Who Belongs to the Union?Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly...

Those regulations you scoff at are what currently protect the 90% of the workforce that is not union.

Changing those will be a hard political sell.

Actually, those regulations would be harder to enforce and maintain if Unions were not acting as the watchdog for them.

Actually, those regulations would be harder to enforce and maintain if Unions were not acting as the watchdog for them.

You're correct Bob, and workers across the country can thank unions for the majority of the regulations protecting them.

I have no problem with groups of employees organizing and as a group negotiating for wages and benefits and working condidtions. What I have a problem with are closed shops and the inability of mamagement to hire whomever they want. I also think management should have the ability to replace striking workers with whoever they wish. Balance is the key.

I have no problem with groups of employees organizing and as a group negotiating for wages and benefits and working condidtions. What I have a problem with are closed shops and the inability of mamagement to hire whomever they want. I also think management should have the ability to replace striking workers with whoever they wish. Balance is the key.

How is that balance? If a group or state or legislative body is able to get a law passed that allows closed shops then so be it. Likewise even closed shops does not necessarily mean that management can't hire an employee, what it does mean is the hired individual would have to join the Union. Also, in many cases replacing striking workers with ahem non union workers, well what if management provoked the strike to do just that. Just saying.

How is that balance? If a group or state or legislative body is able to get a law passed that allows closed shops then so be it. Likewise even closed shops does not necessarily mean that management can't hire an employee, what it does mean is the hired individual would have to join the Union. Also, in many cases replacing striking workers with ahem non union workers, well what if management provoked the strike to do just that. Just saying.

You mean a greedy CEO provoking a strike so he can replace an aging work force with a younger cheaper one. I'm sure that would never happen. :sarc:

How is that balance? If a group or state or legislative body is able to get a law passed that allows closed shops then so be it. Likewise even closed shops does not necessarily mean that management can't hire an employee, what it does mean is the hired individual would have to join the Union. Also, in many cases replacing striking workers with ahem non union workers, well what if management provoked the strike to do just that. Just saying.

I have no problem with closed shop laws in states other than Florida. 😀 Our state would be happy to take closed shop states' productive enterprises off their hands.

We've been seeing this now for a number of decades, states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio are loosing business to Right-To-Work states like Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina. The positive impact this has had on american manufacturing is substantial.

Right, American Manufacturing, tax breaks and incentive offered to companies like Mercedes, BMW, KIA, Hyndai have attracted those businesses as well. You are Union if you work in a GM or Ford plant anywhere in the US. They also found that in the South wage are lower than the rest of the US for the most part and in some cases there is a lower cost of living. You talk about manufacturing and you say how great these other States have it, where is Floridas. Lets look at the benefits to the employer here. No State income tax they would have to share, lower property taxes. As for those productive enterprises, seriously what has moved in here, prisons seem to be a growth industry, retirees continue to move here, another growth industry, tourism another industry and hospitality. I value your opinion but what has been brought here, seriouly.

Right, American Manufacturing, tax breaks and incentive offered to companies like Mercedes, BMW, KIA, Hyndai have attracted those businesses as well. You are Union if you work in a GM or Ford plant anywhere in the US. They also found that in the South wage are lower than the rest of the US for the most part and in some cases there is a lower cost of living. You talk about manufacturing and you say how great these other States have it, where is Floridas. Lets look at the benefits to the employer here. No State income tax they would have to share, lower property taxes. As for those productive enterprises, seriously what has moved in here, prisons seem to be a growth industry, retirees continue to move here, another growth industry, tourism another industry and hospitality. I value your opinion but what has been brought here, seriouly.

I've wondered about this myself, my guess is it's due to a lack of cheap developable land and incentives offered by the state government. We have brought in some solar energy businesses from what I understand.

Oh and the local and State Governments would offer the first born on every able body person in the state plus tax breaks/ incentives to attract those type of business. Take a look at the vacant truck stop Walton County basically built.

No, cheap developable land is abundant, we are not educated to manufacture here in florida, we are geared to hospitality. Where the land is the population isn't.

As far as auto manufacturing goes, looks like we are too far south -

http://www.nmida.com/pdfs/automotive-plants-southeast.pdf

No, cheap developable land is abundant, we are not educated to manufacture here in florida, we are geared to hospitality. Where the land is the population isn't.

It may be cheap and abundant, but have you ever tried to get permits to develop any of it? I can have it built in Alabama before I can get a permit to build in Florida.

How is that balance? If a group or state or legislative body is able to get a law passed that allows closed shops then so be it. Likewise even closed shops does not necessarily mean that management can't hire an employee, what it does mean is the hired individual would have to join the Union. Also, in many cases replacing striking workers with ahem non union workers, well what if management provoked the strike to do just that. Just saying.

How is it balanced for some group based up north to tell me I have to let a good worker go unless they join the group? And how is it balanced if I cannot replace the group of workers because their demands will bankrupt my company?

It may be cheap and abundant, but have you ever tried to get permits to develop any of it? I can have it built in Alabama before I can get a permit to build in Florida.

Did you ever think maybe that's one of the reasons people have second homes in Florida and move here for their primary home...we value the natural resources and quality of life and don't want to see them destroyed.

Responsible development is fine; and if there are some regulations that need to be modified, that is fine; but, do not take a meat ax to the idea of responsible growth managment. Just my 2cents...

what we need IMO is a vibrant economic development program that looks at business and industry that is environmentally friendly...there is no reason that responsible development can't coexist with a responsible attitude toward our natural resources. It takes leadership and political will...that seems to be sorely missing in the last few years.