dose anyone else see unions as a huge problem nowadays?

[BoomerD]

skyking, what local are you out of? I'm Local 3. (started our in 370 30-some years ago)

 

[skyking]

612 here

 

[BoomerD]

:thumbsup:
America works best when we say UNION YES!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are in construction, a competent tradesman and not a General Contractor you'd have to be a fool not to belong to a Union.

Tell that to my guys who are better paid, have the opportunity to work many more hours, get year end bonuses (tied to their safety records) and are never sent home for lack of work.

Our union competitors on the other hand can ONLY get jobs that require union labor. They simply can not compete with us on public bids. There is a reason that the union contractors (that I compete against) are always 20-30% higher in cost when we bid against them. We pay our men more and benefits are about the same so its not that.

This isn't just a single competitor either. It is a total of three of them. They do mostly government work and every once in a while an Architect will throw them a bone but in my opinion its only because the architect stands to make more money.

Well from my experience your company is the exception not the norm. How do you come in so much cheaper if you pay more , offer the same benefits and keep your employees on when there is no work, make less of a profit?

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are in construction, a competent tradesman and not a General Contractor you'd have to be a fool not to belong to a Union.

Tell that to my guys who are better paid, have the opportunity to work many more hours, get year end bonuses (tied to their safety records) and are never sent home for lack of work.

Our union competitors on the other hand can ONLY get jobs that require union labor. They simply can not compete with us on public bids. There is a reason that the union contractors (that I compete against) are always 20-30% higher in cost when we bid against them. We pay our men more and benefits are about the same so its not that.

This isn't just a single competitor either. It is a total of three of them. They do mostly government work and every once in a while an Architect will throw them a bone but in my opinion its only because the architect stands to make more money.

Well from my experience your company is the exception not the norm. How do you come in so much cheaper if you pay more , offer the same benefits and keep your employees on when there is no work, make less of a profit?

The answer is simple: VOLUME!!!

MotionMan

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: BoomerD
No thanks MM. We've fought too hard over the years to get what we've gotten. I don't think any union member would support such a thing. Take away the union's protection, and it won't be long before corporations go back to the same old bullsh*t that brought on unions in the first place. I have a pretty decent pension through my union. Totally funded by money set aside from raises we've negotiated over the years. While it's paid by the contractor on my behalf, so it's non-taxable money, that money is there because we as a group voted to take X% of our annual raise and allot it to pension, or health insurance, or...
Your plan would do away with that, and I really doubt anyone in a union would support such a thing...and since it's OUR unions, and OUR livelyhood we're talking about, IMO, no one else gets to vote on it...How can someone who's not a union member vote on my union status?

I never said that the union members would support my idea.

It is like how monopoly holders rarely want to give up their monopoly for the benefit of the general public. Nonetheless, breaking up monopolies that are being abused is still something we need to do.

MotionMan

Isn't there a monopoly that artificially restricts the number of lawyers? Or perhaps i am confused with doctors?

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: BoomerD
No thanks MM. We've fought too hard over the years to get what we've gotten. I don't think any union member would support such a thing. Take away the union's protection, and it won't be long before corporations go back to the same old bullsh*t that brought on unions in the first place. I have a pretty decent pension through my union. Totally funded by money set aside from raises we've negotiated over the years. While it's paid by the contractor on my behalf, so it's non-taxable money, that money is there because we as a group voted to take X% of our annual raise and allot it to pension, or health insurance, or...
Your plan would do away with that, and I really doubt anyone in a union would support such a thing...and since it's OUR unions, and OUR livelyhood we're talking about, IMO, no one else gets to vote on it...How can someone who's not a union member vote on my union status?

I never said that the union members would support my idea.

It is like how monopoly holders rarely want to give up their monopoly for the benefit of the general public. Nonetheless, breaking up monopolies that are being abused is still something we need to do.

MotionMan

Isn't there a monopoly that artificially restricts the number of lawyers? Or perhaps i am confused with doctors?

Nice try.

The lawyers do not hold a monopoly. Anyone and everyone can represent themselves in regards to matters one would hire a lawyer for, almost without limitation (with some exceptions for crazy criminal defendants). In addition, the decision as to who can and cannot become a lawyer is regulated by the State Bar and by the State government - that is not a monopoly.

