union

[onedash]

Keep an eye on military pension. Im willing to bet that in the next 4-5 years they are going to change our retirement system to a 401K type...We have been able to contribute to the TSP for a few years now with no matching contributions. They are studying retirement now and i can see the writing on the wall. Everyone in now im sure will be safe but they will probably start with a test and offer dollar for dollar up to a better than aerage percentage and if retention isn't affected they will switch. Well how many condsider retirement in their first four years? None....Thats when you care about now and want more in your paycheck when you aren't making anything and think you can't save anything. And trust me its pretty hard to save money as a PFC when you are married and have kids...Like they say...5 percent of nothing is nothing....But pay has improved in the military quite a bit over the last few years.
But I don't think it should be so good you have people joining for the money....

[oakchas]

This has been an interesting discussion.

Unions are in some cases being blamed for holding a gun to the head of management. I was involved in a strike in '04... it lasted about 90 days.

In our case ("of course," say union bashers, "here it comes... He's gonna blame the company...") The company used "hired guns" to attempt to eliminate the union.

I imagine the conversation went something like this... "What!, You haven't had a strike in 30 years? You guys ain't tryin'! We can lower your production costs, eliminate the pensions and vacations that are killin you, and increase your profitability.. And that's if we let 'em back in... We can bust 'em!"

Veiled threats were made by management to the workers.

On the day PRIOR to the contract vote the company had their goon squad "SECURITY" force in place. This goon squad was a semi pro bunch (mostlye ex footbal linebacker types, really, honesstly) part of a firm called LBF, for Last, Best, and Final. This company provided the security, and the (ahem) "temporary replacement workers". On average, 6 out of 12 of these guys failed drug tests after being hired...

But the new management team had convinced the Board that any monkey could run this plant.
Most of them are gone now (the new management team)... and we are back. It cost the company 12 million dollars... It cost me both ways, I'm a shareholder after all, and I lost my wages for 3 months... But the company was so poorly managed prior to and during the strike, they had to pay unemployment, because of the means they used to put us on the street.

It does not have to be this way. Unions have saved companies before... but it requires on open mind and a truly team oriented approach. Something management can't seem to get a grasp on in most cases....

Wait a minute... He said, "Unions have saved companies before" Yeah, right...saved 'em from what, making a decent profit?

Here's a company we all know... Here's how it was saved from bankruptcy and possibly extinction, by its Unions, working WITH management, cooperatively, to save an AMERICAN ICON.

It's a good and worthwhile read:
http://www.dol.gov/21cw/speeches/jeffrey_bluestein.htm

[rickd]

And, if a company chooses to "argue in bad faith" and replace a union workforce with a "unskilled" and "untrained" non-union workforce, for whatever reason whatsoever (even if the reason is that the president of the company is anti-union), it should be within their rights to do so.

Great! Then if I buy products on credit from this company according to their credit policy(contract), I should be allowed to decide to not to pay them for whatever reason I choose and yet keep the items purchased by credit.

Rick

[cgallery]

The company negotiates a bad contract for itself (killing itself with pension load twenty years down the road) and it's anyone's fault but theirs?

While I'm not a labor expert, it is my understanding that the method used by the UAW to negotiate with the big three was to "negotiate" the best deal it could with the strongest of the three, and then demand that the other two meet the same terms. With the threat of a strike (the nuclear bomb analogy has been made by others), corporations caved. This is what I mean by holding a gun to their heads. Continuing with the nuclear analogy, corporations had no deterrent to a strike.

This is going to be my last post on the subject because I feel that I don't have anything more to say and I fear offending other users here. For the record, I'm pro-labor and pro-union, just want common sense to prevail.

[Stick]

Allow me to play the devil...


If a union can't negotiate a package based upon offering a quality workforce with skills that already match the company's operations, then something is wrong with that workforce.


