Beer fans….possible Molson Coors boycott

[JD48]

20 minutes ago, JFC1 said:

When I was finishing my doctoral degree and teaching undergrads for $11,000 a year, my wife got pregnant and my son was born by C-Section. That cost over $40,000. But, luckily, the year before,  graduate teaching assistants had struck while the University was building a biotech initiative. The teamsters bringing in the girders for the new buildings supported us and refused to cross the ticket line. Because of their support the university quickly caved in to our demand for health insurance, which cost them a pittance in relation to the biotech initiative while also allowing the people who actually teach their undergrads to survive. And because of that I didn't have to drop out. And because of that I am able to contribute to the US and to our students today. Hail to the teamsters. I know there is a history of corruption in many US unions and, sure, there are slackers who are protected by every union. But thank god for unions, and the teamsters, or we'd all be starving and over a barrel today while Daddy Warbucks wipes the floor with us. Unions raise wages for all, since they set up a baseline that may not be reached by the non-unionized, but it's still a baseline. That doesn't excuse unions' excesses. But it does tell us they're absolutely necessary to the middle class.

People on here like @Lunatic seem to have a problem with paying people a just wage, and they go and present any attempt to pay people fairly as a race to the bottom. But it's not a 0 sum game that pits the weak against the weak: When we pay a teamster $90 rather than the $25/hr scabs and the undocumented and the rest of the desperate reserve army of workers would accept, we are taking money not from you and me, but from the upper echelons of corporate and university governance. Those people make millions. And every day they seek to break the back of the middle class and take even more of our share. A just wage for a teamster is not coming from your pocket or mine. That's precisely what those pulling the money out of your pockets want you to believe. Divide and conquer. Pull the wool over your eyes, cash out of your paycheck, and then tell you that if you don't like it it's the government fault. Or the socialists. Or the migrants. Or the American guy who works hard and deserves a wage that allows him to buy a house and raise a family, but won't shut up and support the tax breaks of the rich. Rupert Murdoch became a billionaire transmitting the message that a desire for a just wage is a pipe dream or an imposition on you and me. And dupes believe it. Why would anyone wish lower wages on the middle class, as opposed to those who siphon off cash from our hard work? It can only be ignorance, corruption, or plain old selfishness

Well put, well said, Teamsters (unions) do set the baseline and standards, non-union companies pay reasonable wages to keep the union out, but screw the workers in other areas, benefits, vacation, seniority, medical, pension, etc. PROUD TO BE A TEAMSTER RETIREE!

[Sako76]

I shaped the docks on Teamsters jobs and was a card carrying member for 11 years while going to college, graduate school and 5 years into my career job.  Started in 1978 at $13.25/hour and pretty much unlimited (and mandatory) overtime.  Other kids were making $2/hour at Shop-Rite.  Boy, was I well heeled with beer money!  Put me in the pro Union category!

[JD48]

1 hour ago, Sako76 said:

I shaped the docks on Teamsters jobs and was a card carrying member for 11 years while going to college, graduate school and 5 years into my career job.  Started in 1978 at $13.25/hour and pretty much unlimited (and mandatory) overtime.  Other kids were making $2/hour at Shop-Rite.  Boy, was I well heeled with beer money!  Put me in the pro Union category!

In 1997 they changed it from 10 years t0 5 years to be vested in the pension, if you worked enough of hours each month, you MAY be entitled to a pension, ask the fund office from the local for a work history report.

[Bucksnbows]

It’s funny, I’ve been boycotting these beers for decades, but it has zero to do with unions. Their beer sucks. Period. 

[hostak126]

I Drink Yuengling, George Soros is a stock holder in Coors and Molson

[1957Buck]

15 hours ago, MGHunter66 said:

I won’t get into debate here on unions but I’ll point out two ramifications that most don’t see and whereas the public has no say…

First, prevailing wage is a result whereas the public has to pay more for a service (construction for example)than a contractor would normally charge due to inflated wage rate. Yet the public doesn’t necessarily receive the most skilled workers due to the fact the lowest responsive bidder has to be awarded the contract.

