blackbettee

  1. Sadly - it is this exact issue that has kept our Local 26 on strike for the past 6 weeks. Because the contractors feel it's necessary to put certain language IN the contract under negotiation, while 26's leaders want it kept OUT of the contract.

    Unfortunately, the only immediate "benefit" of keeping the language in question OUT of the contract seems to be that the members will remain in the dark regarding what can and can't happen under Indiana's new Right-To-Work rules. It's as if the union leaders negotiating this contract don't want them to know what does or doesn't happen when you don't pay your dues.

    Shady......it's probably time for some new leadership in this particular hall. Now that Indiana's a RTW state, your hall may very well fail if your leaders don't step up and find a way to make it work - instead of trying to hide these realities from its members.
    July 10, 2012 2:35 pm on Union leaders object to right-to-work rules
  2. I wonder if any member of this Local 26 can explain why this is day two of no picketers? Did you call off the strike? Is it just too hot? Are you, as a whole, still in a position to be able to picket your union-shop employers?

    Perhaps you don't even really KNOW why you're not picketing?

    This just gets curious-er and curious-er.....
    July 06, 2012 7:48 am on No resolution on tap in roofers' strike
  3. if the comments area of an article are an indication of "general public" opinion.....

    It seems the general public is "done" with the USA's union brotherhood, in general.

    But what no-one is saying out loud is that the contractors that are signatory to this particular union (Local 26) are NOT done. They have long been aware that employing union labor is what has made them great. They don't want to "get rid" of the union labor. They have reaped the benefits of being able to contract with private and government entities that prefer or even require union labor to perform work for them. They have reaped the benefits, and so have the union workers employed by them. The workers have gotten paid top-dollar and great benefits because of the negotiated contracts between the employer and the hall - on top of employer-specific perks like profit sharing, bonus gifts/monies for reaching "safety" goals, parties and picnics on the company's dime, and in some cases even trips abroad for some of the union workers. That being said - I know some of you reading this can tell just which of these signatory contractors I work for.....

    SouthernIN wrote: "Seems the major blocking point is the roofer wants the ability to stop taking union dues if a worker doesn't want to. " ("roofer" is "contractor" in this quote, I believe)

    If this is truly the major blocking point - then that seems to indicate that the hall is afraid that its members won't support the hall themselves - won't pay their dues unless someone yanks it out of their checks for them - won't handle their assessments unless someone does it for them.

    This is not a reflection of the contractor hiring union labor. This is a reflection of the union laborers themselves. And, I believe the union laborer, in this case, is being victimized by their union leaders. They're being fed a bunch of bs - making them believe that their employers want them out....instead of telling it like it is - that they cannot and will not survive if their members are not committed to the union THEMSELVES - without any input-influence-assistance from the employer.

    Which is a shame. Your own hall doesn't trust you to support them yourselves. Stop and think about what you're being fed by your leaders. Your employers don't want to get rid of you. They don't want your hall to fail. They have succeeded - and want to continue to succeed - by being a Union Shop.

    No matter what you're being told.......
    July 03, 2012 8:31 am on No resolution on tap in roofers' strike
  4. **crickets chirping** ....the silence is nearly deafening. I'll admit, I'm not a union member, I'm not in this fight, but if someone would confirm what I THINK this is about, it'd be great....

    either take more money OR get rid of the company "handling" their payment of the union items for them PLUS additional language in the contract made necessary for liability reasons (I think) by RTW

    Now, what the hall is actually saying "no" to? I have no clue...because much like this silence just now, and much like the Times reports that no one from the hall will comment, no one is really saying much other than "no".
    June 15, 2012 3:16 pm on Roofing job assist rankles union on strike
  5. ...in the meantime, strikers aren't taking home their weekly pay. I know for certain that this one fact pleases no-one. Not the worker, not their family, not even the contractors that employ them. No one wants this. Find a place in the middle, folks. Get back to the teamwork that has made you great....
    June 15, 2012 11:36 am on Roofing job assist rankles union on strike
  6. Aside from the general confusion surrounding just WHAT the strike is about, everyone also seems to be confused as to WHO is behind the negotiations. Pete and Korellis Roofing are not alone in this. Korellis is PART of a group of roofing contractors who employ union roofers out of Local 26. Korellis is getting the notoriety because they employ the highest percentage of roofers out of that hall. But the group also contains Babilla, Gluth and other local union shops. All of whom are in the group of contractors involved in negotiating this contract. Korellis seems to be bearing the brunt of this, but all the employers of Local 26 roofers are involved.
    June 12, 2012 7:57 am on Strike tactics cross line, roofing company owner says
activate-button-3
Follow The Times

Latest Local Offers

Poll

Loading…

Should struggling small school districts merge with their neighbors?

View Results