Federal News Radio" has nothing special to do with this story, they're just an AM News Talk station carrying A.P. (Associated Press) stories. Looks like I got suspicious over nothing.
It would be nice if more summaries had links that went back as close as possible to the original source.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPERMANS_HOMETOWN_LABOR_STRIFE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-12-20-16-54-53 [ap.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm one of the locked out workers. We have been reaching out to the national media outlets since June. If it weren't for sites like the HuffPost, and this one, we would just be forgotten about.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of the locked out workers. We have been reaching out to the national media outlets since June. If it weren't for sites like the HuffPost, and this one, we would just be forgotten about.
I'm sorry dude, best of luck.
So, in the opinion of a guy whom works there, that being you, is the safety record of the plant as bad as I've heard, or is it the usual mix of political stuff mixed with scary words to improve ratings? Also everyone with an industrial background knows theres safety problems because of management, and theres safety problems because of workers, and theres safety problems because of bad luck/inherent issues of the job (is there any place that works with HF that is not "scary"?),
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of the locked out workers. We have been reaching out to the national media outlets since June. If it weren't for sites like the HuffPost, and this one, we would just be forgotten about.
Sounds like you're being ENRON'd.
Reminds me something... (Score:5, Funny)
Labor Problems... IN METROPOLIS?? (Score:2)
Guys, wait... WAIT! the chick's a ROBOT! Hold On!! Didja hear me?? THE CHICK'S A ROBOT!!!
My Slim Annecdotal Evidence Confirms... (Score:4, Informative)
Honeywell didn't train the guys who came to my business to repair the alarm system (they later sold their alarm business).
People showed up with no testing equipment to check for open lines, bad connections, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Honeywell dares to employ untrained/unqualified people in a nuclear power plant they should be prosecuted. And sued. Into oblivion.
I would suggest that every company running potentially dangerous factories should be forced to place their ceo's offices and shareholder meetings directly downwind from said facility.
Where is the FBI when you need them?
Re: (Score:2)
Honeywell's on my shit list right now; they shut down the Springfield plant and moved it to Mexico where they could pay slave wages, leaving some friends of mine out of work.
They're your typical, amoral evil corporation.
Re: (Score:3)
What's that got to do with anything?
Unions in nuclear power industry is a bad combo (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like if the union workers were to strike, the potential for a lot of damage would be high.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually the worst of both worlds.
When (not if) left unchecked, greedy business owners will generally do shit that endangers the people.
When (not if) left unchecked, lazy unions will lower the drive for greatness while costing a shitload of money.
When (not if) left unchecked, government will pretty much screw up anything it touches.
In short, everybody is wrong and there's nothing we can do about it (aside from sitting back, cracking open a cold one, and watching the shit hit the fan). Anyone who tries
Re: (Score:2)
You hit the nail on the head, the way to keep people honest is to pit man against man and make sure that there is enough impartiality in the system for this adversarial system of checks and balances to be effective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Union workplaces are, statistically speaking, much safer than non-union workplaces in the same and related industries. When you have a collective bargaining agreement, job security, and an explicit grievance procedure, you aren't afraid to report and fix safety problems. When you're non-union, you have no representation, are underpaid, and can loose your job at any time, so you won't stick your neck out for safety. I would most certainly prefer that nuclear workers (or any power-plant workers for that ma
Re: (Score:2)
Another good argument is on a large scale statistical basis, the more of a monopoly a company is, the lower the quality of management. It seems intuitively obvious, folks whom can compete and win, will take leadership roles in competitive industries where their skills will be rewarded, those whom compete and lose will need to find a place where they can't lose because there is no competition. So there's a continuous sweeping of the bottom of the leadership pool into monopolies, government, hyper-regulated
Re: (Score:2)
Unions began to protect labor from aggressive management, but most unions I've run across have long ago abandoned that goal in f
Re:Unions in nuclear power industry is a bad combo (Score:5, Informative)
[Citation Needed]
OK Here's some data:
Herbert Abrams’ Short history of occupational health, published in the Journal
of Public Health Policy, says: “It is important to recognize that throughout the often
tragic history of worker health and disease, the worker played a primary role as the basis
of every significant improvement in legislation, factory inspection, compensation,
correction, and prevention.”