MotionMan

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: BoomerD
No thanks MM. We've fought too hard over the years to get what we've gotten. I don't think any union member would support such a thing. Take away the union's protection, and it won't be long before corporations go back to the same old bullsh*t that brought on unions in the first place. I have a pretty decent pension through my union. Totally funded by money set aside from raises we've negotiated over the years. While it's paid by the contractor on my behalf, so it's non-taxable money, that money is there because we as a group voted to take X% of our annual raise and allot it to pension, or health insurance, or...
Your plan would do away with that, and I really doubt anyone in a union would support such a thing...and since it's OUR unions, and OUR livelyhood we're talking about, IMO, no one else gets to vote on it...How can someone who's not a union member vote on my union status?

I never said that the union members would support my idea.

It is like how monopoly holders rarely want to give up their monopoly for the benefit of the general public. Nonetheless, breaking up monopolies that are being abused is still something we need to do.

MotionMan

Isn't there a monopoly that artificially restricts the number of lawyers? Or perhaps i am confused with doctors?

Nice try.

The lawyers do not hold a monopoly. Anyone and everyone can represent themselves in regards to matters one would hire a lawyer for, almost without limitation (with some exceptions for crazy criminal defendants). In addition, the decision as to who can and cannot become a lawyer is regulated by the State Bar and by the State government - that is not a monopoly.

MotionMan

It certainly would have similar effects to a monopoly, it is an artificial limitation of supply after all.

 

[BoomerD]

The problem I see with your idea MM is that the members would have to pay out of pocket for labor representation.

Granted, if they win, then the opposing side would most likely be ordered to pay the legal costs, but if they lose, they'd have to pick up those costs.

That could amount to a huge amount for a group of workers. Having a union gives the members access to legal services at no extra cost to them.

My union has several attornies on retainer to deal with the day-to-day stuff that any large business has to deal with, plus some very high-quality labor attornies to use when they need them. (and it is a large business, since we have about 40,000 members in 4 or 5 states PLUS all the Pacific Islands.)
The union, having much deeper pockets, can afford to take on legal challenges that the average group of workers couldn't.
Just one more benefit to having a union represent you...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are in construction, a competent tradesman and not a General Contractor you'd have to be a fool not to belong to a Union.

Tell that to my guys who are better paid, have the opportunity to work many more hours, get year end bonuses (tied to their safety records) and are never sent home for lack of work.

Our union competitors on the other hand can ONLY get jobs that require union labor. They simply can not compete with us on public bids. There is a reason that the union contractors (that I compete against) are always 20-30% higher in cost when we bid against them. We pay our men more and benefits are about the same so its not that.

This isn't just a single competitor either. It is a total of three of them. They do mostly government work and every once in a while an Architect will throw them a bone but in my opinion its only because the architect stands to make more money.

Well from my experience your company is the exception not the norm. How do you come in so much cheaper if you pay more , offer the same benefits and keep your employees on when there is no work, make less of a profit?

The answer is simple: VOLUME!!!

MotionMan

A lot of good that'll do you when housing starts are lower due to higher interest rates or a recession.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: BoomerD
No thanks MM. We've fought too hard over the years to get what we've gotten. I don't think any union member would support such a thing. Take away the union's protection, and it won't be long before corporations go back to the same old bullsh*t that brought on unions in the first place. I have a pretty decent pension through my union. Totally funded by money set aside from raises we've negotiated over the years. While it's paid by the contractor on my behalf, so it's non-taxable money, that money is there because we as a group voted to take X% of our annual raise and allot it to pension, or health insurance, or...
Your plan would do away with that, and I really doubt anyone in a union would support such a thing...and since it's OUR unions, and OUR livelyhood we're talking about, IMO, no one else gets to vote on it...How can someone who's not a union member vote on my union status?

I never said that the union members would support my idea.

It is like how monopoly holders rarely want to give up their monopoly for the benefit of the general public. Nonetheless, breaking up monopolies that are being abused is still something we need to do.

MotionMan

Isn't there a monopoly that artificially restricts the number of lawyers? Or perhaps i am confused with doctors?

