Brutality & Violence from Union Protestors

[CDNBear]

The conspiracy theory question is ridiculous.

There was no conspiracy element to the question. That's just some nonsense you made up to avoid answering it.

Companies held hostage? They have choices.

Not really.

Entilement?

Yep.

You worked permit and chose to work permit and paid permit dues for inclusion in that contract.

I wasn't included in any contract, other than the contract with the company I worked for.

Your employers were paid an equivelant of the bennys the same as paid to Union members. Did you get that from them or did they stick it up your furry rump as a big ol' "atta boy" at job's end?

I likely got paid more than the union guys, what with half bonuses (Which is when you get your regular wages, plus half for coming in at or under budget and on time) and profit sharing.

You should have had a contract that ensure that gets paid to you.

A non union member shouldn't be forced to pay a union for nothing.

A point you fail to grasp.

 

[petros]

There was no conspiracy element to the question. That's just some nonsense you made up to avoid answering it.

Not really.

Yep.

I wasn't included in any contract, other than the contract with the company I worked for.

I likely got paid more than the union guys, what with half bonuses (Which is when you get your regular wages, plus half for coming in at or under budget and on time) and profit sharing.

A non union member shouldn't be forced to pay a union for nothing.

A point you fail to grasp.

Nobody is forcing anybody. There is no conspiracy. Companies are free to hire scabs.Why do they keep signing contracts with workers instead of keeping the scabs? Sometimes Companies don't because they do profit sharing, are employee owed and still Union or have been invested in by the Union pensions and these are the ones that have guys like you thinking there is a conspiracy.

I likely got paid more than the union guys...

You're guessing? If you had a contract you'd know.

A non union member shouldn't be forced to pay a union for nothing.

So I guess all those temp agencies shouldn't ding an employee with lower wages and nail finder's fee on the contractor if they want to hire that person?

 

[CDNBear]

Nobody is forcing anybody.

lol, yes they are.

There is no conspiracy.

I'm glad you can admit that.

You're guessing?

Nope, I'm using deductive reasoning and logic.

If you had a contract you'd know.

I didn't have their's to compare. I can only go by what I gleaned from conversations with the union guys I talked with then and the ones I know now.

And given I was making what the average union GL was making under ground, and half bonus and profit sharing per contract, I think it's safe to say I was.

So I guess all those temp agencies shouldn't ding an employee with lower wages and nail finder's fee on the contractor if they want to hire that person?

So I guess you should compare apples to rhinos.

Any ways, I guess it's safe to say paying union dues to a union, just so you can work on a union site, is pretty much extortion, since you've done nothing but dance around and deflect.

 

[petros]

Nope, I'm using deductive reasoning and logic.

I didn't have their's to compare. I can only go by what I gleaned from conversations with the union guys I talked with then and the ones I know now.

And given I was making what the average union GL was making under ground, and half bonus and profit sharing per contract, I think it's safe to say I was.

So I guess you should compare apples to rhinos.

All guesses. That's why it's good to have things on paper.

Why did you skip the temp agency question? Should they not charge fees and gouge the worker?

 

[CDNBear]

Why did you skip the temp agency question?

Because it's one of your simple deflections.

I was forced to pay union dues, they provided no service for what I paid.

They simply allowed me to work in their little fiefdom.

That's nothing like how a temp or head hunter agency works.

What an absolutely idiotic comparison.

Should they not charge fees and gouge the worker?

Because the temp is paying for the service.

 

[petros]

Because it's one of your simple deflections.

I was forced to pay union dues, they provided no service for what I paid.

They simply allowed me to work in their little fiefdom.

That's nothing like how a temp or head hunter agency works.

What an absolutely idiotic comparison.

Because the temp is paying for the service.

Your company should have sucked that up instead of stiffing you. Blame them.

The temp is paying the same way you paid permit dues.

That is how temp agencies work. I used both Labour Ready and Manpower for labour.

Labour ready wanted me to keep the guy for a minimum of two weeks through them before I could hire the person. Same with Manpower but they wanted 6 weeks or $1400.

You obviously used the tax credit for your dues didn't you? Do job seekers using a temp agency get a tax credit?

 

[CDNBear]

The temp is paying the same way you paid permit dues.

No they aren't.

That is how temp agencies work. I used both Labour Ready and Manpower for labour.

I've used ManPower and 360 here.

