Republicans and Workers Unite Against Democrats
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
As prominent Democrats, Unite Here 217, and socialist activists protested outside the Westin in an attempt to drive the workers’ employer out of the state (or out of business, whichever comes first), Republicans marched boldly past them to attend their State Central Committee meeting, followed by “A Night Out at the Westin” – an event sponsored by the RI Young Republicans. After their meeting, over one hundred members of the RIGOP spent several hours patronizing the restaurants and bars located within the hotel – congregating with the Westin workers, securing their jobs, and tipping them for their outstanding service.
Democrats, as predictable as the sunrise, couldn’t stand by while some people dared to illustrate that the best way to be pro-worker is to be pro-business. So, Democrats did what Republicans expected them to do. They rallied outside the Westin hotel, frantically trying to convince the public that they were fighting on behalf of workers, even as they attempted to drive another employer out of the state. They looked ridiculous.
The current Westin boycott is not a rare occurrence. Democrats and unions frequently betray the working class by forcing jobs out of Rhode Island. A state long controlled by Democrats, and largely influenced by left-wing activism, Rhode Island now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, and is a place that Forbes Magazine calls “the worst place for business.”
Fortunately, many union members are waking up to union antics, finally realizing that the state’s fiscal desperation has been largely caused by boycotts, strikes, and union-friendly legislation passed by elected Democrats. Many of them now understand that fostering a healthy business environment is the best way to create more job opportunities, thereby pushing wages upward as employers compete for a limited supply of workers. It’s called “capitalism.” It’s called “competition.” It’s called “the American Dream.” Democrats and labor leaders despise all of it.
Along with everyone else, union workers also discovered last week that, after seven decades of Democratic control over the state of Rhode Island, one out of every seven Rhode Islanders now participates in the Food Stamp program. And if the Procaccianti Group – a world-class employer that pays the highest average hospitality salary in the state – decides to finally bail out of Rhode Island, their current employees will be the next recipients of government-subsidized food, and the latest victims of the Rhode Island Left’s economic sabotage.
Democrats are toast. People are suffering. And the jig is up.
Travis Rowley (travis.rowley@rhodeislandyr.
Comments:
ed curtis
7:30am on Tuesday, June 01, 2010
"the best way to be pro-worker is to be pro-business"
This, in a nutshell, is is exactly what DEMONcrats and union leaders just cannot get through their thick skulls. These socialists go after the people who provide jobs, thus eliminating the job opportunities.
Such a simple concept yet completely ignored by the liberal Progressives.
Jacob Loupus
8:30am on Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Presumably, Mr. Rowley would bring back indentured servitude, if not slavery, to create full employment. Also, 18 of the last 22 years have seen Republican control of the Executive Branch in RI.
Parker Lacoste
10:48am on Tuesday, June 01, 2010
@ Jacob: the RI Office of Governor is Constitutionally one of the weakest in the country. The real power lies with the legislature, which has been dominated by the Democrats for decades.
Nick Gelfuso
11:43am on Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Well actually Jake you kind of have it backwards, since if anything the union was promoting indentured servitude by forcing their own people to work for free by harassing away paying/tipping customers such as Mr. Rowley.
Erich Sturn
12:16pm on Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Nick pretty much nailed it on the head. Jacob, if you're waiting tables and there aren't customers present, you potentially wind up working for $2.83 an hour. I know, I've been there.
David Pepin
2:38pm on Tuesday, June 01, 2010
It was interesting to see a number of prominent R.I. Republicans either refuse to cross the picket line or express their misgivings about doing it for this event. Scott Hirst, in particular, expressed his misgivings over the GOP interjecting itself into a private sector labor dispute (Democratic Party officials didn't get involved until the GOP made its move).
If the event had already been scheduled at the Westin, that's one thing. But it seems to me the egos of a couple of party officials put many of their fellow party members in an uncomfortable position (and I'd love to hear from a neutral source how many Young Republicans partied down there afterward).
As for the merits of this dispute, savvy business owners know treating employees fairly and equitably is the most effective way to keep a union out of the workplace. Too bad the owners of the Westin disagree.
Don Roach
3:44pm on Tuesday, June 01, 2010
As a fellow Young Republican and ne'er one to be a sychophant, I had concerns regarding what the Westin was asking its employees to take on and the ability of the Westin employees to absorb the changes. David states "savvy business owners know treating employees fairly and equitably is the most effective way to keep a union out of the workplace" which seems to indicate his belief that Westin owners aren't savvy and are not treating employees fairly or equitably. While that sounds like a nice soundbite the question is, where's his justification?
