union

[onedash]

Does anyone here belong to a union? If so is your pay tied to the minimum wage?
I think its pretty bad that the president will probably go along with the libs and raise the minimum wage. They claim its for the people who make minimum wage but if the republicans put an ammendment that would not allow it to affect union wages tied to minimum do you think the libs would go crazy?

I hope the president sticks to his guns....I agree the republicans didn't do nearly enough and hopefully this is a wake up call...

[MilDoc]

So ... you don't want the minimum wage raised?

[Pappy]

I was basically anti-union most of my life, until I went to work for the post office. The way management works, it is a necessity for us.

To answer your question, our pay rates aren't tied to the minimum wage.

[LinuxRandal]

So ... you don't want the minimum wage raised?

First, the only union I am a member of, MOST of us here are (United States of America), although the Union hasn't been blues in a long time.
Second, whenever the minimum wage increases, labor costs increase. When labor costs increase, cost to the consumer increases. So the minimum wage is normally only a benefit for a short while.
Third. Unions have their place, and have done some good. BUT they also have their bad points. I know of one person who is union with UPS, and he always said his goal was to be "the worst person in the union and still have a job". And he happily said that in front of a reporter, and is still employeed with them.
Fourth. This is probably on a union by union basis, since they negotiate their own contracts. What happens with the post office, may not with the railroad.

[onedash]

So ... you don't want the minimum wage raised?

No I don't. I think minimum wage is fine. Who does it impact the most? Employers. The poorest people already don't pay any taxes and get more money back than they have withheld. I was one of them for quite a few years in the Marine Corps. I always said I couldn't wait to pay more taxes because it meant I was making more money. If my wife didn't work we would probably still be getting the earned income credit.
I think unions have outlived their usefullness in most cases.

Pappy
Isn't the post office tied to the govt pay scale? What benefit is there to a union? I know military service can be converted(bought back) for seniority.

I think back when material was expensive and labor was cheap unions were needed for the welfare of the workers but with all the laws and regulations now days I don't see what they can provide.

Perfect example. In a city last year they decided to put in waterless urinals but the union made them pay to install water pipes that would not be used.

I know there is plenty crooked stuff going on in govt with or without unions and its sickening and I see it on a regular basis. Yet the senior leadership just nods their heads and smile..They put their careers ahead of what they know is right. In one case there is 40 million dollars being spent on something that won't do anyone any good and they are all aware and have said they do not care if it works. I won't go into any detail because i'd hate to see it come back to haunt me.
But I keep voicing my opinion through my chain of command and hopefully someday it makes a difference.

[LinuxRandal]

The poorest people already don't pay any taxes and get more money back than they have withheld.

The worst year I ever had, I earned $8000. Barely kept the house payments up, and went hungry quite a bit. I don't know how taxes are handled, since this was when you were in the military, BUT, while I did qualify for EIC that year, taxes still ate me up! I still had taxes on food, groceries, gas, property etc. So I really DIDN'T get back more then I paid, I think that is a misnomer!

[eezlock]

union...........

First, the only union I am a member of, MOST of us here are (United States of America), although the Union hasn't been blues in a long time.
Second, whenever the minimum wage increases, labor costs increase. When labor costs increase, cost to the consumer increases. So the minimum wage is normally only a benefit for a short while.
Third. Unions have their place, and have done some good. BUT they also have their bad points. I know of one person who is union with UPS, and he always said his goal was to be "the worst person in the union and still have a job". And he happily said that in front of a reporter, and is still employeed with them.
Fourth. This is probably on a union by union basis, since they negotiate their own contracts. What happens with the post office, may not with the railroad.

That guy that made the comment about being the worst employee probably
didn't tell you that UPS automatically gives their employees a $2.00 an hour
increase over teamsters top pay everytime they renew their contract
agreement...did he? If the teamsters are $21.00 per hour they get $23.00
no questions asked and no disagreements either! eezlock

[430752]

not in one, but represent many

I've confessed here before that I am a lawyer. And I've confessed here before that not only am I lawyer, but one which represents unions. Many Unions. Proud Unions. Lots of Unions. So take what I have to say next with a big grain of salt.

But, what are you arguing? Are you smoking the pipe?

Well, to answer the questions, I've negotiated tons of union contracts in NJ and some (few) in PA and NY. None, not a single one, is tied to the minimum wage. I could see how the minimum wage might come up in negotiations (as in, we make x, min wage is y, thus we want z more than y to equal x). I could see that, but I can say in addition to the above that none, not a single one, has even used that logic. To us, in my real world experience, I don't think I've even referenced the minimum wage in negotiations.

