Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Two man company ordered to unionize, company owner now both management and labour; expected to vote both for and against himself   (cbc.ca ) divider line
    More: Asinine, MAN SE, union shops  
•       •       •

3497 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Sep 2013 at 12:23 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-29 12:27:27 PM  
He should outsource to himself and then complain that management is out of touch
 
2013-09-29 12:33:27 PM  
Welcome to Obama's America(tm)
 
2013-09-29 12:35:28 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Welcome to Obama's America(tm)


Nova Scotia?
 
2013-09-29 12:36:06 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: He should outsource to himself and then complain that management is out of touch


or perhaps sue the union for conflict of interest (ie accepting management as a member)
 
2013-09-29 12:36:25 PM  

ramblinwreck: Nova Scotia?


It's one of the 57 states
 
2013-09-29 12:37:40 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Welcome to Obama's America(tm)


Canada is part of America?
 
2013-09-29 12:43:36 PM  
Two man enter. One man leave.
 
2013-09-29 12:43:52 PM  
un ionize already. get back to ground state, you charged heathens.
 
2013-09-29 12:44:02 PM  
1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-09-29 12:49:49 PM  
Canada is awesome.

/Seriously.
 
2013-09-29 12:50:31 PM  
Doktor_Zhivago:

You were too subtle for this early on a Sunday morning. Won't anyone think of the hangovers?
 
2013-09-29 12:53:48 PM  
Thank goodness that Canada hasn't succumbed to passing RTW, in light of something that preserves choice and doesn't have the intentional free-rider problem by design.
 
2013-09-29 12:54:45 PM  
Sounds like the guy wants to expand beyond two, he just doesn't want to be a union shop? Yet he went to the union hall looking for employees, and complained when he got no takers? And he occasionally, apparently temporarily hires non-union employees, which are paid at less than the union rate? And he's using his experience and contacts gained at a union shop to underbid other union shops?

Find me a tiny violin, I feel a sad, sad song coming on.

This is exactly what unions are for, protecting labor's interests against business owners trying to make an end-run around labor protections.
 
2013-09-29 12:55:43 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: This is exactly what unions are for, protecting labor's interests against business owners trying to make an end-run around labor protections.


Quit oppressing the job creators.
 
2013-09-29 12:56:20 PM  
Union thugs. He should start picketing his own business. His partner (the scab) could cross the picket line and make the Union look bad.
 
2013-09-29 12:59:13 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Quit oppressing the job creators.


When did we get so mired in this Ayn Rand bullshiat, where the workers aren't deserving of a good wage or even a job, but the business owner is owed skilled workers for merely existing?
 
2013-09-29 01:00:13 PM  
Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.
 
2013-09-29 01:01:17 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Canada is awesome.


fuuka.warosu.org

I read that in this guy's voice.
 
2013-09-29 01:05:49 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Doktor_Zhivago: Quit oppressing the job creators.

When did we get so mired in this Ayn Rand bullshiat, where the workers aren't deserving of a good wage or even a job, but the business owner is owed skilled workers for merely existing?


The same time that the US sold the white collar down the river - 2003ish.
 
2013-09-29 01:09:48 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Doktor_Zhivago: Quit oppressing the job creators.

When did we get so mired in this Ayn Rand bullshiat, where the workers aren't deserving of a good wage or even a job, but the business owner is owed skilled workers for merely existing?



Lack of Ayn Rand is why canada is a blasted 3rd world hell hole of a country.
 
2013-09-29 01:24:44 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-29 01:31:19 PM  
This guy is a lying shyster. It's not just two employees, he's hiring people on the side and not paying them union wages. If you want to do away with unions then okay, head in that direction, but if you simply want to break the law to make more money for yourself then you're breaking the law. In America he'd be a Republican.
 
2013-09-29 01:33:54 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago:

Lack of Ayn Rand is why canada is a blasted 3rd world hell hole of a country.


Stephen Harper and Rob Ford would be more than happy to demonstrate how wrong you are on that statement.
 