Rhode Island is scuffling through one of the worst economic time periods in our state's history and one of the industries hit hardest is the travel industry. It lends to reason that the Westin is not as profitable today as it was in recent years. Management, in these situations, is faced with a difficult and certainly unenviable task of making moves to counterbalance market realities. Such moves are freezing/cutting wages and passing along benefits' costs. None of us like it, but who among us has never had our wage reduced/frozen or seen our benefits cut or be asked to pay more for them? It is an unfortunate reality of the economic world we live in.
And the problem in this state is that too often we think only about how the cut wages affect the worker and not about how the market is affecting the business. Without the Westin, these folks won't have a job much less a job paying them less than what they are making now. Rather than boycotting the Westin and decrying the less than "savvy" business owners, we need to take a hard look at the business climate in Rhode Island, ensure that we build a more skilled labor work force, and take a sober look at the various management/worker negotiations that go on in this state.
Knee-jerk reactions/counteractions don't solve very much but I stand with my fellow Young Republicans on this one because it is high time many of our union brethren realize what we're all facing in this state and take on their fair share of the sacrifice.
dave chester
5:36am on Thursday, June 03, 2010
All of you can write articles against the workers and comment all you like, but in reality you do not know anything about this issue at all. It is obvious that you dont, you write off the wall stuff, for example "Last week, Rhode Island Republicans stood up in support of the Westin hotel workers, who are currently under threat of a boycott of their place of employment, which is being orchestrated by union activists and the Democratic Party"
I work at the Westin, been there a long time. I sit at the table durring negotiations, I am on the negotiating committee. I live this situation day in and day out. I am here to tell you that you folks have it all wrong.
1.The "union" didnt call the boycott, the workers did. They voted 138 to 2 to call the boycott. And the Democratic Party had no say or any part what so ever in calling this boycott. How could the Democratic party have any say in a workers vote to call a boycott????? Saying that the Democratic Party did, is a straight up fabrication!
2. The wage cuts and health insurance increases were imposed, not negotiated. The law says managment has to negotiate changes. That is the law.
3. Prior to the cuts the managment had fired 3 workers for going out to an informational picket line. Firing workers for engaging in union activity is illegal. It is an unfair labor practice. The NLRB issued a complaint against the Westin for that, and put the 3 people back to work. With full back pay.
4. Prior to the cuts, workers were being threatened for engaging in legal union activity. The NLRB again stepped in and issued a complaint and stopped managment from doing that.
5. Not only did managment impose cuts in pay 20%, and increase the health insurance costs by $350 more a month, but they also unilateraly cut the job security language out of the contract . And they are now moving to fire half of the workers, and subcontracting their jobs to outside workers. That is another huge reason workers chose to boycott, it is a way for the workers to stand up and fight back for their rights. Workers have the federal right to boycott or strike. Why shouldnt they use their federal rights to fight against their rights being violated?
6.The workers were being very reasonable at the table and started the negotiations by offering a one year freeze, and over several negotiating sessions, had moved to offering a three year freeze. Two days after offering a 3 year freeze the westin sent a fax refusing to accept the offer and notified us of the cuts. We were willing to keep negotiating and we were willing to make even more movement, the managment decided to impose instead of negotiate further.
7.If you were really standing up for the workers you would have been outside on the picket line, not inside patronizing the hotel. What the hotel managment is doing is wrong and they have broken federal labor laws, and you folks support that. And you stood against the workers who have the federal right to call a boycott and to picket. That I will never understand.
I understand you folks do not like unions, and it is your right not to. What I will never understand is supporting a company that is breaking federal law. The law is the law. If you love this country so much, then shouldnt you want federal laws to be followed. And if you disagree with the law, then shouldnt you be moving to have the laws changed. But until the laws are changed, shouldnt you support following the laws, and not support companies violating laws?
Again you folks do not know all the facts and should stop posting and stop bashing us until you get a better look at both sides.
ed curtis
7:34am on Thursday, June 03, 2010
Dave,
Welcome to the REAL WORLD!
You and the boycott brigade have to learn about how things are in business.
1) Workers overwhelmingly voted to walk out. This attitude is why many, many manufacturers and businesses left Rhode Island. United Wire, Uniroyal, Fram and a host of other companies moved to more "business friendly" states. That worked out really well for the RI union workers, didn't it?
