TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:Come on guys. This thread has nothing to do with unions.

My point is not about unions or political parties. My point is that we criticize anti-gunners for labeling all gun owners as a group without bothering to do a little research and learning the truth for themselves, then on this forum we do the same thing.

A few examples:

All college faculty are anti-gun, anti-Christian, liberals.
• I have a cousin/friend that is a Collage Professor who is also a Baptist Minister, gun owner, and Second Amendment supporter and I suspect there are many more Collage Professors that are pro-gun and pro-2A.

Government employees are overpaid, incompetent, liberals.
• Government management/supervisors may fit that profile because promotions are by cronyism and most government managers are incompetent. I can only speak to my experience with the FAA. I and everyone in my area of work had to be certified on every system we had and every time a new system came in. We had to go to school on each system, receive OJT on that system and pass a hands on certification exam. Many of our supervisors had no idea how the systems worked.

All Hispanics want the border opened and anyone allowed to come in to the country as they wish.
• Most Mexican-Americans want the border controlled and illegal immigration and potential terrorists stopped just as much as any other American. The media just seeks out the few that don’t.

I could go on but I believe most people get my point. By grouping and labeling people we think we know, we alienate potential allies and we need all the allies we can get.

ScottDLS wrote:Yes and he could have his union dues money go exclusively to Hillary, Bernie, and Democrats only to support causes that are diametrically opposed to the 2nd amendment, and encourage higher taxes, regulation, and spending by a massive federal bureaucracy that is 80% unionized itself...

Wow I hit a nerve. I am still trying to understand how all those topics tie together in your rant.

I will try to address some of them though.

To begin with Union dues don’t go to any particular party and haven’t in quite a while. Dues go to the expenses of the union. Most unions have a Political Action Committee though that you may or may not contribute to.

Secondly- I know a lot of Union members that Hate Obummer, Hillary and other liberal Democrat idiots. I also know a lot of Union members that support the 2nd amendment and would fight and die for our constitutional way of life.

Third- both parties have their agendas and the middle class working people don’t figure into them.

Conservative Republicans would like nothing more than to do away with Unions, OSHA, all workplace safety laws, child Labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime and workman’s comp to name a few. Newt Gingrich slipped up once and put the Republican agenda out for the world to see. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... rs/248837/

What I am saying is that by labeling people all together (I know, I did it above), you don’t solve the problems this country has. You add to the problem.

Lastly I know a lot of Mexican-Americans that would like to see the border secured because the preponderance of jobs illegal immigrants are taking are Mexican-Americans’ jobs.

ScottDLS wrote:

DocV wrote:Texas is a right to work state. The employer does not need to provide a reason for firing an employee. That road works both ways as an employee does not need to provide a reason for leaving either. Leaving a bad work situation quietly is seldom a bad move.

So Hank doesn't have to have a union card to work in a closed shop security company and can't be forced join the union just to work. What does that have to do with him getting fired for talking about guns?

I am glad you asked that question. Had he been a member of a good union his employer would have to fire him according to an agreed and published set of procedures and code of conduct.

First (for normal misconduct or low quality or quantity of work) the company would have to give him a verbal reprimand with a union rep present. The company representative would be required to inform him what he has done/is doing wrong and state what the company expects him to do to correct the problem.

If the employee does not remedy the situation, the next step is for the company to give him a letter giving him a time limit to bring his quantity and or quality of work up to at least average standards of everyone else and inform him if he fails he will be terminated.

The third step is a letter of termination.

If the employee does something bad enough, management can fire the employee at any step along the process. This process only provides the employees some semblance of due process and fairness.

Texas is a “Right to Work” state meaning unions cannot have “Closed Shops” where you must belong to the Union in order to work there. In a Right to Work” state the law requires the Union to represent even non members.

The law however does not say how well the Union must represent non members.

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Jusme wrote: If they have no written policy, then it's not a policy,it's arbitrary. It does sound like someone has a grudge against you in some other area.

I think this is more likely the case.

A friend of mine was recently fired for giving her opinion.
She was asked by a VP for her honest opinion about how the HR department was handling a certain issue.
He reported their conversation to the HR department.
She was fired for "spreading lies" about them.

Sounds like a good opportunity for a lawyer to take up a retaliation case against them. These types of tactics are a VERY good way for a company to lose a lot of money.

She talked to a lawyer. The company changed their mind and decided that they didn't have enough evidence to fire her for cause.
Then they laid her off. The lawyer didn't think that she had enough cause for a lawsuit.

She should have found another lawyer. Anyone could have seen through that little dance, especially if they hired someone right away to replace her.

WildBill wrote:This may anger some of the forum members, but when one is at work, you are supposed to talk about work related issues, not guns, shooting or hunting.
I agree that what you discuss on your breaks or at lunch is not the company's business, but if on work hours I suggest avoiding the discussions.
If you can't be fired for free speech, you can be fired for wasting time and not working.

I have no problem with that, as long as it is administered fairly and equally across all subjects including but not limited to: politics, religion, golf, the news, jokes. etc. and not just guns or whatever other subject someone decides they don’t want people talking about.

Not addressed to anyone in particular.

Don’t like unions? Bow down and kiss butt or find another job.