Labour ready wanted me to keep the guy for a minimum of two weeks through them before I could hire the person. Same with Manpower but they wanted 6 weeks or $1400.

That's right, because the temp is voluntarily paying the temp agency to find them a placement. They are paying for a service.

The union is extorting money out of me, so I can do the job the company hired the company I worked for to do.

I had a job. That job took me to a union site. But because the union controls that site, you can't work there unless you pay union dues.

I can see why you union guys would want to obfuscate any discussion on that.

You obviously used the tax credit for your dues didn't you? Do job seekers using a temp agency get a tax credit?

Irrelevant.

 

[petros]

That's right, because the temp is voluntarily paying the temp agency to find them a placement. They are paying for a service.

The union is extorting money out of me, so I can do the job the company hired the company I worked for to do.

I had a job. That job took me to a union site. But because the union controls that site, you can't work there unless you pay union dues.

I can see why you union guys would want to obfuscate any discussion on that.

Irrelevant.

You were a temp permit worker.

The Union runs the company that subbed to you yokels?

Your boss extorted from you. He chose to bid for a contract with a company that chooses to be Union. He chose to stick it to you. He could have picked up the tab and used the tax credit but chose not to.

It wasn't the Company that is Unionized that your boss subbed from or the Union that did that to you and nobody held a gun to his head in some backroom conspiracy.

 

[Locutus]

The story took an interesting twist on Wednesday, when liberal blogger Chris Savage claimed that the
footage of the incident had been “selectively edited” to unfairly portray the union protester as the aggressor.

Selective editing at about the 0:39 mark shows what appears to be union guy attacking Crowder for no apparent reason. However, if you look closely, you’ll see that the guy is getting up off the ground -- that he was NOT the one that became aggressive first.


However, during an interview with a conservative blogger, Crowder noted that the scuffle began when pro-union protesters tried to bring down the white tent on the site provided by the group Americans for Prosperity.

The Fox News contributor then stated that he and other people defending the canopy did get into a physical confrontation with the union activists.

“We didn’t get violent with them, but we did try and push them off the tent,” he said, adding that the reason the man was seen getting up off the ground was because he was one of the people who were pushed away from the tent and fell to the ground as a result.

Read more: Steven Crowder Files Criminal Complaint Against Pro-Union Protester | NewsBusters.org

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/...2237001/when-union-thugs-attack/2031683233001
​

 

[tay]

It has now been 1333 days since Sean Hannity offered to be waterboarded for charity for veterans, then chickened out........

 

[DaSleeper]

Hey......Look over there>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Locutus]

Methinks our wee lad has him a bromance goin' with Sean. :lol:

 

[Tonington]

“We didn’t get violent with them, but we did try and push them off the tent,” he said, adding that the reason the man was seen getting up off the ground was because he was one of the people who were pushed away from the tent and fell to the ground as a result.

Hmm, except when you watch the video you can see that there is a scuffle behind them, and there are people messing with the tent, but the union fellow who was knocked to the ground isn't one of them. The union man had his back to the tent for the entire video. Even the edited video doesn't agree with Crowder's lie.

 

[CDNBear]

He chose to bid for a contract with a company that chooses to be Union.

LOL, not to many mines in Canada that aren't union.

It wasn't the Company that is Unionized that your boss subbed from or the Union that did that to you and nobody held a gun to his head in some backroom conspiracy.

Keep deflecting, it's funny to watch.

 

[Locutus]

New Unedited Video Appears to Prove Alleged Mich. Union Activist’s Assault on Fox Contributor – Watch It Here



While the Michigan Legislature debated last week whether it should pass right-to-work legislation, pro-union and union-affiliated demonstrators swarmed the state Capitol building to protest the historic occasion.


And for at least a few alleged union activists, “protest” means “attack” and “dismantle.”


We’re sure you remember TheBlaze’s report on the assault on Fox News contributor Steven Crowder.


And you may not know this, but in the days following the release of the original video of the attack on Crowder, several people accused him of instigating the fight by goading and then physically pushing the alleged union activist:


However, despite all the “well, he started it” arguments from left-leaning sites, newly released footage from Crowder may finally reveal the truth of the matter. The whole video sets up the incident, but pay special attention at the 5:40 mark (CONTENT WARNING: PERVASIVE GRAPHIC LANGUAGE):


UNEDITED UNION ASSAULT FOOTAGE! - YouTube




We’ve screen grabbed the relevant moments and also highlighted where Crowder’s hands are as the man falls:

“They were tearing down the [Americans for Prosperity] tent,” Crowder told TheBlaze last week. “Now that sort of becomes a melee.