Second that cost has further increased by the labor unions getting into politicians pockets having them pass legislation to require an apprenticeship program. The contractor can opt out by giving a payoff to unions (pay to play) or adopting an apprenticeship program. Either way the burden ends up being paid by the public. 
 

Union and prevailing wage projects are usually 3-4 times the cost due to this. All public work is done in this manner whether it be parks, schools, municipalities and so on. If it were to be put on a ballot for vote it would be shot down by the taxpayers instantly. But that never will happen with the collusion between politicians and the Unions. 
 

Just my 2 cents, I deal with these type of prevailing wage bids and contracts every day and I laugh at the price they’re getting.

A liberal leftist Democrat would say 

[hammer4reel]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:11 AM, Lunatic said:

Because giving a small portion of our work force artificially inflated labor rates and benefits does not help us and in fact cost us an incredible amount of money. If someone is willing to work for $25/hr. why do we insist we pay $90? This is catering to about 13% of our work force at incredible cost to every single one of us. Teamsters are on another level. They collect  money from employers for their members pension. This is a fixed amount by the hour. Then they lost the money through bed investments, and  who really know how, so now they charge the original amount + what they need to recover their loses. The way the law is set up they can do this 100 times and the employers have to pay. Then the law makes it impossible for the employers to leave the union. To do so they have to pay separation fee. Average of the last 5 years contributions times 10 years. Even if the company goes out of business they have to pay and in many cases this is in millions.
Who do you think pays for all this ? Me and you. Cost is cost and it is passed on to consumer and taxpayer. Sounds like organized crime?

Says a guy who works for a GC . Which adds 25% to the overall price of the jobs .(besides adding 10% on our price )

and most times their scheduling shows they have no idea how a job actually gets built .

 

Love it when a GC engineer tells me we are commissioning parts of a job before the components to run the install are still 6 months out .

If it wasn’t for union scales a GC would make less than a WALMART greeter 

 

[hammer4reel]

15 hours ago, MGHunter66 said:

I won’t get into debate here on unions but I’ll point out two ramifications that most don’t see and whereas the public has no say…

First, prevailing wage is a result whereas the public has to pay more for a service (construction for example)than a contractor would normally charge due to inflated wage rate. Yet the public doesn’t necessarily receive the most skilled workers due to the fact the lowest responsive bidder has to be awarded the contract.

Second that cost has further increased by the labor unions getting into politicians pockets having them pass legislation to require an apprenticeship program. The contractor can opt out by giving a payoff to unions (pay to play) or adopting an apprenticeship program. Either way the burden ends up being paid by the public. 
 

Union and prevailing wage projects are usually 3-4 times the cost due to this. All public work is done in this manner whether it be parks, schools, municipalities and so on. If it were to be put on a ballot for vote it would be shot down by the taxpayers instantly. But that never will happen with the collusion between politicians and the Unions. 
 

Just my 2 cents, I deal with these type of prevailing wage bids and contracts every day and I laugh at the price they’re getting.

During my career we had a few split jobs .

and while there are some competent non union tradesman they don’t have a big enough hiring pool to do large scale projects .and never kept a jobs build schedule on large jobs .

 

They cant man jobs requiring hundreds of workers , then go down to 5 and back to 100 at job peaks .

 

The biggest of contractors also can’t keep a few hundred employed on a yearly basis . It takes many contractors to keep that number of men employed . And the workers flow between all those contractors .

AS a qualified JW , they need to understand all aspects of their tasks , ours from 10V to 35000 volts on a daily basis .

 

[BothBarrels]

Quote

This issue won't move the needle anywhere near what the Bud Light issue did.

I saw Kid Rock on Shawn Hannity's show a few weeks ago. They were both saying that they did not call for any boycotts and that they were sorry that people lost jobs, etc. Rock said he's putting Bud Light back in his bar.

I threw my shoe at the TV and tuned the channel. These two guys spearheaded it, pushed it daily, and made it into something it wasn't. JOs.

