dose anyone else see unions as a huge problem nowadays?

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Let me give you an example of why they're necessary:

My mom is the president of the nurse's union at the hospital. Years ago, well before the union formed, the nurses signed contracts with the hospital stating that their salary would increase to a certain amount and would level off. The downside was that there would be no further raises, but the upside was that they'd have a steady income and didn't have to fear pay cuts.

Years pass and the hospital gets new management. The management votes that the contract which they signed is no longer valid and the nurses would have to accept pay cuts to continue employment. They knew that the hospital had plenty of money, but the management would not tell them how much they made. The nurses wanted to challenge the hospital on this (since they had a contract), but the hospital knew that no nurse has the money to challenge the power of the hospital. And they were right for a while- nobody was able to step forward and challenge them.

The nurses decided to unionize and skilled union lawyers were brought in. They were able to force the hospital to divulge the cashflow of the hospital and reveal the salary of the management. It was no surprise to the nurses when it turned out that management gave itself a hefty raise after the nurses were forced to take the pay cut. They also sued the hospital for voiding a contract. They won, and the nurses' salary was restored.

Without joining together and unionizing, no individual nurse would have been able to afford the skilled legal wrangling that took place. But together, they could afford powerful players in the legal game, people whose careers are devoted to this sort of thing.

They could have joined together to hire an labor lawyer without having to unionize and get the same result. Employees do not have to be in a union to join together.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

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

The time for unions has passed? It's about a balance of power between companies and employees. The company is already using its collective power against individual employees, yet when the employees band together and use their collective power against the company, you think that's wrong?

Believe me, my desk is full of cases that show that the balance of power on many fronts has shifted to the employee due to pro-employee laws. The real power is in the passing of laws. Enforcement of those laws can be had without unionizing.

And you think that they should convert into lobbies? Lobbies embody everything that's wrong with our government, since it's their actions behind closed doors which seems to influence politicians when it's really the citizens who they should be serving.

And unions do not already do that now? I just believe that the unions should lobby full-time and get out of the individual businesses. Unions should push for laws that benefit ALL legal and qualified workers.

MotionMan

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'm fine with your average union but I don't agree with closed shops. It doesn't make sense that we have laws against monopolies but care nothing about monopsonies.

Look at it this way...we union members pay dues that pay the wages of our business agents and office staff who negotiate contracts, enforce said contracts, and all the office work involved with the union business. Why should someone (freeloader) who doesn't want to belong to the union get the benefits of what I pay for? Why should my union have to go to bat for that freeloader if he/she gets in trouble? Why should that freeloader get the same wage and benefit package that we in the union have negotiated?
All these things happen when you have open shop contracts. For some contracts, (like public employees) I have no problem with agency shop agreements, where the employee who doesn't want to be in a union still has to pay the same amount as a union member, but is not required to join the union. That way, they have to pay for the benefits and protections negotiated by the union.

Wait a minute. I thought the goal of unions was to get workers fair and just pay, conditions, benefits, etc... If all unions are doing is getting people what they rightfully deserve, which is what most argue, then why shouldn't ALL workers benefit from the same "fair pay and conditions"?

Or do you believe that fair treatment should only be given to those who pay for it?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MotionMan


They could have joined together to hire an labor lawyer without having to unionize and get the same result. Employees do not have to be in a union to join together.

MotionMan

But the union is more powerful and shows more unity. It also makes it harder for the company to divide/conquer the individual employees.

 

[Squisher]

I belong to a union. We have to compete for every job we do. We have brought a ton of work into our die room because we can do the work faster and cheaper.

Working in the auto industry, we are all aware that if don't do our best we are sunk.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MotionMan


They could have joined together to hire an labor lawyer without having to unionize and get the same result. Employees do not have to be in a union to join together.

MotionMan

But the union is more powerful and shows more unity. It also makes it harder for the company to divide/conquer the individual employees.

Originally posted by: MotionMan

They could have joined together to hire an labor lawyer without having to unionize and get the same result. Employees do not have to be in a union to join together.

MotionMan

If you dispute that they could have gotten the same result without unionizing, then we do not have any common ground upon which to argue.

I have handled a ton of cases where one person went against a large company to enforce the labor and employment laws. They did not need any unity or other employees.