2013-09-29 01:40:34 PM  

FnkyTwn: This guy is a lying shyster. It's not just two employees, he's hiring people on the side and not paying them union wages. If you want to do away with unions then okay, head in that direction, but if you simply want to break the law to make more money for yourself then you're breaking the law. In America he'd be a Southern Republican.


Emphasis added given the hate in the South for unions.
 
2013-09-29 01:40:43 PM  
Someone should tell this guy that he can go south of the border to pick up a bunch of workers with no unions, health care, retirement savings... and they're happier that way.
 
2013-09-29 01:49:12 PM  

gingerjet: Bennie Crabtree: Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.


Ok, let's clarify some basic rules here: you can't call "Citation Needed" when the quote is a reasonable paraphrase of the farking article.
 
2013-09-29 01:54:41 PM  
Well if this done did happen in rightwing 'Merica, He would of been given a very large tax break from the guvment for his help in destroying workers Rights.

/You don't just close your own union business and then open an exact same new non-union business that you own and not expect workers regulations to not bite you in the ass.
//ex: A new owner buys an existing company and as part of the sale, all workers contracts are null and void. You can still hire the old owner/boss as management, as long as he does not tap into company profits/ownership.

///If he wants his own business, then do something else or just become a worker drone.
 
2013-09-29 02:05:18 PM  

sethstorm: FnkyTwn: This guy is a lying shyster. It's not just two employees, he's hiring people on the side and not paying them union wages. If you want to do away with unions then okay, head in that direction, but if you simply want to break the law to make more money for yourself then you're breaking the law. In America he'd be a Southern Republican.

Emphasis added given the hate in the South for unions.


FTFY.  I work with a bunch of idiot Republicans in upstate New York.  You don't have to be a Southern Republican to hate unions.
 
2013-09-29 02:08:24 PM  
Doctors, lawyers, dentists, and even chiropractors have unions that do everything they can to protect the jobs and incomes of their members, but that's okay because unions are great when it's rich folks screwing over the poor.
 
2013-09-29 02:08:52 PM  
Unionization is fine -- under the basic concept of workers organizing to prevent being taken advantage of. Unions being led by idiots and egomaniacs are another thing entirely.

I used to deliver the payroll to a small outfit as a courier and the morons formed a Union line during a strike I couldn't cross to get to the shop -- carrying THEIR checks. I thought that was brilliant.

A guy I know had a nice job with the county, working all day alone in a truck, fixing street signs, removing road kill and such. He had keys to all locked parks and would often take a two hour lunch in one, out of sight of the public, when work was slack instead of wasting gas driving hundreds of miles looking for work.

He was also learning to make the street signs and enjoyed not having a co-worker.

The Union came in and suddenly, he had to have a 'loader' -- a guy who loaded his truck in the morning and usually piled stuff in the wrong places. Then, he needed a co-worker, who had to ride with him, mainly watched him do all the work and yammered on about redneck stuff. He could no longer learn how to make the street signs because that would involve training under Union rules and pay. Even though he had been willingly watching and learning from the boss on his own time.

Due to the increase in payroll due to Union wages, pay raises became smaller. Yearly bonus gifts -- like whole hams and turkeys -- were stopped. He couldn't even take those long lunches during down time because his co-worker drove him nuts and yammered to everyone else about it.

Arguments with his new truck loader about loading the truck right got him threats of being brought up before the Union Rep. He wound up with new Union approved health insurance and discovered it cost more and paid less than what he previously had -- and the coverage and cost varied from shop to shop.

He quit and went elsewhere that was not Union.

I used to listen to Union members squabble over ridiculous stuff (called 'splitting hairs'), for hours, kind of like a high school debate team. Kind of like the idiot stuff in the article.
 
2013-09-29 02:11:47 PM  
Good. A good foundation if the company can be successful while providing a living wage rather than making it by sociologically exploiting others (even if it the "others" are themselves).

Better a little silliness of the good of the society, than business as usual with a tiny few lording over the impoverished masses.
 
2013-09-29 02:12:43 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Good. A good foundation if the company can be successful while providing a living wage rather than making it by sociologically exploiting others (even if it the "others" are themselves).