2) Pay cuts and health insurance increases are part of life in the northeast. As a business owner, I see the loss of locally generated income under this new *entitlement* society. I also have first hand experience with the increasing cost of health insurance since I pay for it. Why do unions feel they should not bear part of the responsibility for these issues? More of that entitlement attitude.
3) As far as the firing, maybe there's more to that than you are alluding. Courts have the final say but again, the union slant is always going to written by a member.
4) Can't blame any company for not wanting any union involvement with their business. The history of union generated damage to businesses is well known and obvious. The UAW is a perfect example of union destruction of one of the biggest employers. Bet you loved the spending of your Federal tax dollars being used to support (bail out) your fellow union members.
5) Increasing costs is commonplace in business. Most are driven *because* of union demands! Still, why do unions feel they should not pay their fair share of these increases? The typical one sided union mentality is *share the wealth* but not share the burden. Why is that?
6) Members were reasonable but the Westin was not? No union bias there. Sure Dave. Maybe the Westin should just leave RI like so many businesses did when the unions demanded more than they deserve? That would be considered as another union victory like Uniroyal and Brown & Sharpe?
7) Unions need to be broken if they cannot see that the roads paved in gold are only a fantasy. Time for a wake up call. Unions are obsolete and need to be removed from the business model if this economy is ever going to recover. Otherwise we'll be in the same condition as Greece. Overrun by union thugs demanding more than they contribute.
dave chester
10:15am on Thursday, June 03, 2010
Ed,
Again I say you folks dont know the case and should learn about it before you go bashing. I am there I see it, I live it, I know you dont.
1.You wrote " Workers overwhelmingly voted to walk out." Not true, workers voted for a boycott. There is a huge difference. This is why I say people should get more facts before bashing.
2. About the health insurance increase you wrote " Why do unions feel they should not bear part of the responsibility for these issues? More of that entitlement attitude". I already pay a portion of my health insurance, and I was at the negotiating table willing to discuss changes to health insurance. Again you dont have a clue what you are talking about. And what did I feel entitled to? When did I say I was entitled to something, when did any Westin worker say they were entitled to anything other than our federal rights, like negotiating in good faith, and not being fired against federal law, or threatened illegaly at work. Did you ever see or hear any of us say we were entitled to anything else?
3. You wrote "As far as the firing, maybe there’s more to that than you are alluding. Courts have the final say but again, the union slant is always going to written by a member." Well you said it, the courts have the final say, and the NLRB ruled that the firings were illegal. Also I am not about writing slant. It is what happened. The state of RI Unemployment office investigated and decided in the workers favor, and then the NLRB investigated and also found in the workers favor. What more do you need to see that this is no slant job. Why do you find it impossible that a company would fire workers to scare other workers from picketing. is that such a stretch?? You said your self.
4. You said "Can’t blame any company for not wanting any union involvement with their business." And to that I say you can blame them if they are breaking the law in order to stop union activity in their company. It is against the law.
5. You said "why do unions feel they should not pay their fair share of these increases?" Again I was at the negotiating table, you were not, and we never said we wouldnt consider increases in health insurance. Again you need to get the facts before you go and bash.
6. I was there, you were not. Yes the members were reasonable and making movement. The managment was not. Thats my opinion, but again I was actually there and would be able to actually have an opinion. You were not. Any opinion you have is based on zero, goose egg.
7. You wrote " Unions need to be broken if they cannot see that the roads paved in gold are only a fantasy." Wow that is a strong statement, what would you say if I said that compoanies need to be broke who dont negotiate in good faith and that are too greedy. I wouldnt say that because I dont feel that is the solution. Union breaking is against federal law in any situation. Why cant people deal with that and accept that? I feel that Managment and Union need to negotiate in good faith, neither side should be too greedy or unreasonable. Isnt that a better way to look at it.
8. You wrote "Unions are obsolete and need to be removed from the business model if this economy is ever going to recover. Otherwise we’ll be in the same condition as Greece. Overrun by union thugs demanding more than they contribute." Funny I could say something similar about Republicans and the political system in this country, but I didnt, because that would not have been nice, so I didnt go there. Why did you???
We agree to disagree, you hate unions, that is clear. I am pro union that is clear. But let it be said, I am involved in this situation first hand, you are not. I can post on this issue with an educated opinion on the first hand facts of the situation, you can not.
ed curtis
10:34am on Thursday, June 03, 2010
"We agree to disagree, you hate unions, that is clear. I am pro union that is clear."
Dave,
By stating I hate unions must mean your "pro-union" comments equates to you being "anti-business". You must be proud to be a member of like-minded thugs who prefer to bite the hand that feeds you.