Nice try.

The lawyers do not hold a monopoly. Anyone and everyone can represent themselves in regards to matters one would hire a lawyer for, almost without limitation (with some exceptions for crazy criminal defendants). In addition, the decision as to who can and cannot become a lawyer is regulated by the State Bar and by the State government - that is not a monopoly.

MotionMan

It certainly would have similar effects to a monopoly, it is an artificial limitation of supply after all.

The only limitation is that you have to pass a background check and pass a test.

And is the perception now that there are not enough lawyers in the U.S.?

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The problem I see with your idea MM is that the members would have to pay out of pocket for labor representation.

Granted, if they win, then the opposing side would most likely be ordered to pay the legal costs, but if they lose, they'd have to pick up those costs.

That could amount to a huge amount for a group of workers. Having a union gives the members access to legal services at no extra cost to them.

My union has several attornies on retainer to deal with the day-to-day stuff that any large business has to deal with, plus some very high-quality labor attornies to use when they need them. (and it is a large business, since we have about 40,000 members in 4 or 5 states PLUS all the Pacific Islands.)
The union, having much deeper pockets, can afford to take on legal challenges that the average group of workers couldn't.
Just one more benefit to having a union represent you...

The members are paying a cost now, but not all of it goes to legal costs. You can take all the money from union dues that are wasted on administration and put it towards legal costs.

BTW, I do not believe that my suggestion is the end all, be all. It probably would require some tweaking, but the removal of unions from the individual businesses would go a long way for a start.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are in construction, a competent tradesman and not a General Contractor you'd have to be a fool not to belong to a Union.

Tell that to my guys who are better paid, have the opportunity to work many more hours, get year end bonuses (tied to their safety records) and are never sent home for lack of work.

Our union competitors on the other hand can ONLY get jobs that require union labor. They simply can not compete with us on public bids. There is a reason that the union contractors (that I compete against) are always 20-30% higher in cost when we bid against them. We pay our men more and benefits are about the same so its not that.

This isn't just a single competitor either. It is a total of three of them. They do mostly government work and every once in a while an Architect will throw them a bone but in my opinion its only because the architect stands to make more money.

Well from my experience your company is the exception not the norm. How do you come in so much cheaper if you pay more , offer the same benefits and keep your employees on when there is no work, make less of a profit?

The answer is simple: VOLUME!!!

MotionMan

A lot of good that'll do you when housing starts are lower due to higher interest rates or a recession.

Did you click on the link?

MotionMan

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Did you click on the link?

MotionMan

I remember that from SNL.

 

[Ferocious]

I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.

If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.

No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.

A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.

If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.

No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.

A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.

That is from the view of whether unions are good for union members or not. Obviously, they are.

The real question is whether unions are good for society/the economy/the country. I would assume that union members would say either "yes" or "who cares".

Others might disagree.

MotionMan

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.

If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.

No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.

A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.

Your idea ignores the fact that many times the places of employment are closed shops, where you have no choice about joining.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.

If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.

No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.

A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.

Your idea ignores the fact that many times the places of employment are closed shops, where you have no choice about joining.

My GF has a choice. They take 1% of her earnings if she joins, .9% if she doesn't. Sweet, huh?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.

If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.

No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.

A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.

Your idea ignores the fact that many times the places of employment are closed shops, where you have no choice about joining.

My GF has a choice. They take 1% of her earnings if she joins, .9% if she doesn't. Sweet, huh?

Once again, when an employee benefits from that union negotiation, and has the benefit of union representation in things like grievances or disciplinary actions, why should they not pay for those services? Why should an employee who does not belong to the union get paid union wages or get benefits that were negotiated and bargained for by the union?
Should the worker who doesn't want to belong to the union be paid minimum wage and given no benefits, since he/she doesn't pay for them?

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.

If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.

No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.

A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.

Your idea ignores the fact that many times the places of employment are closed shops, where you have no choice about joining.

My GF has a choice. They take 1% of her earnings if she joins, .9% if she doesn't. Sweet, huh?