Better a little silliness for the good of the society than business as usual with a tiny few lording over the impoverished masses.

 
2013-09-29 02:19:19 PM  

47 is the new 42: sethstorm: FnkyTwn: This guy is a lying shyster. It's not just two employees, he's hiring people on the side and not paying them union wages. If you want to do away with unions then okay, head in that direction, but if you simply want to break the law to make more money for yourself then you're breaking the law. In America he'd be a Southern Republican.

Emphasis added given the hate in the South for unions.

FTFY.  I work with a bunch of idiot Republicans in upstate New York.  You don't have to be a Southern Republican to hate unions.


47 is the new 42: sethstorm: FnkyTwn: This guy is a lying shyster. It's not just two employees, he's hiring people on the side and not paying them union wages. If you want to do away with unions then okay, head in that direction, but if you simply want to break the law to make more money for yourself then you're breaking the law. In America he'd be a Southern Republican.

Emphasis added given the hate in the South for unions.

FTFY.  I work with a bunch of idiot Republicans in upstate New York.  You don't have to be a Southern Republican to hate unions.


However, it helps given that the South has a scorched earth policy on them that isn't as consistent/uniform in northern states.  What might fly in the (non-ALEC) north would get shot on sight in the South, even if New York has what it has (especially it being the home state of The Burke Group, a well-known "labor relations management" firm).
 
2013-09-29 02:32:39 PM  

gingerjet: Bennie Crabtree: Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.

[citation needed]


Um, that's pretty much exactly what TFA says.  So, I guess the citation is the actual goddamned article that this thread is about.
 
2013-09-29 03:01:21 PM  

Rik01: [anti-union anecdote]


Cool story, bro!

/I'll bet this "friend" of yours lives in Canada
 
2013-09-29 03:05:55 PM  

stratagos: Doktor_Zhivago: Welcome to Obama's America(tm)

Canada is part of America?


They keep saying "No fair calling yourself Americans! We are Americans, too!"

Hey, I don't make the rules.
 
2013-09-29 03:08:42 PM  
Dude should go on the dole, and make these folks pay for him to live. Wrong in most other circumstances, but not here (given the facts presented, etc., etc.).
 
2013-09-29 03:09:12 PM  
He stole the idea from Schroedinger.  In a few years, his business will be both immensely profitable and a complete failure.
 
2013-09-29 03:18:37 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.


Are you aware of the economic downturn that occurred at the same time his company went under? 

Aristocles: Sergeant Grumbles: Sounds like the guy wants to expand beyond two, he just doesn't want to be a union shop? Yet he went to the union hall looking for employees, and complained when he got no takers? And he occasionally, apparently temporarily hires non-union employees, which are paid at less than the union rate? And he's using his experience and contacts gained at a union shop to underbid other union shops?

Find me a tiny violin, I feel a sad, sad song coming on.

This is exactly what unions are for, protecting labor's interests against business owners trying to make an end-run around labor protections.

No. The left wing Unions are complaining because they want to shut out any competitors in their line of work.

FTFA:

He became a target because he once ran a larger, unionized masonry company, Diadem LP, that became insolvent and went out of business in 2010.
When Fougere started again in March 2012, two unions - the Labourers International and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers - went to the N.S. labour board claiming Fougere's new company was a continuation of the old one and should be a union shop as well.
Fougere argued his two-man operation was too small to be unionized and could not afford the overhead and paperwork of a union collective agreement.


His company went broke because Big Union cares more about lining its own pockets than the welfare of the business (including laborers, 'progressive,' indeed).

They ran this guy's business into the ground, thus ensuring the families of his workers would go hungry, and now they're back because, "fark you, pay me." It's extortion.


I'm with you on this.  Sounds like the guy's business went down the shiatter (like so many other construction related in '08-'11) and now there's some rebounding.  His competitors are trying to keep him out.
 
2013-09-29 03:21:06 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Ok, let's clarify some basic rules here: you can't call "Citation Needed" when the quote is a reasonable paraphrase of the farking article.


You're violating the rule that random farkers don't get to set the ground rules.

I'm telling Mom.
 