Finally, to answer your "why tear down the guy making a few bucks more" argument, the reason is simple: Because I pay his wages. Indirectly, as consumers, we all pay each other's wages. If the only reason he is making more is that the company he works for had a gun held to its head during union negotiations, then yes, I am absolutely against him making a few bucks more.

Thanks,
Phil

Ok, now here's a different take on it. I'm union, and work for a crown corporation electrical utility. A crown corporation is more or less a division of the government. We make considerably less (25%) than our counterparts in private industry because the government limits our wage increases. The company I work for is one of three crowns that actually makes money in the province. The others are the liquor board and the lotteries. We each make hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Every other crown and every form of government is a direct drain to the taxpayers. But because we are classed as govt employees, we get lumped in with all the dead weight pencil pushers with no useful purpose. We haven't had a wage increase that even came close to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (how they rate the cost of living up here) in over 20 years. It is not the union's fault that we can't get a decent package, it's the government's. See, they scoop the profit that we make to balance their budget, to the tune of about 400 million a year. Anything more that they paid us would mean less for them. All the union can try to do is to try to get us decent benefits, which aren't under government's control.

[fiasco]

While I'm not a labor expert, it is my understanding that the method used by the UAW to negotiate with the big three was to "negotiate" the best deal it could with the strongest of the three, and then demand that the other two meet the same terms. With the threat of a strike (the nuclear bomb analogy has been made by others), corporations caved. This is what I mean by holding a gun to their heads. Continuing with the nuclear analogy, corporations had no deterrent to a strike.

Can you blame the union for trying to get a labor friendly contract? It is their mandate after all. As for the "threat of a strike" being a gun pointed to the companies heads, this is not always the case. You assume that the threat of a strike exists. A strike authorization vote has to pass union membership for the Union to hold any threat of a strike. That's a vote that failed the last time (I think the last two times) through our plant before our last rounds of contract negotiations.

As for a deterrent to strike, the loss of wages from a protracted strike is would think would give anyone pause.

[jseklund]

I think that Fiasco had some interesting points about poor management in corporations. I think this is a problem to be honest- and more with middle-management than top management as a lot of people think. His example is perfect - he gave his middle management supervisor good advice and it was ignored. I've done this with telecom expenses for companies- "I can save you $15,000 a month if you change." and they want to think about it. I wasn't going in as a phone company looking to change services. I was going in looking to eliminate their billing errors for them! They don't care though because there is no benefit for THEM- only the company. On this point I agree.

I disagree that unions are the solution. I think unions are a band-aid to the problem. The problem is the management, poor training, etc. Instead of fixing the problem directly, unions create the safety net.

The problem is that with unemployment so low (6% has historically been considered 'full employment' up until the late 90's)- companies don't have anyone to replace an employee with who is capable. This is what causes inflation, and this is why interest rates are raised by the FED. Interesting that I never thought about how this would actually play out with unions- giving them more bargaining power.

While I don't agree with Unions, I can see the point made about poor management in some companies. But I think a lot of companies are better managed than we think- it's just a matter of our perspective on everything. Often we only see a small piece of the puzzle.

[gjat]

Very interesting topic.
I've been a project manager for almost 30 years for electrical construction in a very specialized field. Mostly the labor has been non-Union, but many have been Union. In fact, I used to belong to the IBEW. That being said...

I wish the Unions would do what they're supposed do do and provide the high level of training that is a great asset to the laborer. Sadly, they tended to train 'just enough' and then treat the labor as if they were a Temporary Labor Company, selling their services to Contractors. Non-Union workers had better benefits, better pay, and more stable jobs, but lacked the skill the average Union work did. Union workers were better qualified, had a horrible anti-managment attitude, were generally lazy, were expensive to the company but got paid less, were continually screwed in benefits, and only made the union bosses wealthy.
I'm pro-Labor, but anti-Union Bosses.

[rickd]

I find all of this anti-union rhetoric kind of interesting! If coporations and business owners treated employees fairly and honestly then there would never have been the need for unions then or now! But, the sad fact is, they don't.

