-
Please like and subscribe to my YouTube channel. Please check out and subscribe to my Workshop Blog. -
Union Yes!
I was in two Unions in my youth (18-22 or so), the UFCW and Amalgamated Meatcutters. Can't say they were great, can't say they were bad, mostly good.
Then I worked a couple warehouse and factory jobs. No Union. Warehouse was bad and got raped. Factory wasn't bad and didn't need a Union. Then one summer I delivered Mail as a casual summer mailcarrier. They rape casuals and I didn't realize it until halfway through, but I was costing regular carriers their OT. Shop steward pulled me aside (even if I was non-union) and said don't hump the routes so much, explained the OT thing. I understood and pulled back on work. Many of you would say this is incredible, deliberately withholding, but why? First, it was a summer job for me and while I needed the money, I didn't have a family to feed, mortgage to pay, etc. Also, when I was breaking my back delivering mail, all I got in reward was additional legs off other routes at end of day and also end of day box pickups to deliver to the regional sort center. This was unanounced and sprung on me when I'd get back a little early from my assigned route. I'd work 11 or 12 hour days, unanounced, threat of discharge, etc. Screw that.
Anyway, so I went to law school and ended up becoming a labor lawyer for Unions. Still am, so take what I say with a brain of salt. Yep, for Unions, not by design but kinda fell into it. I actually worked for management side as a lawyer for a year as well, but thought that even worse.
Anyway, my logic when I found myself gettng into this was that people define themselves by their work. People say they're a plumber, or a doctor, or a bus driver or a secretary. For better or worse, it is what they are and what they define themselves as. No one says they're a gardner but their career is a welder. No one says they're a woodworker but works 50 hours a week as an accountant. And people become their jobs. People work their jobs 10, 20 30+ years, often growing proud of being a ditch-digger or a traffic cop. They're not really capable of switching careers in their 40's and 50's. They build their lives around their jobs. And we're nothing if not a nation of people.
But too often a rotten boss or idiot supervisor simply up and fires a guy 25 years into a job. And unless civil service or union, they have no recourse. It seemed wrong to simply be able to fire someone vested in their job without some sort of check and balance system. That's what I do. Sure, I take some dumb cases, but most are good (even if not ultimately successful). And even with dumb cases, most are gotten rid of before anything of substance happens since otherwise the Union loses credibility before the boss or since it costs them money. But once in a while you gotta take the dumb case, maybe because the guy has 30 years in or because it is the 5th termination in a month from a young hotshot front line supervisor who's trying to make his mark. But, in the end it is a check and balance system. There is nothing more fundamental than that.
And I've now done over a 1000 arbitrations and I can say that I win and lose what you'd expect to win and lose, and everything in the middle falls statistically where you'd think. It is very rare you get a guy back who doesn't deserve it, anyone citing otherwise is taking the extreme examples to define the process. Like using the OJ case to give a report card in the criminal justice system (the envy of the world, I'll add). I sleep well at night knowing that I gave a guy or gal a fighting chance, even if lost. Don't you deserve the opportunity to make a case (arbitration, not court) before you lose your job of more than 5 or 10 years. Which, of course, means that even the guy with only 6 months or one year on the job gets the same treatment, but you can't set the system up to kick-in only after 5 or 10 years since it defeats the check and balance system (although every company does have a 60 to 120 day probationary period for new employees).
As far as collective bargaining goes, let me tell all of you first hand that you need it and you wouldn't believe what happens without it. First, companies don't give anything voluntarily. They'll plead poverty and cheat a dead man out of a nickle. Seriously. I can't tell you the times companies have plead poverty and then all the sudden once their books are examined they cough up a dollar and still make profits. I've also seen what happens to shops that de-Unionize. It is horrible. Only a few months ago I witnessed it where the employer stoked a decertification, illicitly promised status-quo and even raises, etc. Once the union was out, it was a blood letting. Health care for dependents cut completely, dental and vision cut completely, 50-50 pay on worker healthcare, wages rolled back, uniform and tool allowance blasted, etc. The workers tried coming back to the Union, but by law nothing could be done for a year. Last we heard half the people left and were replaced with untrained, likely undocumented workers. Great for corporate profits, bad for working men and women. True, many contracts end up poorly for the Unions, but that is usually a reflection on the inability to mount a strike. Without the effective threat or actual use of a strike, why would management give anything more than a nickle or dime?
