Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Legal question..intimidation through lawsuit.

Is there such a thing as intimidation through lawsuit?

Get serious. . . of course there is. It is part of the game of life in America where we all live by the so called "Rule of Law". Lawsuits are filed by the hundreds every day in this country with the sole purpose of extorting/intimidating someone or his insurance company out of his/their treasure.

In this particular case. . . Mgt vs the Union or the Union vs.Mgt. . . you did this, he did that. . . .HA HA HA HA HA. . . grow up. . . .that's what management and unions do because that is what management and unions do. It is a big elaborate game played by elitist [bleep] on both sides of the fence because the law forces them to deal on the margin. . .with snakes and vermin that bite and hide behind the "law".

Right now unemployment in this country is. . . .what.. . . 4.6%. .If you don't like your job or your boss,. . . quit. . .go somehwere else. If you can't, that's your problem, and you should fix it, because right now businesses are begging for people who have useful skills and want to work.

"The unions certainly do. If your union leadership isn't creative enough to outmaneuver management, it's not managements problem,... it's the unions problem."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the unions problem, it is our problem. You are still holding on to that vision of big bad ass union officials holding the poor employer to fire, the reality is that the union is hoping that we will just agree to be screwed. They have a lot of other buisness they have to look to, they do not want to be tied up with a six week strike, they do not want to go to strike, they know they will have to defend themselves from yet another lawsuit.


There is no out manuevering money, if there is one thing I have learned through all of this, is when you have somebody who has a lot of money, and is willing to throw it away at thier obsession, you can't avoid that, manuevering has nothing to do with that.

The average worker can maybe hold out without a paycheck for how long? If bossman is willing to spend hundreds of thousands to do that to you, ain't a damn way to out manuever that . All the lawsuits are a sideshow, the main event will be to starve out his employees into submission.

In all honesty, he scapegoats the union so that he can blame them for having to starve out his own people.

No,.... I'm just saying that if the management is acting within the law, you may as well get prepared to suck it up,... unless your union leadership is creative enough to out think management.

Besides,... with umpteen million illegals ready to work for a fraction of your pay (with the blessings of the federal government) you're in a lose/lose situation.

Either the union loses out and the management has it's way with the employees,... or the union wins, and as a result the company is unable to compete with those who pay a fraction of it's labor cost and goes out of business.

It will happen before you're 56.

Get used to the idea

"No,.... I'm just saying that if the management is acting within the law,"

Well, that was the question.





"Get used to the idea "

Is that what I should do? No, I don't think I will, I'll still write my letters and do whatever I can to stop the illegal imigrants driving down wages...if you choose to "get used to it", that is on you.

Right now there is at least a national debate on the issue, and that didn't come about from people getting used to it.

What union are you a member of?

Most of the locals and all of the nationals that I know of have strike funds to provide for income to striking member, albeit at a reducuction from a full pay check.

There are plenty of law firms that specialize in union side representation, just like there are those that represent mangement side. For the most part, lawyers only reflect their clients so in the end it isn't the lawyers fault.

Fed rules require OT after 40hrs per week for hourly employees, such as union members, not after an eight hour day or on a Sat, just after a 40 hour week total has been met. Any situation better than this needs to be wrung out through hard negotiation and a willingness to fight.

I've been a union contractor and I'm generally pro union for skilled work. The more skill required for the job, the more sense a union makes. But vice versa too. You don't have much to bargain with if a high school drop out or an non english speaking, non educated, but willing worker can take your place.

Plenty of unions have priced themselves out of large business segments, and the union contractor looses too. For example, all housing used to be built with union trade labor here on the east coast. Union laborers, plumbers, carpenters...Now it rare as hen's teeth to find a union member, working under a contract, on a residential job, including the vast majority of apartment buildings.

Same with comercial buidings, except that now with open, merit shop GC's you find union contactors doing the plumbing, HVAC...right next to non skilled, non union laborers.