Now, to my comment above which you probably took umbrage at, let me say this: why wouldn't you want your fellow workers, whatever stripe they may be from, to enjoy a better living? I'm not accusing you of the following, but why in america has it become popular to drag the other guy down instead of building yourself up? What I mean is that years ago people said, hey that other guy is getting a good wage, why not me? Or that other guy is getting a pension, why not me? Or that other guy can buy a decent house AND afford a car without mortgaging his soul, why not me?

Now? Now, they say that other guy is getting a pension, who does he think he is? or, hey, that other guy is getting paid $15/hr. for a job that I'm getting only $10/hr. for, who does he think he is? Why attack a fellow working man for improving his life? Why not attack the Bossman for not improving your life?

Yes, sure, I could understand if business were suffering and Unions were putting people out of business with excessive demands. But have you seen the executive salaries over the past ten (twenty?) years? Have you seen stockholder benefits recently? So, if there's pork to go 'round, why is it the fat guy on the hill gets the pork when he does nothing (except lend money) while the skinny guy in the plant gets nothing for actually produciing a product or service? Why shouldn't you be compensated better for actually making the boss and shareholders rich? Sure, you'll never be Rockafeller, and you shouldn't if you're a lineman under out American entrepenurial spirit which we all agree with, but that doesn't mean you should starve while others get fat, does it? A rising tide is supposed to float all boats, are you the harbor master who says only the rich boats or boss boats get the rising tide?

Well, all of that plus many other benefits of union status. And yes, they have their problems, no doubt, but the benes outweigh the problems, in my book.

Just my .02 cents. If you don't like it or don't agree, then by all means feel free to vote the union out if your shop is approached by a union. Go it alone. This is your right, but you have no right to inject yourself into another person's shop and their vote or beliefs. Yours is yours, theirs is theirs, and I'll fight to protect your right to disagree, as much as I disagree with your beliefs.

Curt Jameson

[LinuxRandal]

That guy that made the comment about being the worst employee probably
didn't tell you that UPS automatically gives their employees a $2.00 an hour
increase over teamsters top pay everytime they renew their contract
agreement...did he? If the teamsters are $21.00 per hour they get $23.00
no questions asked and no disagreements either! eezlock

No, but then I do get tired of hearing him talk and walk away from him. Start talking to any normal driver (and I know a few), and the ones who don't know me, can mention his name, BEFORE I finish the sentence.

I've confessed here before that not only am I lawyer, but one which represents unions. Many Unions. Proud Unions. Lots of Unions.
But, what are you arguing? Are you smoking the pipe?

Unions deserve representation too, and without lawyers, where would we get the best lawyer jokes (at least they tell me the best ones).
What I am arguing, is not all unions are the same. The union my BIL and sister used to work for, at a grocery store, would be quite a bit different then UFW. I think the grocery business they were in actually might have been (but since he is on a stakeout the next few days, I can't get ahold of him).
On the pipe, NO!

I'm not accusing you of the following, but why in america has it become popular to drag the other guy down instead of building yourself up?

That is my point. HE is driving the other guys down in his representation of the union. I believe even the unions have a responsiblity to deal with people such as this, who feel they shouldn't even have to work, period. Even one of the former union rep, who got tired of the whole shebang, and left the company (and took his work ethic and made/sold his business for a nice chunk), can't believe the union still hasn't done anything.

Yes, sure, I could understand if business were suffering and Unions were putting people out of business with excessive demands. But have you seen the executive salaries over the past ten (twenty?) years? Have you seen stockholder benefits recently?

Curt Jameson

Actually, business ARE suffering. GM, Ford, etc. This is due to the shortsitedness of BOTH parties (IMHO), as well as greed. I do understand why people think they should make xyz, and cost of living, etc, BUT I think the millions spent should be used more to expand the company, rather then huge bonuses, payrolls etc. I have wondered (I wasn't really old enough to think about it then), what would have happened, if some of Carters energy policies would have been continued. While we could/would still probably be dependent on cars, I would have rather seen solar power being built into most roofs, and assisting the grid. I've been exposed to a lot of people and things, it just bothers me when I see the worst in people, and they don't care about improving themselves!

[Warren]

My only complaint with belonging to a union, I was Teamster years ago, was that the union decided how much money I was allowed to make. It had nothing to do with my worth to my employer or my performance. I was not alowed to negotiate my salary, I had to work for what the union negotiators could get, less what the union bosses took for union benifits, union salaries, investments in California real estate, etc. They were ripping me off.

[scorrpio]

On an unrelated note, a union joke.
A senior union member wants to get laid and goes to a brothel.
There, he asks madam: are your girls union members? When she says No, he responds that in that case, he will not do business with them.
After trying a few more places, he finally finds one where madam responds: Yes, we are all union members.
Excellent - says the guy. - I prefer that my money goes to union supporters. Now, please set me up with that young pretty blonde!
Oh, no no no, says madam, you are getting that old, ugly wrinkled one. She's got higher seniority.