Abrams concludes: “Labour unrest, protests, strikes, lawsuits, and catastrophes were vital
catalysts in obtaining action. Organized labour has been the essential factor central to
most workplace health and safety improvements, from the industrial revolution to the
present.”
The Canadian Labour Congress cites a 1993 study done for the Canadian Ministries of
Labour which concludes that union-supported health and safety committees have a
significant "impact in reducing injury rates".
Later studies for the Ontario Workplace Health and Safety Agency “found that 78-79 per
cent of unionized workplaces reported high compliance with health and safety legislation
while only 54-61 per cent of non-unionized workplaces reported such compliance.”
But this isn’t a Canadian phenomenon. US academic Adam Seth Litwin, then with the London School of Economics,
concluded in a review last year of health and safety in UK workplaces that unions
dramatically improve safety in even the most hazardous workplaces.
A non-union office worker was, by Litwin’s calculations, 13 times more likely to suffer
an injury than was a closed-shop union worker on an industrial assembly line.
Even in the US, with a relatively low unionization level of 13 per cent, the effect can be
seen. A 1991 study, using US data, concluded that unions dramatically increased
enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in the manufacturing sector.
Unionized firms had a higher probability of having a health and safety inspection, and
their inspections tended to be more probing, as employees exercised their “walkaround
rights” — the right to accompany a government inspector during a workplace tour.
A 1998 paper provides more evidence of the union safety effect. Researchers who
surveyed over 400 industrial hygienists and safety engineers in New Jersey concluded
“effective strategies for involving workers appear to be conditional on a number of
variables, most importantly on worker activism and the effective use of formal
negotiations.”
The researchers, writing in the Journal of Public Health Policy, add: “Findings are
consistent with studies from both the US and abroad which emphasize the role of unions
in shaping opportunities for effective worker participation."
Re: (Score:3)
and an attitude that they know more or better than the owners of the company
Any competent worker has this attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
and an attitude that they know more or better than the owners of the company
Any competent worker has this attitude.
By definition, the industry worker has at least some industry experience, and the owners, mostly by being stockholders, probably in a mutual fund and don't even know they own that stock, statistically would have very little to zero experience in that industry.
I own approximately one ten-millionth of the local electric power company (which is quite a stack of money), yet have never worked in the electricity generation industry (although friends of mine have worked there and I find that industry to be interes
Re: (Score:2)
Any incompetent worker has this attitude.
FIFY.
A competent worker knows his limitations. He/She knows that there is information that he/she doesn't have about the company's finances and general operation that management DOES have.
This information and knowledge (along with education and/or training on what to do with it.) is why management occasionally makes decision that don't make sense to the average worker.
Not to say that you can't have bad management, or bad decisions. Those happen every day. But to think that a competent worker will automat
Re: (Score:2)
He/She knows that there is information that he/she doesn't have about the company's finances and general operation that management DOES have.
typo, you mean MIGHT have, which might even be correct information, and might even be considered when making decisions, sometimes.
Also don't forget priorities, not just raw knowledge. Triggering your golden parachute might be a perfectly great idea for an exec, but not for anyone or anything else involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Union workers are, in general, less productive, less attentive, and less trust worthy than non union labor. Deliberate destruction of equipment, shoddy workmanship, and an attitude that they know more or better than the owners of the company, or anyone else for that matter.
I believe you're confusing cause and effect.
The cause is shoddy poor management. The effect is lower productivity, lower attention (whatever that is), lack of trust, deliberate sabotage, shoddy work, and, yes, union organization / formation. Writing a union charter does not magically create bad feelings on both sides. Those bad feelings were there for very good reasons.