2013-09-29 03:22:26 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: austerity101: gingerjet: Bennie Crabtree: Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.

[citation needed]

Um, that's pretty much exactly not what TFA says.  So, I guess the citation is the actual goddamned fantasy the article that this thread is about is not derrived from.

/FTFY


Two years later is "right away"?
 
2013-09-29 03:25:23 PM  
The union fees are 0.0000000000001 cents whitch are to be paid at the end of every bi-aeon meeting. Problem solved.
 
2013-09-29 03:26:00 PM  
It'll be all right.

The employee will give the boss a handy and all will be good.
 
2013-09-29 03:50:49 PM  

Snarfangel: stratagos: Doktor_Zhivago: Welcome to Obama's America(tm)

Canada is part of America?

They keep saying "No fair calling yourself Americans! We are Americans, too!"

Hey, I don't make the rules.


I have never heard a Canadian say that. Canadians are more likely to tell you off for calling them Americans.
 
2013-09-29 04:00:50 PM  

dywed88: Snarfangel: stratagos: Doktor_Zhivago: Welcome to Obama's America(tm)

Canada is part of America?

They keep saying "No fair calling yourself Americans! We are Americans, too!"

Hey, I don't make the rules.

I have never heard a Canadian say that. Canadians are more likely to tell you off for calling them Americans.


This. Snow Mexicans hate being called American.
 
2013-09-29 04:24:07 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Sounds like the guy wants to expand beyond two, he just doesn't want to be a union shop? Yet he went to the union hall looking for employees, and complained when he got no takers? And he occasionally, apparently temporarily hires non-union employees, which are paid at less than the union rate? And he's using his experience and contacts gained at a union shop to underbid other union shops?

Find me a tiny violin, I feel a sad, sad song coming on.

This is exactly what unions are for, protecting labor's interests against business owners trying to make an end-run around labor protections.


All persons involved in that transaction you just described--the client, the contractor company owner and the laborers--would have voluntarily entered into the agreements required to make any project occur.
If the laborers don't feel that their time is worth the money the guy would pay, they would not have been required to take the job.  The contractor would have been unable to deliver, and the client would have withheld pay, making the contractor royally screwed.  If the labor he hired was not adequately skilled, then the inspections performed by the client would have revealed this, they would withhold payment, and the contractor would be doubly screwed (having paid his employees and now not being able to get his pay).
On the other hand, the laborers felt that their time and effort was worth less to them than the amount the contractor was paying them.  So they traded their time and effort for what was, to them, a more valuable resource (money).
If at any time they felt he was running a dangerous operation, they still have the ability to complain to the Canadian OSHA equivalent, or to the client.

If the union cannot build and protect its brand by retaining members who have more skill than non-union members*, then that is their problem.  It is not the duty of government to protect a business (a labor union is just another form of business, a sort of talent agency, if you will) that is unable to succeed on its own due to shiatty management practices.
Now, when this guy's business folds, he'll be a Republican talking point about how unfair treatment of business owners and excessive regulation forced a poor small business owner to close up shop.  The fact he's Canadian won't stop them from frakking that chicken.

* I would love to have unions all over my worksites if they were noticeably more skilled, more professional or more safety-conscious than non-union workers.  I think the unions uniquely have the ability to provide this value to society--to serve as training and mentoring centers for craft and trade work.  It's a damned shame that most of them are little more than protectionist rackets and covers for political activism.
 
2013-09-29 04:50:36 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: gingerjet: Bennie Crabtree: Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.

Ok, let's clarify some basic rules here: you can't call "Citation Needed" when the quote is a reasonable paraphrase of the farking article.


So 2 years is "right away", should he have waited 3? What if it was 10 years ago? should a person be beholden to a union forever or is there a cut-off. Not trying to be a dick,  I'm just curious.
 
2013-09-29 05:08:11 PM  

k-miner: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: gingerjet: Bennie Crabtree: Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.

Ok, let's clarify some basic rules here: you can't call "Citation Needed" when the quote is a reasonable paraphrase of the farking article.