[DV1]

17 hours ago, JFC1 said:

When we pay a teamster $90 rather than the $25/hr scabs and the undocumented and the rest of the desperate reserve army of workers would accept, we are taking money not from you and me, but from the upper echelons of corporate and university governance. Those people make millions. And every day they seek to break the back of the middle class and take even more of our share. A just wage for a teamster is not coming from your pocket or mine.

You are smart enough to know that ^^ isn't true. The cost of labor is passed on to the consumer in the cost of goods and services. It is very basic. And just what is Your Share of what I make in my business, assuming I'm a business owner? Your share is the compensation you agree to when you take the job I'm hiring for, whether that is $25. per hour or $90 per hour. That's it, that is your share.

How else would you define your share of what I make in my business? Serious question.

You've stated many times on here that you are a Conservative, yet this entire post is basic Socialist dogma. There are no Conservative, or even Capitalist principles in this paragraph, and that's why many of us have a hard time believing your a Conservative and not a Socialist. 

That's precisely what those pulling the money out of your pockets want you to believe. Divide and conquer. Pull the wool over your eyes, cash out of your paycheck, and then tell you that if you don't like it it's the government fault. Or the socialists. Or the migrants. Or the American guy who works hard and deserves a wage that allows him to buy a house and raise a family, but won't shut up and support the tax breaks of the rich. Rupert Murdoch became a billionaire transmitting the message that a desire for a just wage is a pipe dream or an imposition on you and me. And dupes believe it. Why would anyone wish lower wages on the middle class, as opposed to those who siphon off cash from our hard work? It can only be ignorance, corruption, or plain old selfishness

I know we beat this to death a few years ago but I couldn't resist this at the moment. I'm not anti-Union by the way, at least not totally. I believe the cons of them slightly outweigh the pros. Don't want to see them go away, but they more often make things worse for a greater number of people than they make things better for.

Have a nice day professor.

Edited April 5 by DV1

[MGHunter66]

1 hour ago, 1957Buck said:

A liberal leftist Democrat would say 

My father used to look at people like you and say…. Like a box of rocks 

[1957Buck]

21 minutes ago, DV1 said:

I know we beat this to death a few years ago but I couldn't resist this at the moment. I'm not anti-Union by the way, at least not totally. I believe the cons of them slightly outweigh the pros. Don't want to see them go away, but they more often make things worse for a greater number of people than they make things better for.

Have a nice day professor.

Not Close to the Truth & Anti-Union  Beaten to death    is true,  a Socialist would say.

Local 10 Journey Men SMWA 16 years. Local 595 Millwright UAW 36 active years & Apprentice Co. Chairman,

 

 

[Lunatic]

2 minutes ago, MGHunter66 said:

My father used to look at people like you and say…. Like a box of rocks 

The fact liberals and democrats are pro-union escapes his complex mind

[MGHunter66]

1 hour ago, hammer4reel said:

During my career we had a few split jobs .

and while there are some competent non union tradesman they don’t have a big enough hiring pool to do large scale projects .and never kept a jobs build schedule on large jobs .

 

They cant man jobs requiring hundreds of workers , then go down to 5 and back to 100 at job peaks .

 

The biggest of contractors also can’t keep a few hundred employed on a yearly basis . It takes many contractors to keep that number of men employed . And the workers flow between all those contractors .

AS a qualified JW , they need to understand all aspects of their tasks , ours from 10V to 35000 volts on a daily basis .

 

I understand what you’re saying however it is not accurate in all aspects. Many jobs don’t require a huge pool of men but still fall under the prevailing wage requirements and apprenticeship requirement. You can not get a public works certificate without proof of apprenticeship program or union pay off. Furthermore anything costing over $4000 requires this and that number of $4000 includes aggregation whereas a “type of work” creates that number not even one contractor. 

[1957Buck]

10 minutes ago, MGHunter66 said:

My father used to look at people like you and say…. Like a box of rocks 

Did not know you or your father, But that statement says it all about you with no rebuttal from you.  not worth any further response unless you grow up and give one.

Edited April 5 by 1957Buck