Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Red Cross workers still on strike, still no negotiations

Posted 6 years ago on March 5, 2012, 9:57 a.m. EST by GirlFriday (17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

These workers desperately want the public to know their side of the story, but are scared that voicing their side to the media with their name attached is a death sentence for their jobs. The Red Cross administration recently posted a statement on their website, www.redcross.org, regarding the strike:

Continue reading on Examiner.com Red Cross workers still on strike, still no negotiations - Cleveland unemployment benefits | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/unemployment-benefits-in-cleveland/red-cross-workers-still-on-strike-still-no-negotiations#ixzz1oFrK458h



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 6 years ago

It appears that neither side is offering much information. The article from the examiner states the Red Cross made its final offer. The Red Cross also seems to be spinning some kind of PR tale about continuing negotiations. I understand the position, if you're at an impasse why hold meetings? I can understand the workers' frustrations too, they seem to be in a very weak position. What are the issues they are striking over?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

My understanding is that Red Cross has not made any attempts at negotiations. Shortcuts creating a safety issue for employees and donors. Staff cuts creating a safety issue. The Red Cross is more a cash cow than what it pretends to be. They have already been fined $30 million over blood safety practices.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 6 years ago

I don't know what to think about the whole thing. I've read that the Teamsters Union has made claims about donor safety, but there is no explanation of exactly how blood donors are at risk. One news item mentioned higher pay and benefits as the issue, hard to see that as donor safety. The Red Cross may want to cut workers. In terms of a blood drive fewer workers seems like it would just be a longer wait to donate not a public safety issue. I can't get too worked up for either side when no one makes public all the issues.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Workers may expand strike that threatens Red Cross blood supply

The union workers want a better health care plan, more sick days available, pay raises, and the ability to get daily lunches and breaks. Giles said that workers sometimes work 15 to 16 hours a day, loading up vehicles, traveling to a site, collecting blood, before driving back downtown to unload vehicles. The problem, Giles said, is that workers have to fight to get a 15 minute break during those work days.

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/workers-may-expand-strike-that-threatens-red-cross-blood-supply#ixzz1oZ2yUme9

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 6 years ago

Boo-hoo, the poor Red Cross. They should think about lowering salaries for upper-level staff and using that money to hire qualified lower level staff and stop exploiting college interns.

[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

Get Obama to show his righteous indignation and mighty power by actually FIRING these workers, RESPONSIBLE FOR OUT NATION'S BLOOD SUPPLY (this means there are human lives depending on them) and replace them with scabs!

There is already precedence for workers whose striking does not threaten and assure the loss of human lives!

Do it!

Then let all union workers show equal gall by doing their best to shut down and gridlock this nation.

You want result and unions to have some horsepower?

Here's your chance, get your boy to step up.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago

I don't think unions could pull that off. I think only about a quarter of jobs are unionized.

[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

Fire them all and write them off, replace them with the unemployed.

Bingo! 0% unemployment and DC goes from zero to hero!

[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

Well, Obama should fire them just like his mentor and role model, Regan did the air traffic controllers.

Firing the nation's Red Cross workers for striking could surely be much more easily justified than Air Traffic controllers.

I'm serious and this time EVERY union worker show some spine and walk of your jobs if you ever want any clout.

It would be the best thing to happen to labor unions, a rare second chance to actually do the right thing for their own cause, because the when Regan pulled his stunt, ALL UNION workers bent over and took it hard where the sun doesn't shine.

Had they been true to their actual purpose, they would have all walked off their jobs and locked down America from coast to coast, empowering unions in such a way as few here are old enough to have ever witnessed.

Argue with me and tell me I'm wrong. I know you will.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

You big dingaling. Reagan was able to fire the air traffic controllers because of a civil clause that said government employees could not strike. Red Cross workers are not under the same circumstances.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

So, when have such minor legalities been a problem for any administration, especially in recent times?

Simply, they haven't. Gestapo DC can and does anything it wants.

I think the Red Cross strikers are domestic terrorists, they must be! Nothing a bit of ignoring law or revision wouldn't take care of........

Maybe they should simply be detained indefinitely..... that'll learn em.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 6 years ago

I don't think you're being serious- but I dunno . They aren't gonna fire all the red cross workers

[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

Read what I've written and suggested. Ponder it and the outcome if it were to take place.

Sometimes the easiest solution bringing the most effective results just seems too far out there for many.

Ask yourself why every union worker did NOT walk off their jobs when the ATC's were fired? Do you have any idea how much power the unions in this nation had prior to NOT doing so?

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 6 years ago

The percentage of unionized workers is the same now as it was in the early 1900s.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago

You are right.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Why are they upset? They can work for some one else and not have to put up with the oppressive Red Cross rules.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

Hey, couldn't you fill in for them since blood sucking is about the only thing you're halfway good at doing, ya steenkin rhesus monkey?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

Good for them!

In b4 "get another job" trolls start posting...

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Thanks, Xenu. Good call!

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33471) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Yep. Even charitable organizations can be corrupt.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

if the red cross has a union,

there should be a list of names where the people can stand together

in their testimony and demands