So 2 years is "right away", should he have waited 3? What if it was 10 years ago? should a person be beholden to a union forever or is there a cut-off. Not trying to be a dick,  I'm just curious.


I wasn't invited to this argument, so feel free to ignore my thoughts...

The union knows that its members have the option to leave.  This isn't the mafia, union membership is a temporary, renewed contract.
If the union knows that its members can leave, and does not put in a non-compete clause in its membership agreement, then it has neglected both itself and its members.
1) It has neglected itself by failing to look after its own needs (non-compete agreements are common in the corporate world, they're easy to enforce)
2) It has neglected its members by failing to protect them from an obvious means by which a person could allow their membership to lapse and take advantage of the union's skills, contacts and training.

The union is the entity that has the most to lose by the former member leaving, so inserting such a non-compete clause is its duty.  And it should be a part of membership.  Don't want to sign the non-compete clause?  Don't be a member!
The length of time specified by the clause should be the length of time for which it is enforced, and not a day shorter or longer.  (If it expires on October 1st, you can't even put in a bid for work until October 2nd.  Did you miss the window for submitting bids for that lucrative job?  Well sucks to be you, Mr. Business Owner, but you signed the agreement.)
Trying to enforce any other non-written rule is bullshiat, and should not be tolerated.  Rules must be written and agreed to for them to be enforced so that society can function.  But people must always have the option to enter into, or not enter into, agreements, organizations, clubs, businesses, etc.
 
2013-09-29 05:30:41 PM  

rolladuck: k-miner: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: gingerjet: Bennie Crabtree: Well, the system works. This is exactly the sort of abuse by employers that unions, or at least labour laws, were meant to stop from happening. You can't shut down a company and fire all the workers, and then start up a new company right away that does the same thing.

Ok, let's clarify some basic rules here: you can't call "Citation Needed" when the quote is a reasonable paraphrase of the farking article.

So 2 years is "right away", should he have waited 3? What if it was 10 years ago? should a person be beholden to a union forever or is there a cut-off. Not trying to be a dick,  I'm just curious.

I wasn't invited to this argument, so feel free to ignore my thoughts...

The union knows that its members have the option to leave.  This isn't the mafia, union membership is a temporary, renewed contract.
If the union knows that its members can leave, and does not put in a non-compete clause in its membership agreement, then it has neglected both itself and its members.
1) It has neglected itself by failing to look after its own needs (non-compete agreements are common in the corporate world, they're easy to enforce)
2) It has neglected its members by failing to protect them from an obvious means by which a person could allow their membership to lapse and take advantage of the union's skills, contacts and training.

The union is the entity that has the most to lose by the former member leaving, so inserting such a non-compete clause is its duty.  And it should be a part of membership.  Don't want to sign the non-compete clause?  Don't be a member!
The length of time specified by the clause should be the length of time for which it is enforced, and not a day shorter or longer.  (If it expires on October 1st, you can't even put in a bid for work until October 2nd.  Did you miss the window for submitting bids for that lucrative job?  Well sucks to be you, Mr. Business Owner, but you signed the agreement.)
Trying ...


Understanding what you just wrote,perhaps we don't have all the story,but having been a party to non compete agreements they usually don't last longer than a year or two
 
2013-09-29 05:45:37 PM  

sethstorm: Sergeant Grumbles: Doktor_Zhivago: Quit oppressing the job creators.

When did we get so mired in this Ayn Rand bullshiat, where the workers aren't deserving of a good wage or even a job, but the business owner is owed skilled workers for merely existing?

The same time that the US sold the white collar down the river - 2003ish.


Ronald "Union-buster" Reagan in the 1980s.

I mean, even THEN subtle things had been in the works for decades, but it was a gradual process that never really stopped.  It slows down a tiny bit when particularly egregious corporate overreach happens but that's it.

And to be fair the Ayn Rand idea is that the business owner is NOT owed "skilled" workers, but rather the delusional appeal that an individual worker will have perfect a priori knowledge of what the industry pay average is and have the appropriate haggling skills to demand a good and proper wage.

In fact, the end result of most of the anarcho-capitalist philosophies seem to be "blessed be the hagglers."
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report