Aside from government intervention situations, both union and non-union plants are successful, and that is proof there is little differen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, we really need that slavery thing back in order to be able to run things profitably.
If the unions did what they were intended to do, instead of make the process as expensive and cumbersome as possible, I might agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea we shouldn't be wasting money on livable wages and a safe work environment. Perish the thought that we had some process in place to verify that workplace rules were being followed. The process benefits the company just as much as the union. The process is what makes sure that both sides are doing what they agreed to do.
You don't actually believe that either side can be trusted?
Re: (Score:3)
If the unions did what they were intended to do, instead of make the process as expensive and cumbersome as possible
Unions are nothing more than workers banding together to bargain collectively. That's all any union I ever heard of does. It is not in the worker's best interest to make the process expensive OR cumbersome.
You're watching too much Fox. Unions are good for workers, bad for management. In the words of the CEO of a (then) non-union airline, "any company that gets a union deserves one." Treat your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my personal experience...
Fair enough, but even personal experience has its limitations.
The city I grew up in had a lot of bad cops. Cops that were too enthusiastic about using their nightsticks. Cops who were on the take. Cops who planted evidence. That means that if I'm ever on a jury evaluating a defense's claim that evidence was planted, I'd consider that to be a real possibility. But I won't take it as given based on the sweeping generalization that *all* cops routinely plant evidence. I'll look at all the supporting evidenc
Re: (Score:3)
The union can argue that the job and it's pay and benefits exists because of the collective bargaining that they performed. I'm always suspicious of people who work at a union plant, but choose to not participate in the union. They obviously benefit from the collective bargaining, but they don't want to give up any of their wage toward the cause.
I'm not saying that the union bosses can be trusted since there's been more than a few criminal cases that suggest otherwise. However, this isn't the Sopranos (or
Re: (Score:2)
The union can argue that the job and it's pay and benefits exists because of the collective bargaining that they performed. I'm always suspicious of people who work at a union plant, but choose to not participate in the union. They obviously benefit from the collective bargaining, but they don't want to give up any of their wage toward the cause.
I used to work in a location (graduate students in the University of California system) that had a union. It always bugged the hell out of me that I had to pay money to them even though I wasn't a member and didn't need them for anything. Sure, the labor union was getting a lot out of its relationship with the university. The members of the union sometimes did as well. That's the thing I always remember. The union in this case wasn't the members, it was just another parasitic bureaucracy that happened to ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Metropolis in trouble? (Score:4, Funny)
Time to call Superman... [wikipedia.org]
What they do there (Score:5, Informative)
They convert uranium ore [globalsecurity.org] -- usually in the form of uranium oxides ("yellow cake") -- into uranium hexafluoride [wikipedia.org] by eventually dissolving it in hydrofluoric acid. That gas is then what gets run through centrifuges [wikipedia.org] or gas diffusion plants to isotopically enrich the U-235. So, it's a lot of messy chemistry (see links) with mildly radioactive materials (uranium isn't strongly radioactive). HF is particularly nasty because although it is a weak acid it reacts with almost anything and it is quite toxic.
Here's a video from the workers talking about it (Score:3, Informative)
See http://blip.tv/file/4535436 [blip.tv]
These guys are hard core and fighting the good fight. Their struggle against corporate greed should be our struggle.
Re:Here's a video from the workers talking about i (Score:5, Informative)
I'm so angry for at the corporate world that pays me all year long
You should be! The only way the shareholders make any money is by paying you less than the full value of your work and keeping the rest for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way the shareholders make any money is by paying you less than the full value of your work and keeping the rest for themselves.
You mean they want a return on the capital they put at risk up front, so that I could have a job? How dare they.
If you want to get a bigger return on your wages from a publicly-traded company, buy shares.
If you want the whole pie, then start your own company, with your own money.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what the hand that feeds you wants you to do for your money.
"liquids that were released into the air"?!? (Score:3, Informative)
What did they do, release an aerosol? I hate imprecise reporting.