Which gets me to a general point I've observed: many people act is if what is good for the company is good for the country. Maybe I'm wrong, but I never learned that view in public school. I'm not saying by any means it is workers first, but to maximize profts at all costs seems folly to me. Look where we're at as a country today. You realize that over the past decade or two real corporate profits have something like doubled, and real worker productivity has increased by like a third, but real wages, after accounting for inflation, have only risen by like 1%. Everyday america is losing its grasp on the american dream of a middle class house with a middle class wardrobe, with a car and a half in the driveway and enough money to take one real vacation per year, plus the other small vacations to the lake or cabin. I guess it gets summed up by the phrase do you live to work or do you work to live?
As far as my stint as a management side attorney, I'll offer this. Most of my time was spent finding ways to get a shill union in the door to block a real union getting in. There are a whole host of phony unions operating out of some guys' trunk which will roll over in favor of a management friendly contract and challenge little or nothing management does. Once one of these get in the door, they block another union from getting in for up to 3 years, and even then management attorneys can cook up a scheme to ward of real unions until a new contract is obtained, and even if the real union does get to an election, you can pretty much just promise the world, terminate the agitators, and intimidate others to vote to continue with the shill union. What's the damage, like $50-100K in back pay and a notice posting from the NLRB? Mere pennies compared to the costs of allowing a real union in the door who will actually protect workers and fight for increased wages. I know cuz I did the research and wrote the briefs, strike manuals, etc. for management. If you think a worker is treated as anything but a number for these purposes you're dead wrong. I remember managment clients asking me if when they terminated the 5 or 10 workers deemed necessary to send a chilling message, whether they could also have their cars towed from the lot in order to make the message that much more effective by causing them to walk home. One guy even asked me if he could make the worker strip out of the uniform (company provided) in which he had arrived to work just so the worker would have to go home near-naked. Nasty stuff, they didn't care, it was all ways to save bucks. I quit that job after one year and went back to union-side law where the worst offense I've committed is getting some fat, lard-butt a raise he didn't deserve. Not good sure, but the extra 50cents he got probably made the world a better place for his wife, kids and community that the boss being able to buy his wife a trip to Arizona for botox surgery while he and his girlfried have a fine dinner and romp in the sack while the wife was away!
I dunno, maybe I just live this stuff too much. All I know is that not a single client of mine is against capitalsim, or thinks the rich shouldn't be rich, they just want what's fair and just.A Man is incomplete until he gets married ... then he's FINISHED!!!Comment
-
Honestly, I think most folks in the media have never worked in a manufactuing environment and don't understand what will go on once the secret ballot is eliminated.
I kinda think the right of a group of workers to form a union and bargain collectively is probably necessary to prevent management abuse. The problems that come up in practice are (1) the undercurrent of illegal behavior that comes from an implied threat of violence against those who don't fall in line once a core group of workers decide to unionize and (2) a lack of incentive, or competence, to deal with performance issues among union members by union leadership.
Not sure how to realistically deal with (1) and (2) for most union situations.Comment
-
Laid-off workers occupy Chicago factory
Remembered this thread when I saw this article. No I have never belonged to a union. Also, not saying pro or con for union, one of those things I have mixed feelings about. But thought this was interesting and pertinent to the thread._____________
Opa
second star to the right and straight on til morningComment
-
I belonged to a Union, worked for a Union contractor, as well as worked non-Union and non-Union contractor. The instance above illustrates what is wrong with the Union. You get paid to do a job, so do it to the best of their ability. If longevity and experience are a plus, then prove it with the quality and productivity.