Too many union members, union management - thats what they are management, not much different than the corporate management - and company managers forget that they are all in the same boat. If one side punches too many wholes in the other side's end of the boat, the whole boat sinks. Too many holes in the company's side, punched by the unions, and the company's labor becomes too costly - directly through wages or indirectly through benefits -, the company becomes uncompetative and goes broke; to many on the union side and good people leave - because they can find equally good work for more wages and benefits -, resulting in an every declining quality of the company's workforce and again its becoming uncompetative and going broke.

If a person, company, whatever files a frivoulous suit, without merit, or a reasonable arguement based on law they can get stuck with sanctions, including the other side's cost. Doesn't happen enough though, and one reason is that a growing exception has been made for suits brought that argue that a law or rule should be changed or reinterpreted. But thats the juidiciary running amok since its the legislatures' jobs to make law, not the judges'.

IMO, the one skill that is hardest to find, and thus hardest to replace, is the ability to manage. The more jobs, people, concerns you can manage, the better your outlook.

FWIW,

JPK

Remember though that the person or company filing suit is risking an process bounded by rules and laws. And past a certain point it ussually becomes somewhat difficult and subject to both the other side's and the judge's aproval to drop a suit. If you are in the right, with the facts and the law on your side pushing home an agressive defense will smoke out the bull and pushing home to ultimate victory, including seeking sanctions and cost might be expensive when looked at in isolation; but in the long run it may be pretty cheap. Not too many pick a fight with a fellow willing to go the distance. The only way you get known to be ready to go the distance is to actually do it.

I think basically, the boss can outclass the union reps. The union locals in my area (Teamsters) always seem low on funds, and seem to hesitate to get legal help until they find theselves in a quagmire.

In the Bay area there are seven other union shops in the area, that all signed off on the same contract. When it came around to our branch up in the same area, the boss refused to sign and instead is looking to take away the right to honor any strikes and pay less than the other union shops.
If we cave to this, all seven other companies can then open their contracts because an unfair competition exists, and they can then ask for the same concessions.
This guy has shown that he is not afraid to throw hundreds of thousands at what he percieves as a war with the unions. For years we all lived in harmony and in fact one year he won an award and he noted the companies relationship with the unions as a key to the companies success. From then untill now we haven't asked for much, and have averaged 50 cents a year for the last ten years plus medical increases. It is the non-union companies hiring the imigrants that he now feels we must lower and meet. There are other non-unions in the area that pay just below us, but the one company that has 98% Mexican drivers pays about 60% to 70% of our package.

I once approached him with an idea. Why don't we put out an add that says that we are looking for experienced workers & drivers. We don't have to mention any companies, but just put in the add that anyone who comes to work for us with a year or more experience would be started at 100%, and given a $500 signing bonus...so what will this do to the non-union company?

I say let him pay the money to train these guys, let him pay for all of the boners the new guys typically commit, (and this is big money believe me) , and then we hire them away. We save on training costs, we save on property damage and injury costs, and what can he do about it? His only choice would be to raise his wages closer to ours to keep his guys around...in the corprate world, it would be called a win-win. We just put the add out, let the non-union shops be our training grounds, and leave it to the union to make the non-union worker aware of the offer.
Well, bossman didn't even respond..why?

I really don't believe the cost of labor is the problem, the non-union shops really don't charge that much less for their service, so I would assume their profits are greater. Well, there you go, he does not want to bring the non-union up to our standard which was my goal, he wants to bring us down to them and enjoy the same profits.

Yes, we do have a token strike fund, but it is only about $200 a week.

Where I won't lay down and accept was is going on, I am under no illusions, as long as cheap labor pours in, we will continue the slide. When I was hired on nineteen years ago, the whole crew was white, now 75% of new hired are Hispanic, with that same old Hispanic outlook that doomed the middle class in Mexico, happy to have a job, don't make any waves, take whatever is offered.

It is hard to understand why those non-unions stick with a company paying so much less in wages and benifits, but I have my suspicions...I just can't figure how they get a drivers license.