There are still way too many Enron's etc. who will take every opportunity to not only cheat their employees but their stockholders as well - all in the name of 'greed'. Greedy owners is what precipitated unions in the first place. Until the greed stops, and it never has, employees will always need a strong unified voice in dealing with corporations.

Greedy owners and coroporations are the breeding ground of unions - that's always been the case and always will be. That will ulitimately be the downfall of Walmart - several family members worth billions and billions while their employees work for miserly wages.

It has started here in Canada with a few stores now unionized and more on the way. Walmart threatened to close them but changed their minds when it became obvious that their bluff was being called. If they want to leave - then it's simple - 'good-bye and good riddance'! But, they won't leave no more than McDonald's has. They can afford to pay reasonable wages - they just don't want to!

Rick

[Rslaugh]

.... Do not perpetuate myths.....

Not sure how asking a question perpetuates myths.

This thread is bordering on the Politics/Religion edge at this point.

[cgallery]

It has started here in Canada with a few stores now unionized and more on the way. Walmart threatened to close them but changed their minds when it became obvious that their bluff was being called. If they want to leave - then it's simple - 'good-bye and good riddance'! But, they won't leave no more than McDonald's has. They can afford to pay reasonable wages - they just don't want to!

Rick

Okay, I'm ignoring my previous promise not to post any more (to prevent offending people) to make this additional post.

I recently read a book about Wal-Mart that was very insightful. The premise was that they treated their employees very poorly and paid them even worse. But in the final analysis, they went on to show that at their current profit levels, they really can't afford to pay their employees any more. That, giving every employee something like a $1 per hour raise would wipe-out their retained earnings.

So a main problem with Wal-Mart is the consumerism that demands lower and lower prices.

In terms of the anti-union rhetoric you mention, I want to emphasize that it is possible to be critical of unions without being anti-union.

Finally, I agree that unions have done wonders (in the U.S., end to child labor, five day work week, I could go on and on).

[fiasco]

The problems with my union:

1) Does not police its own ranks: The union is supposed to provide a workforce that meets it's contractual obligations. Disciplinary action for workers who repeatedly violate the contract falls on the company. The union should eliminate these people... period. The best employees pull the worst employees wages up and conversely the worst employees pull the best employees wages down. Wage bonuses should be paid based on something other then seniority but the Union would never agree to such disparity. Hourly wage modifiers based on attendence and lack disciplinary action through the year could be used to encourage performance. Some people are lazy pieces of #### (Union or non-union) and are not going to work hard if they make the same money as everyone else regardless.

2) Doesn't educate the workforce: My union has done little to nothing to educate the workforce on issues. Rumours and speculation are the order of the day and often important votes are swayed by rumours and the Union does nothing to dispell them (even when the rumour seemingly hurts a union vote). Historical and contractual education is non-existant.

3) Apathetic member base: This is tied to #2 and also the Unions refusal to embrace new, less expensive technology to reach the member base. I know Perl, PHP, Java, Javascript, Flash and numerous other web technologies well. I have programmed websites for video game companies. I have offered to setup a website for the local union to three different union presidents and all (being ignorant of such new fangled technology) have refused. They prefer to pay their "pocket people" a full shifts pay to stand outside for an hour at the begining of the shift to "handbill" people.

4) Union Meetings: this is tied to #3. Local union management is largely incompetent and Union Meetings often devolve into Jerry Springer like antics. I gave my "Rules of Order" book to a previous local president but I don't know if he can read....


There is more then enough room on both sides for improvement without stripping wages and benefits. We *could* significantly increase per worker productivity but that would require some "higher ups" on both sides to shut up and listen.

Dont know if anyone would be interested but I could post my last written grievance. I was written up for not performing my job correctly. My grievance lays out an issue and actually circulated amongst upper management and was then re-distributed amongst all plant management. The entire plant management team came down and talked to me one at a time (shaking hands and kissing babys politician style). I was even offered a job in management (no way). Despite this, the end result was that they ignored every single corrective suggestion made in my grievance.