As for wages, they should be set by the market. With current anti-monopoly, anti-collusion and other such laws, and the availability of any number of lawyers to jump on any employer who looks to be violating any of those laws, there is no reason for wages to be artificially inflated by the strong-arming of unions (BTW, just to contradict myself a little for the sake of full disclosure and honesty, I believe in a minimum wage that places people above the poverty level).

MotionMan

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I've worked construction for over 30 years, and was union most of that time. Are there good ones and bad ones? Yes. Do some union rules foster incompetence? Yes, but not all are bad, not all union members are lazy-louts, not all unions make it impossible to fire their bad hands.
In my trade, the bad hands get sent back to the hall. A contractor can send them back as unqualified, and if they get 3 of those, they have to test at our training facility to prove they are qualified for that piece of equipment. If you fvck up, you can get fired. The union will help you fight a wrongful termination, but only the contractor can determine whether you are suitable or qualified for his equipment.
Before you start bashing all unions, take a hard look at the perks you get on your job:
Paid vacation
Paid holidays
Paid sick leave
Social Security
Safe working conditions
8 hour work-day
Pension plans
40 hour work-week
(yeah, I know, the last 2 may not apply to some of you salaried slaves)

ALL of the above are the result of union men & women...and the list goes on and on and on...
It's been proven time after time, that unionized construction workers are more productive than non-union hands, are better trained, are safer, get the job done under budget and under time. The vast majority of cost over-runs on jobs are not the fault of the unionized workers, but change orders, changes in conditions, and in general, things out of control of the working person.

Yeah, feel free to add outsourcing to the list. Unions have been an important part our history - but they have pushed wages up past the point where it is now cheaper to send a lot of jobs overseas than to pay people here to do them - or to use immigrants to do the labor

Also - I have known professors at the college level who have stated that once they attain tenure they won't have to try hard or do nearly as much work.

Now I am not saying that unions are bad and that they all need to go - their policies - in some unions - just need to be re-evaluated.

 

[RadioHead84]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: RadioHead84
yes I see days as a serious problem...something must be done.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nowanddays.html

But it did say

"does anyone else see unions as a huge problem now and days"

 

[sjwaste]

This thread will regress to the union members vs non, but good topic OP.

The bottom line is that from an economic standpoint, unions do some harm and some good. You can name UAW as a shining example of the bad, driving the US auto industry into ruin, but it's a function of their size (IMHO). Once you have that many people under your defacto control, human nature kicks in and those at the top capitalize at the expense of others below them, and later on, at the expense of their industry in the world marketplace. On the other hand, in some industries, the labor market forces wages below that which is required to live, and a union there can help, but only to the extent that the consumer is willing to pay a price based on the union-imposed price floor for labor. The discussion can get long, but really, with the way skilled labor is compensated in the US, unions have to serve as a policing function on safety, market wages, and little more, otherwise their industry suddenly can't compete.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MotionMan


They could have joined together to hire an labor lawyer without having to unionize and get the same result. Employees do not have to be in a union to join together.

MotionMan

But the union is more powerful and shows more unity. It also makes it harder for the company to divide/conquer the individual employees.

Originally posted by: MotionMan

They could have joined together to hire an labor lawyer without having to unionize and get the same result. Employees do not have to be in a union to join together.

MotionMan

If you dispute that they could have gotten the same result without unionizing, then we do not have any common ground upon which to argue.

I have handled a ton of cases where one person went against a large company to enforce the labor and employment laws. They did not need any unity or other employees.

As for wages, they should be set by the market. With current anti-monopoly, anti-collusion and other such laws, and the availability of any number of lawyers to jump on any employer who looks to be violating any of those laws, there is no reason for wages to be artificially inflated by the strong-arming of unions (BTW, just to contradict myself a little for the sake of full disclosure and honesty, I believe in a minimum wage that places people above the poverty level).

MotionMan

Did you handle those cases pro bono, or did the employer pick up your bill as part of the settlement?
When a person goes it alone against a larger, well financed organization, he either has an easy case or deep pockets. The union can hire you from a large fund set aside for legal matters, and they won't turn away from the more difficult cases for fear of losing them.
On the contrary, the union will fight a legal battle on principle even when it may not pay out to the members directly.

 

[BoomerD]

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.