They were trying to tear down the [AFP] tent and people were trying to pull them off … there were people in there. It’s their property.”


“And as they [the union activists] did that, a few people tripped,” he continued, “this guy tripped over a tent peg and then got up and hit me.”


Though shaky, it would appear that the new footage confirms Crowder’s version of events.


“I was punched in the face four times,” Crowder told TheBlaze in an email. “I must have started it. I filed a police report — nobody cared.”


“I’ve now released undeniable, extensive footage that removes all doubt,” he adds, “but I guess I deserved it anyway. Leftists will lie and attack to defend their narrative at all costs. Sunlight is the best disinfectant there is. Breitbart lives.”


New Unedited Video Appears to Prove Alleged Mich. Union Activist’s Assault on Fox Contributor

 

[Dixie Cup]

Well I look at it this way. Both myself and my husband are not and have never been union members. We work for companies whose owners took the risk many years ago to start up their own businesses. We have gotten raises in good years and not in bad but we do have benefits that do not include a pension plan. My company matches RRSP contributions, so I take advantage of that. My hubby doesn't so we assume that responsibility ourselves. As a couple, we have determined that we don't need to make $30 or $40/hour or more each. In fact, that's probably close to what we currently make combined. If we live "within our means" what we currently make is more than sufficient to live on. We don't have the iphones or ipads - (we do have cell phones). We have two vehicles and we own our home and will be mortgage free in a few years, (unless we win the lotto lol). We have a 5th Wheel trailer that is parked at a camp ground where we go every weekend in the summer. We don't have big debt (other than our mortgage)- we've paid our way as we go along. We donate to charities and occasionally take a trip which we save for. Quite frankly, we have nothing to complain about. Alberta is not a cheap place to live but it's doeable if you give some things up. So, would we have done any better had we worked for a unionized company? Lets see, one of my jobs at work is to do income taxes for our clients and I have yet seen a "union pension plan" that has paid more than $200/mo to anyone collecting. Based on the union dues that I've seen they have to pay, I'd say that they're not getting their money's worth. I would hope that I would do better when I cash in my RRSP in retirement, but hey, maybe not. I've been wrong before. I suppose I'd have more disposable income so what. I've seen union people (trades-type) who make over $250,000/year declare bankruptcy because they had a spending problem. For me basically, it's all in how you look at things. Would I want to make more money - of course. Do I NEED to make more money?? Not really. We're doing alright. Its a matter of perspective, I guess.

JMHO

Oh, I just wanted to add one more thing. My g/f's husband (who was a Milwright) worked for a union. We had them over for dinner one night and got to discussing unions and wages etc. He asked us point blank how much we both made a week. This was Oh, in the early to mid '80's I think. We estimated at that time that between the two of us we made approx $600/week. He was astonished and asked how we could "live on that." My husband and I looked at each other and said that we thought we were doing really well. We owned our own home (they didn't) we did more travelling back then (they didn't). He told us that he made 3 x's that amount every week. It was our turn to be astonished. The only problem with that is when work slowed down, he was laid-off and had to collect EI. Our work was year 'round and steady - no lay offs. Because of the instability of his work, he made good money when he worked but didn't save for when he wasn't. They eventually bought a house but lost it when he was, again, laid-off, this time for over 9 months. So, again, it's a matter of perspective.

 

[JLM]

Well I look at it this way. Both myself and my husband are not and have never been union members. We work for companies whose owners took the risk many years ago to start up their own businesses. We have gotten raises in good years and not in bad but we do have benefits that do not include a pension plan..

A good post by a wise poster! It's not how much money you earn, it's how you spend what you have. If you just take incidentals like smoking, buy coffee down town every day, eating at Big Macs regularly, driving where you could be walking etc. just a few things like that can burn up $5000 a year easily. I have a son who makes bigggggggggggggg money in the patch, with minimal expenses, but it's always "feast or famine" with him. Like, he'll spend $50 on a taxi rather than wait half an hour for the bus, but it ain't no use tellin' him!- Bet he's blown $1000 on Xmas presents - we'll find out in an hour!