I think that the grievance clearly demonstrates that not all UAW workers are lazy slugs who don't care about productivity or quality.

[jseklund]

I find all of this anti-union rhetoric kind of interesting! If coporations and business owners treated employees fairly and honestly then there would never have been the need for unions then or now! But, the sad fact is, they don't.

There are still way too many Enron's etc. who will take every opportunity to not only cheat their employees but their stockholders as well - all in the name of 'greed'. Greedy owners is what precipitated unions in the first place. Until the greed stops, and it never has, employees will always need a strong unified voice in dealing with corporations.

Greedy owners and coroporations are the breeding ground of unions - that's always been the case and always will be. That will ulitimately be the downfall of Walmart - several family members worth billions and billions while their employees work for miserly wages.

It has started here in Canada with a few stores now unionized and more on the way. Walmart threatened to close them but changed their minds when it became obvious that their bluff was being called. If they want to leave - then it's simple - 'good-bye and good riddance'! But, they won't leave no more than McDonald's has. They can afford to pay reasonable wages - they just don't want to!

I have to disagree that owners treating their workers poorly is the "breeding ground" for unions. Only I can allow someone to control my situation in life. Only I can let an owner treat me badly. If one owner treats me badly, I have the choice to go work for someone else, start my own company, etc. If people stopped blaming things on their outside world, and realized that they are in control- then we would have no need for a union.

I understand that the other side to the coin is that if we were in a society where ALL owners treated EVERYONE badly, then there may be an issue. I just don't think that most workers are treated badly at all. We are such a victim society- and our perception is the issue.

I don't know, maybe I'm too gung-ho about it all, or naive, or too academic, or too whatever....

[fiasco]

I dont want to offend but you are dillusional if you think that you are in control of your situation in life and that no outside person or influence could wrest said control away from you. That's just a generalization for life itself but it certainly holds true for labor/employment security.

I have decent job security but I also have skills that would enable me to work in a couple different fields should my plant close. Software programming, server administration, home remodeling ect. Despite that I am not naive enough to think that I'm 100% in control of my life situation.

[jackellis]

Interesting discussion. Everyone's been surprisingly civil seeing how unions can be a pretty explosive subject.

I never worked for a union, though I scabbed while working for a utility during my college years. In some respects, unions have become an institution that roughly parallels corporate managements. Union leaders, from the shop steward on up, have incentives that are not always aligned with the interests of their members. Growing the membership grows dues, and some of those dues find their way into management's pocket.

I'm also not a big fan of most corporate managements. Executives, who are supposed to be running companies for the benefit of their shareholders, often act like they are the owners and shareholders are just a nuisance to be tolerated. I don't have a problem with what entrepreneurs pay themselves. Corporate chiefs that take down tens or hundreds of millions per year are looting their companies, especially if those companies are not performing well.

The pension and social security and health care messes are partly the fault of unions and managements, but steady increases in life spans also plays a big role. When government first raised the alarm about Social Security back in the late 1970s, I did the math and realized I'd have to put away a sizable pot of money so that if I actually did live to 90 or 95 (not likely, but possible) I would not go broke first. Lots of people also forget that the purpose of Social Security and pensions is to provide a safety net. It isn't your only means of old age support and it should not be, either.

As for the minimum wage, I'm not sure what to think. RickD has some very valid points. On the other hand, many states have minimum wages that are higher than the Federal minimum.

For the person who was not impressed with the younger generation, that's a generalization with plenty of exceptions. Most of the people I work with are in their 50s and 60s, with decades of experience and in many cases, advanced degrees. Well, I know some 24 year-olds I'd put up against these colleagues any day. And the thirteen year-old at dinner last night held her own in conversations with a big bunch of highly educated adults. The future might be a bit bleak, but it's not lost yet.