I don't know where you're at, but the city I live in filed as a charter city a few years back, and no longer has a prevailing wage law. That allows the non-union companies to pay their hands whatever they want, or that the hands will work for.
90% of the work STILL goes to the union contractors, because their people are better trained, do the job faster and safer the first time, where some of the non-union companies have to go back and do it over and over...along with the court battles from time to time to force them to fix the job and get it right.

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Wait a minute. I thought the goal of unions was to get workers fair and just pay, conditions, benefits, etc... If all unions are doing is getting people what they rightfully deserve, which is what most argue, then why shouldn't ALL workers benefit from the same "fair pay and conditions"?

Or do you believe that fair treatment should only be given to those who pay for it?

The goal of a union is to get ITS people fair wages, better benefits, and better and safer working conditions. Why shouls someone who is not in the union reap the benefits that the union negotiated for? If someone wants to be non-union in a union shop, shouldn't they have to negotiate their own wages and benefits? Should the union reps have to represent them in grievance hearings, or disciplinary hearings? If they aren't paying for it, why should they get it? Does your paperboy deliver the paper for free? Do you get your groceries for free? Does your doctor work for free?

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

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.

I don't know where you're at, but the city I live in filed as a charter city a few years back, and no longer has a prevailing wage law. That allows the non-union companies to pay their hands whatever they want, or that the hands will work for.
90% of the work STILL goes to the union contractors, because their people are better trained, do the job faster and safer the first time, where some of the non-union companies have to go back and do it over and over...along with the court battles from time to time to force them to fix the job and get it right.

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Wait a minute. I thought the goal of unions was to get workers fair and just pay, conditions, benefits, etc... If all unions are doing is getting people what they rightfully deserve, which is what most argue, then why shouldn't ALL workers benefit from the same "fair pay and conditions"?

Or do you believe that fair treatment should only be given to those who pay for it?

The goal of a union is to get ITS people fair wages, better benefits, and better and safer working conditions. Why shouls someone who is not in the union reap the benefits that the union negotiated for? If someone wants to be non-union in a union shop, shouldn't they have to negotiate their own wages and benefits? Should the union reps have to represent them in grievance hearings, or disciplinary hearings? If they aren't paying for it, why should they get it? Does your paperboy deliver the paper for free? Do you get your groceries for free? Does your doctor work for free?

If customers can help it they avoid the union companies like the plague. The union companies around here will charge you out the ass for anything. Our bids consistently come in lower than our union competitors. Its not just a little bit under, its about 25% under.

We RARELY like maybe once a year, have to go back to a job because of incorrect work. In 20+ years of business we haven't had one serious work related injury. We have weekly training on new equipment, safety, and new techniques.

This is what frustrates me about the unions around here. All I see form them is complaining and shoddy workmanship. I really hope you guys are right and not all unions are like the ones around me.

 

[imported_vr6]

i agree with the OP. i work in a pharmacy at a supermarket chain. all the employees except the pharmacists are in the union. i am part of the union unfortunately.

the unions workers are often times lazy, incapabable, and just plain underqualified. there are people working in the pharmacy that shouldn't be but they are part of the union and alot of them have been there for 20-30years. my boss tells me, if this wasn't a union i would fire half of them, but since they have been there for so long and with union protection he can't do anything. They get paid alot more then they should for the quality of work they provide.

 

[bctbct]

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.

If your company pays more in wages and benefits that would be extremely unusual. You talk like your Union competitors cant get any work, how do they stay in business? The only market I have seen Union not be able to get a foothold is small retail.

Our company is routinely hired by Fortune 100 companies because we can deliver, something our non-Union competitors have failed to do in the past.

Occasionally we will hire non Union companies to sub on our GC jobs when we target a job agressively. Their employees dont make squat, lack experience, and more importantly fail to man the project.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: bctbct

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.

If your company pays more in wages and benefits that would be extremely unusual. You talk like your Union competitors cant get any work, how do they stay in business? The only market I have seen Union not be able to get a foothold is small retail.

Our company is routinely hired by Fortune 100 companies because we can deliver, something our non-Union competitors have failed to do in the past.

Occasionally we will hire non Union companies to sub on our GC jobs when we target a job agressively. Their employees dont make squat, lack experience, and more importantly fail to man the project.