[jseklund]

Just my .02- I don't want minimum wage to go up, and I don't want minimum wage to be around at all. Minimum wage is like taxes- a smoke screen. It's been said that when income taxes were voted in by the citizens, it was supposed to be taxes only for the "rich". Well, that worked so well- and the rich afforded the best advice to avoid taxes- the gov't needed more revenue and moved taxes to the middle class. So, the very people who voted it in were the ones who got hurt the most. All along they thought it wasn't going to affect them, and would actually benefit them. Minimum wage is another area where this is the result.

As someone already stated- an increase in minimum wage is short lived because it increases the cost of production (i.e.- delivery of your fries to your car window at Wendys), and thus increases prices. That's if we had full employment. What really happens is, companies can't afford to hire as many people for minimum wage, so they have to lay of some people This means that we are paying MAYBE the same, possibly only slightly more for our products. However, with fewer employees to create the product and deliver it- we get worse service (possibly). So, we won't pay a lot more (probably), but we will get worse service. Great deal for consumers.

Now, with an increase in the unemployment pool (all the minimum wage workers who cannot be afforded any longer by their employers), some of these people will go on welfare (more tax dollars at work- out of middle class pockets), others may go back to school, and some may try to move into a better position in the work force. Between the schoolers and the people who instantly attempt to move up- they will compete for jobs that others have negotiated freely. This means that wages in the middle class may drop slightly (hey, if this new employee is coming off minimum wage, he'll probably be happy with $50,000 while everyone else wants $65,000). It also means more unemployment in the middle class.

Keep in mind I don't think unemployment is a BAD thing. It is necessary, and every time the FED raises rates they are trying to do this same thing- unemploy people so that the labor force becomes more competitive and inflation is held off. It works very well, even if it's not perfect, and I would use the fact that we haven't had a great depression since 1929 (Keynes came up with the idea during the FDR presidency and they were implemented shortly after). Before 1929, we had depressions every 20 years. However, minimum wage has one other factor that really screws up this entire process- it stifles competition.

It's been said that minimum wage hurts employers the most. Not really. If employers have $100 to spend, they can't spend $105. I've shown how it hurts consumers. But who it REALLY hurts is the unskilled laborer. Why? Because it gives a set baseline. If I am looking for a job and I go to McDonald's- they will offer me minimum wage. I go to Burger King and I am now offered minimum wage again. There really is no monetary factor now in my choice of where to work. I cannot get these companies to compete for my labor because they know what minimum wage is. However, if I don't have a set price and Burger King is paying $8.00 and McDonald's is paying $5.00- where does the labor force go? And then what happens to McD's? They need employees, they will need to raise their pay. If they already KNOW what BK is paying they will probably have to match it, move up, or differentiate in other ways. It would create an open market for labor, which gives more accurate pricing information (auction theory) to the parties involved.

So, in a long winded way- that is my theory and I'm sticking to it. It's not a perfect theory, since we are not dealing with perfect instances here (minimum wage is an artificial creation in markets). I'm open to people pointing out flaws...

[cgallery]

I've confessed here before that I am a lawyer. And I've confessed here before that not only am I lawyer, but one which represents unions. Many Unions. Proud Unions. Lots of Unions. So take what I have to say next with a big grain of salt.

Curt Jameson

Allow me to play the devil...

No problem w/ unions, just level the playing field: A union that organizes a company's labor force should have no special privileges that aren't enjoyed by any employee-at-will. A company should be able to dismiss their entire union force and start over any time they choose. There should be no requirement for "bargaining in good faith" or any other such nonsense.

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.

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. They will do so to their own detriment, but it is (was) a free country.

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

[Crash2510]

I have a big problem with many unions. The problem is they at least in ohio get paid more for doing less work. In ohio the electrical union is so corupt they develop a target fund to undercut non union contractors on jobs so they could get the jobs and still lose money. Many of the union workers I have been around have been made lazy, like they are owed something for being a member. The refuse to do any more than they have to while taking their mandatory breaks. I don't know what happened to the hard working americans but they sure didn't join many of the trade unions where the people that don't work the hardest get rewarded the most. Then the unions especially electric gets angry when non union contractors get on their job and get it done twice as fast. Our jobs have been vandalized many times in union towns. Im sorry but the union had its time and place and it is far gone.

Also in regards to minimum wage even with the current minimum wage it is not possible for anybody to support themselves let alone a family on minimum wage. And with are regressive tax system it is hard for these people to get out of the gutter.

sorry for ranting just my 2 cents

[Rslaugh]

...... But have you seen the executive salaries over the past ten (twenty?) years? .....

What does a union president make relative to the workers who are paying his salary?