Can an illegal take the same bogus SS card into the DMV and apply for a class A, does the DMV not check the SS number for validity?

Good post JPK! I agree with most of it. Even most of this...




Some of the largest companies don't seem to have a problem replacing managers. They just replace one incompetent boob with another. Those are the companies that are big enough that bad management won't sink them quickly enough to hurt upper management.

But generally, I think you are right.

If you are a member of a union and part of a collective bargaining agreement, you don't work for the company, you work for the union. . . . .simple as that. Whine about ignorant management, whatever, but your employer is the union and you are just contract labor. If you don't like your situation, deal with the right party.

MM

You could pull the "construction" out of that quote and put in a host of other trades.Welcome to post NAFTA america.
dave

JPK
I think the talent that will soon be in the greatest demand with the fewest qualified will be speaking Mandarin. We continue to spend a lot of money on teaching students to speak French... Lovely language and all, great from an academic standpoint, but France and Switzerland is a pretty small piece of the globe...

The Chinese will become the most important trade group going... and soon. Being able to communicate with them, with translators from OUR side of the equation would be important.
art

If you are a member of a union and part of a collective bargaining agreement, you don't work for the company, you work for the union. . . . .simple as that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then I should just ask the union for a raise??

You're nuts, the company I work for pays my wage, pays my medical, and pays my retirement. They set the rules I follow, hundreds of rules that are not covered by the union contract.




Whine about ignorant management, whatever, but your employer is the union and you are just contract labor. If you don't like your situation, deal with the right party.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who is the right party, the union? You either fit the mold of many here of the typical union worker, or have bought in to the sterotype.

Nobody used the word ignorant, and ignorant can hardly be used to describe our management, their choices and stratagies are anything but ignorant, they are consise, and thought out. If you are going to jump in and sling a little, get it right.

To clarify my left-field comment about Mandarin... I'm thinking unions have lots of trouble ahead. Labor is becoming less valuable all the time...

I'm thinking unions have lots of trouble ahead. Labor is becoming less valuable all the time...



Unions, non-unions, the whole working class has trouble ahead.

The hell with it, I'm going fishing this weekend, they are getting a lot of 30-40 salmon down here, that is big for this area.

On a side note, we have not been able to keep silver salmon for years now, and from time to time catch them in close near the kelp, but this year we have been catching lost of silvers in the 15lb range! I hope they open it some day, pound for pound, those silvers put the kings to shame.

I guess it was Freeme that referred to management as incompetent boobs. I shouldn't have substituted ignorant.

In most union shops I am familiar with, the union negotiates a contract with the company/management to provide a product (labor) for a price (wages, benefits, etc.). In theory, the union also provides assurance that the product has a minimum skill set for various job categories. If there is a serious problem with some part of the "product", management usually ends up dealing with the union representative, not the product. If there is a job opening, the union usually controls who fills the job based on some seniority formula. In this setting, who is working for who?

So, call it whatever you want, but it seems that the basic problem is that the union is in the market selling a product, and there are a bunch of free agents out there potentially selling a substitute product at a cheaper price. When management uses every legitimate tool at its disposal, including the legal system, to negotiate the lowest possible price for one of its factors of production, well. . . . .maybe management is just a bunch of incompetent boobs.

I'm not sure where you are from from, but it really doesn't work that way around here.
I know in some places the first thing a guy does is to get a union card, and then let the union find him a job. Around my parts, a guy can walk into a union company, get hired on before joining the union, then after a 90 days phrobation, if the company decides to keep him, then he goes down and joins the union.

The unions around here do not dictate whether or not an employer can lay off people, my company does not take dues out of our checks, we have to write a check to the union.

When we have an opening, the union has nothing to do with who is hired, they won't even know the guys name until his 90 days are up.

Like I have said before, there are different degrees of union membership depending on where you live. Our union meets with us, and they ask us what we want to ask for, and what we will accept, and then they negotiate. If we walk out, that would be our decision, not the unions. At anytime we can tell the union to pound sand and vote yes and radify the company's proposal.