Money isnt everything. If you took one management class you would realize that intrinsic rewards produce much happier employees than just shoving more $ at them. I really hope your not referring to the "training" you receive. As to failing to man the job, whats the point of having bodies on a job site if there unqualified. I see this constantly with unions shoving people onto a job who basically walk around w/ their thumbs in their asses getting in the way of people who actually want to work and accomplish something.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

If your company pays more in wages and benefits that would be extremely unusual. You talk like your Union competitors cant get any work, how do they stay in business? The only market I have seen Union not be able to get a foothold is small retail.

Our company is routinely hired by Fortune 100 companies because we can deliver, something our non-Union competitors have failed to do in the past.

Occasionally we will hire non Union companies to sub on our GC jobs when we target a job agressively. Their employees dont make squat, lack experience, and more importantly fail to man the project.

Money isnt everything. If you took one management class you would realize that intrinsic rewards produce much happier employees than just shoving more $ at them. I really hope your not referring to the "training" you receive. As to failing to man the job, whats the point of having bodies on a job site if there unqualified. I see this constantly with unions shoving people onto a job who basically walk around w/ their thumbs in their asses getting in the way of people who actually want to work and accomplish something.[/quote]


Money isnt everything but it does attract talented people who feel they would be selling themselves short working for less.

Union workers typically go to apprenticeship classes for 4-5 years. Non-Union workers start out as helpers on a jobsite and watch lead people who have no time to teach or formal training for teaching.

Each of our customers has the choice to hire us or not, we do a lot of public bid work so apparently we can put a good number on a job.

I could care less if a guy is Union or not as long as he can do the job. Why anyone in the building trades would not seek more wages and benefits is beyond me.

 

[everman]

I'm not too fond of teacher's unions. And I'm particularly interested in a current case in the Supreme Court: Washington v. Washington Education Association.

 

[Marinski]

You are right when you say that their are some people in unions who just get in the way of the people doing the work that want the hours. I'm in a union (teamsters) and there is alot of guys i work with. Usually older guys that are pretty worthless and they make like twice as much $$ as me. Some of these dudes shouldn't even have these jobs but the company can't get rid of them because as long as they follow the rules the union won't let them get fired. Plus, the union doesn't want to lose members because losing members means that the union is making less $$. They want to recruit more members and impose these rules like union employees can only work X amount of hours so that the company has to hire more to get the job done in that amount of time. More employees is putting more $$ in Jimmy Hoffas pockets. Is this making any sense?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Unions create inefficiencies and when it is blatently obvious someone should be fired, it's a huge headache.

To illustrate: A guy at work was fired FOR RUNNING HIS SIDE BUSINESS AT WORK. He got fired. Justified right? Nope, the union got him his job back. He can now be seen talking on his cell phone about an hour a day running his personal business. Oh, he is working for a defense contractor.

Want to write something up that will take 5 minutes? Nope, have to use the union secretary. Might want to wait several days for it now.

Try starting an engineers union. It's funny. It won't ever happen, but if it did, I'd demand a 300% raise because relative to what others do, I get shat upon with my salary.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Best story ever is about a millionaire I know. His union guys wanted to strike and demand more money. He does construction. He saw the people were on strike and put for sale signs on all his millions worth of earth moving equipment. He told them the only reason he is in business is to give them jobs and if this is how he gets paid back, he'll sell everything and retire. The union people decided working wasn't a bad idea.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

If your company pays more in wages and benefits that would be extremely unusual. You talk like your Union competitors cant get any work, how do they stay in business? The only market I have seen Union not be able to get a foothold is small retail.

Our company is routinely hired by Fortune 100 companies because we can deliver, something our non-Union competitors have failed to do in the past.

Occasionally we will hire non Union companies to sub on our GC jobs when we target a job agressively. Their employees dont make squat, lack experience, and more importantly fail to man the project.

Money isnt everything. If you took one management class you would realize that intrinsic rewards produce much happier employees than just shoving more $ at them. I really hope your not referring to the "training" you receive. As to failing to man the job, whats the point of having bodies on a job site if there unqualified. I see this constantly with unions shoving people onto a job who basically walk around w/ their thumbs in their asses getting in the way of people who actually want to work and accomplish something.