Anyway, the primary source (the safety report from the NRC) is available from the union local web site [usw7-669.com]. (I confirmed that the same document is available directly from the NRC, but couldn't find a URL that didn't include my personal information.)
Nuclear power is safe... (Score:3)
...it's the people producing it that are dangerous.
Oh for %&*#'s sake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me that more people die every year from spider bites than from nuclear energy.
Time for tariffs (Score:2)
Nuclear power is at the very base of the modern economy. Fossil fuels won't supply our energy needs for long. Renewables can't make up the difference in the short term. We can't afford to dismantle our energy production and ship it off to the third world the same way we did with toy manufacturing.
The Honeywell CEO was on the news just a few days ago saying the only reason US businesses are hoarding cash and aren't hiring is that they don't have "certainty" [foxbusiness.com]. How could you possibly not have "certainty" in
Re: (Score:3)
All privately employed people, be they doctors or nuclear plant employees or anything else, should have the right to withhold their labor.
Otherwise, you have a situation known as "slavery".
Now, these guys may very well be in breach of contractual obligations to show up for work.
Re: (Score:2)
All privately employed people, be they doctors or nuclear plant employees or anything else, should have the right to withhold their labor.
They do - its called "quitting". In this case, they essentially quit because the fixed term labour contract their union has them working under has expired without a replacement or formal temporary continuation in place and the employer does not want an informal temporary continuation to act as the basis of continuing employment.
However, heres the kicker - I'm not 100% familiar with the jurisdiction that covers this particular dispute, but quite often due to labour law even though the union contract has exp
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The employer unilaterally decided the workers weren't worth their pay, and isn't letting them come back to work until they capitulate and give the employer everything they want. The people in charge are playing hostage games, not the people who were staffing the plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Have every last one of them declared terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. The employer is playing hardball and chose to lockout the employees. They could have agreed to continue working without a contract but still under the old contract terms until an agreement is reached for a new contract.
Someone needs to look up what "locked out" means.
I'm not assuming that the union workers are being reasonable. I just think that placing blame solely on the unions and make an argument against their existence is just as much bullshit as to blindly accept everything a union says as gospel. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While other poster(s) indicate that you are wrong, that's irrelevant. The employer absolutely ought to be able to do such a thing.
The NLRB and federally guaranteed union powers in the USA are really disgusting. I think unions are a fine thing and every employee ought to have the right to join a union -- and every employer ought to have the right to say "fuck off, you're fired immediately and forever, we will NEVER allow union labor here"
Re: (Score:3)
I think unions are a fine thing and every employee ought to have the right to join a union -- and every employer ought to have the right to say "fuck off, you're fired immediately and forever, we will NEVER allow union labor here"
And next time the union will form in secret. It's not like you can control who your employees assemble with in private, right? You won't know about it until the strike.
"Aha!" you say, "I'll fire them all then!" Sure. And next time they won't just strike, they'll lock themselves to their machines.
"But that's illegal!" you exclaim. Sure it is. But who's going to arrest them? In your hypothetical world, what're the odds that you're willing to pay enough in taxes for the police force to be from the upper
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and what if you create a safe working environment for your employees, pay them a fair wage, and give them job security in the case of illness or workplace injury?
Then it's not likely your workers would form a union in the first place. Also, you'll be put out of business by the guy down the street who doesn't do any of those things and can undercut your prices - at least until his workers strike.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...ok, you know there is a difference between a lockout and a strike, right? The employer initiates a lockout, the workers/bargaining unit initiates a strike.
So you're saying the plant management should be declared terrorists? I just want to make sure I, and possibly you, understand what you're typing.
Re: (Score:2)
...ok, you know there is a difference between a lockout and a strike, right? The employer initiates a lockout, the workers/bargaining unit initiates a strike.
So you're saying the plant management should be declared terrorists? I just want to make sure I, and possibly you, understand what you're typing.
That won't happen until there is a release of fissionable materials to the environment ala Deepwater Horizon. Somehow I believe that Haliburton will be implicated.