Also, my experience with Unions illustrated is was all about Union Management. Union workers were treated as temp employees by the contractors and the Union went along with it as long as they got the 5-10% dues with so many rules that it was unlikely the worker would ever get anything unless he worked Union all the days of his life (while being treated as a temp employee).
Meanwhile, non-Union contractors, valued the workers more and paid more $$, provided better benefits, and workers were hired as permanent, not for 3 or 6 month 'jobs'.
That being said, I still think the country needs Unions if Unions are all about training and certifications, empowereing workers with the skills, training, safety knowledge, etc., with ownership of real valuable skills. Union power should not lie in the tactics of bullying a business, but in the power of highly trained, well skilled, and productive work force that is willing and able to comply with all safety rules, quality issues, etc., not 90% pay if they're laid off.
Comment
-
I never worked for a Union, but when I was in my early 20's and later, my Father worked in the "trades" as a Unionized Steam Fitter. Not sure what specific Union that was, but I do know that from my point of view at the time, it was terribly tough on my Dad.
You see, he never worked for a company at the time... just for the Union, with jobs being divied out by the Union's bosses through the local. If he liked you, you got a job. If he didn't, **** could freeze over and there could be all kinds of opportunities, but you wouldn't be assigned. In the early years, everything went fine, but I do recall Dad speaking out about some of the corruption he saw, and it nearly killed him. For almost two decades (up until his retirement), he never got a job through the "local". That led him to seak work "out of town"! Even then, it required permission from the "local" and at least that was granted. At the time, I reconized a lot of similarities with working in a communist country. You got your "permission" and your "travel papers" from the local boss and unless he permitted, you were out of work. Hopefully things are much different today, especially in the trades.
On the other hand, I've spent much of my career working at a manufacturing facility with a Unionized hourly workforce. Let me tell you that the company is pretty much run with an "Us or Them" mentality. If it wasn't for the union, those poor guys would get the dirty end of the stick at every opportunity. Even with the Union, the hourly workforce is treated like third-world citizens.
I've watched the management pull orders out of the first quarter in order to make their "numbers" and thus ensure their bonuses. Then they'd lay off large numbers of workers during the holidays, because the orders have been done earlier. Sometimes these guys wouldn't be called back for months. Such is the greed of management, when instead of having a steady flow of work, they'd gladly sacrifice a number of workers, for their own increased fortune.
I've seen the management get peeved about some problem and then remove all the chairs and stools from the shop, so machinists had to spend their entire shifts on their feet.
For a two year period I had the opportunity to teach Total Quality Management, and I choose to instruct the third shift Union guys. It was really challenging the first few weeks, but I soon made friends and I had all kinds of "problems" brought to my attention. Some I was able to assist with and others I often became as frustrated with the manufacturing management as the Union guys did. Even when we had the proven data to ensure practice changes, the "management" steadfastly ignored the problems and made it well know who was in charge.
So there's two sides to the issue of "Unionization". Bottom line is that as power grows, so does corruption and unfair advantage. From my experience, a powerful Union can be just as unfair and corruptable as a powerful management. Union's came into existance because of company greed and corruption. After more than a hundred years of labor relations, companies can still be just as savage and domineering as ever, thus a Union is a must. But that said, a powerful Union can be just as hindering and at least as corruptable as any management team. So for me, I only had to contend with my company's management. For my Union friends, they not only had to contend with that, but also their own Union's management. Tough situation.
Personally, I'd like to think that any company that requires the balance of a Union, must also need better regulation by the government, because something must be wrong. Unions that have enough power to cause a company to pay for non-work (as with GM's UAW "idle" workers), needs to have some governmental investigation too. This of course gets very "political" and therefore beyond the bounds of this forum.
There are NO easy answers, I think!
CWSThink it Through Before You Do!Comment
Comment