Once again, when an employee benefits from that union negotiation, and has the benefit of union representation in things like grievances or disciplinary actions, why should they not pay for those services? Why should an employee who does not belong to the union get paid union wages or get benefits that were negotiated and bargained for by the union?
Should the worker who doesn't want to belong to the union be paid minimum wage and given no benefits, since he/she doesn't pay for them?

Once again, that raises the question of whether unions are for "the workers" or "the working class" or only for those who agree to join the union and pay dues.

MotionMan

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.

If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.

No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.

A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.

Your idea ignores the fact that many times the places of employment are closed shops, where you have no choice about joining.

My GF has a choice. They take 1% of her earnings if she joins, .9% if she doesn't. Sweet, huh?

And how many benefits does she have because of the union over the past 20 years? If it weren't a union shop, there's about a 100% chance that her salary would be more than .9% lower. And, she wouldn't have the same benefits. Pretty sweet deal, if you ask me.

I'm wondering if some of you just aren't jealous? This is probably especially true of salaried workers who pretty much get screwed over into working 60 hour weeks. Yep, great life you have there. At one point, perhaps long before you had your position, it was a 40 hour a week job. Then it became a salaried position and they realized they could force you to work 45 hours to get the work done... then 50 hours... then 55 hours... ALL for the same pay! And, you have to take it or leave it, or you're fired. Of course, every competing business in the industry has figured the same thing out, and of course, it's important for all you salaried employees to work so many hours, so they can stay competitive. Translation: you work more hours so the owners/shareholders can line their pockets. Suckers!!

No union wants to look bad... Most are pretty fair about how well their employees work. I don't think you would understand the chaos that would be involved if there weren't a teacher's union.. Every time a new board of education was elected, any of the board members with relatives who needed a favor would suddenly get a teaching position, at the expense of teachers currently employed. There was a thread a little back about someone who was an excellent employee, but was fired so the boss could hire his nephew (or some other relative.) This may be acceptable to most of you, because it was his business. However, in the case of education, it's the public's business, not the individuals on the board, etc.

P.S. Tenure and unions are two separate things. Is there a need for reform in some areas? Possibly. Is there a need to get rid of the teacher's unions? No way.

 

[huberm]

there has been a couple of times where I was faced with some serious issues at work, where my manager failed to care. On each occasion the union got involved, the matter was cleared up quickly and efficiently.

Sometimes there just needs to be an entity to watch out for the little guy in the workplace

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.

If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.

No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.

A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.

Your idea ignores the fact that many times the places of employment are closed shops, where you have no choice about joining.

My GF has a choice. They take 1% of her earnings if she joins, .9% if she doesn't. Sweet, huh?

Once again, when an employee benefits from that union negotiation, and has the benefit of union representation in things like grievances or disciplinary actions, why should they not pay for those services? Why should an employee who does not belong to the union get paid union wages or get benefits that were negotiated and bargained for by the union?
Should the worker who doesn't want to belong to the union be paid minimum wage and given no benefits, since he/she doesn't pay for them?

Once again, that raises the question of whether unions are for "the workers" or "the working class" or only for those who agree to join the union and pay dues.

MotionMan

OK, you say you're a lawyer...(not disputing that BTW) If someone comes in and wants the benefit of your services, do you charge them or are all your cases done "pro-bono"? If you do some pro-bono work, why should the next guy have to pay your fees? It's about the same thing. Why should one group pay for the services, and the next ones get them for free?

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I am a lawyer and have handled various employment matters.

There was a time for unions and because of them, we have a great deal of employee protection laws. However, the time for unions as a presence in the workplace has passed. Unions should be converted from employer-specific organizations to state and national lobbies to help maintain the current laws and to proposed and support new ones.

MotionMan

..as a lawyer you should be well aware that labor laws mean nothing unless there's enforcement. And that's where unions come in. Without unions there is no advocate for employees.

This may sound self-serving, but that is what labor lawyers are for.

Unions hire them all the time.

MotionMan

..the union steward is the front line representation and witness for the union. No union can afford or would be allowed to have a labor lawyer on every shift or assigned work place. That's the job of the steward who's elected by the employees as their rep/witness.

 

[Willoughbyva]

I think there should be more unions and union jobs.


Perry