Money isnt everything but it does attract talented people who feel they would be selling themselves short working for less.

Union workers typically go to apprenticeship classes for 4-5 years. Non-Union workers start out as helpers on a jobsite and watch lead people who have no time to teach or formal training for teaching.

Each of our customers has the choice to hire us or not, we do a lot of public bid work so apparently we can put a good number on a job.

I could care less if a guy is Union or not as long as he can do the job. Why anyone in the building trades would not seek more wages and benefits is beyond me.


[/quote]

The "training" around here consists of 60 in class hours and 2 years of on the job training. They go to work during the day as an apprentice and at night take a class. To save $ 90% of them are allowed to skip the on the job training and just complete the classes. I can tell you with 100% certainty that 60 hours in a class will not make you a plumber. There is no way you would get the kind of education working on the job gives you in a classroom. It would be nice if they actually had on the job training but they skip it. I am currently working on our own apprentice /training program because the ones around us are horrid.

 

[BoomerD]

My union's apprenticeship is 8000 hours on the job. Almost every apprentice has to spend 3 weeks (unpaid) in the training facility learning the basics of equipment operation, safety, and a few other things before they can get dispatched to their first job. Then, they have to spend 2 weeks per year in the same facility, (again, UNPAID) to brush up on skills, to learn new ones, and for first-aid and safety training. They start out at 45% of scale, which is about $15/hour, and can get raises of about 10% of scale ($3.00-$3.50/hr) every 1200 hours IF they get good reports from their employer and do well at the training facility.
I did my apprenticeship in just over 3 years, and that included almost 90 days on strike. I worked my ass off to get my hours, and when I graduated from my apprenticeship, the company I was working for made me a foreman. I made $42K/year for the next year...more money than I'd ever seen...(before graduating, I was making about $9.50/hour...this was in 1978)

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: skyking

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MotionMan


They could have joined together to hire an labor lawyer without having to unionize and get the same result. Employees do not have to be in a union to join together.

MotionMan

But the union is more powerful and shows more unity. It also makes it harder for the company to divide/conquer the individual employees.

Originally posted by: MotionMan

They could have joined together to hire an labor lawyer without having to unionize and get the same result. Employees do not have to be in a union to join together.

MotionMan

If you dispute that they could have gotten the same result without unionizing, then we do not have any common ground upon which to argue.

I have handled a ton of cases where one person went against a large company to enforce the labor and employment laws. They did not need any unity or other employees.

As for wages, they should be set by the market. With current anti-monopoly, anti-collusion and other such laws, and the availability of any number of lawyers to jump on any employer who looks to be violating any of those laws, there is no reason for wages to be artificially inflated by the strong-arming of unions (BTW, just to contradict myself a little for the sake of full disclosure and honesty, I believe in a minimum wage that places people above the poverty level).

MotionMan

Did you handle those cases pro bono, or did the employer pick up your bill as part of the settlement?
When a person goes it alone against a larger, well financed organization, he either has an easy case or deep pockets. The union can hire you from a large fund set aside for legal matters, and they won't turn away from the more difficult cases for fear of losing them.
On the contrary, the union will fight a legal battle on principle even when it may not pay out to the members directly.

In my state, most successful labor and employment lawsuits result in the employer paying the employee's attorneys fees because of the way the laws are set up. Also, most plaintiffs' attorneys take these cases on a contingency. Accordingly, even if he loses, the employee is usually only on the hook for litigation costs (but not attorneys' fees).

MotionMan

 

[mb]

Wow, I need some sleep.. I coulda sworn the topic said "does anyone else see onions as a huge problem nowadays?"

 

[skyking]

Red mentioned it and so did Boomer, but I want to reiterate:
In the construction trades, you produce or get fired. It is that simple. I've seen operators <my trade>, carpenters and electricians get run off if they did not get the work done or were incompetent.
If they get canned the union hears about it, and they are 'encouraged' to find a different line of work.
The construction trade unions are necessary for pension and medical benefits. Employers have the need for a rapidly changing workforce. They may need a large crew for only a few months, and then be forced to lay them off till the next large job starts. The employees would be without medical benefits, and the pension management would be a nightmare.
As it is now, the employee can bank 'hours of service' and have medical benefits for his family across those gaps in employment.