dose anyone else see unions as a huge problem nowadays?

[0roo0roo]

naw, we compete against countries with national healthcare well atleast when talking about car unions...so don't blame the unions.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: 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?

I am not saying I am a lawyer - I am a lawyer

In any event, that is actually a really poor analogy, but just for the sake of argument, here goes:

All states of the U.S.A. (except Louisiana, BTW) use precedent to determine how to interpret laws and to rule on cases. So, say I represent a client regarding a particular issue and one side loses at the trial court level. Then one side appeals that decision and there is again a loser at that level. Then there is another appeal even further and the final decision is then published.

Now every single person (and their attorney) can use that published decision in their subsequent cases. That despite the fact that my client paid all those attorneys fees and I spent months, if not years, working on to get for my client. In fact, you could even download the actual briefs that I and the opposing counsel wrote and take quotes right out of them for your briefs.

So, as described above, those who did not pay for the law to be created to their benefit can still use it for their benefit.

Does that answer your question?

MotionMan

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I am not saying I am a lawyer - I am a lawyer

In any event, that is actually a really poor analogy, but just for the sake of argument, here goes:

All states of the U.S.A. (except Louisiana, BTW) use precedent to determine how to interpret laws and to rule on cases. So, say I represent a client regarding a particular issue and one side loses at the trial court level. Then one side appeals that decision and there is again a loser at that level. Then there is another appeal even further and the final decision is then published.

Now every single person (and their attorney) can use that published decision in their subsequent cases. That despite the fact that my client paid all those attorneys fees and I spent months, if not years, working on to get for my client. In fact, you could even download the actual briefs that I and the opposing counsel wrote and take quotes right out of them for your briefs.

So, as described above, those who did not pay for the law to be created to their benefit can still use it for their benefit.

Does that answer your question?

MotionMan

Like I said, I wasn't disputing whether you are a lawyer or not...

Using your analogy, union wages help to pump up the wages of non-union companies too. They have to compete with the union companies for people, and if they don't pay somewhat decently, everyone will either gravitate to the union companies, (the better non-union hands usually do anyway) or find a different line of work that is easier on the body yet pays similarly.
The union doesn't get to charge those people dues, even though they directly benefit from the union's work. The same could be said for safety standards and other intangible benefits the unions have brought to the trades.
I freely admit that the construction unions are a much different situation than grocery stores, public employees, etc., since our work is somewhat itinerant, (there have been years when I worked for 8-10 different employers) and having a union is the only way to maintain fringe benefits and have a steady source of jobs to go to.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I am not saying I am a lawyer - I am a lawyer

In any event, that is actually a really poor analogy, but just for the sake of argument, here goes:

All states of the U.S.A. (except Louisiana, BTW) use precedent to determine how to interpret laws and to rule on cases. So, say I represent a client regarding a particular issue and one side loses at the trial court level. Then one side appeals that decision and there is again a loser at that level. Then there is another appeal even further and the final decision is then published.

Now every single person (and their attorney) can use that published decision in their subsequent cases. That despite the fact that my client paid all those attorneys fees and I spent months, if not years, working on to get for my client. In fact, you could even download the actual briefs that I and the opposing counsel wrote and take quotes right out of them for your briefs.

So, as described above, those who did not pay for the law to be created to their benefit can still use it for their benefit.

Does that answer your question?

MotionMan

Like I said, I wasn't disputing whether you are a lawyer or not...

Using your analogy, union wages help to pump up the wages of non-union companies too. They have to compete with the union companies for people, and if they don't pay somewhat decently, everyone will either gravitate to the union companies, (the better non-union hands usually do anyway) or find a different line of work that is easier on the body yet pays similarly.

I did not have an analogy.

Also, why is pumping up salaries a good thing? I know it is good for the small percentage of the population who are getting those wages, but how is it good for society/the economy/the country?

The union doesn't get to charge those people dues, even though they directly benefit from the union's work. The same could be said for safety standards and other intangible benefits the unions have brought to the trades.

Most safety standards that unions have introduced have been codified.

I freely admit that the construction unions are a much different situation than grocery stores, public employees, etc., since our work is somewhat itinerant, (there have been years when I worked for 8-10 different employers) and having a union is the only way to maintain fringe benefits and have a steady source of jobs to go to.

OK, so the union should be a lobby and an employment agency, but should not be in the individual companies.

MotionMan

 

[BoomerD]

They represent the workers, not the company. IF the employees want to be in a union, they have that right, and that should never be changed.
Sounds like you're trying to drum up more work for lawyers...

As the costs of living go up, everyone's wages need to go up, or else you lose ground. Odds are, your fees go up on an annual basis ( or at least periodically) None of the admittedly small group of lawyers I know still work for the same money they did 5 years ago. (Those who work on contingencies may not have seen their percentages go up, but in most cases, the overall value goes up as jury awards increase...

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
They represent the workers, not the company. IF the employees want to be in a union, they have that right, and that should never be changed.
Sounds like you're trying to drum up more work for lawyers...

As the costs of living go up, everyone's wages need to go up, or else you lose ground. Odds are, your fees go up on an annual basis ( or at least periodically) None of the admittedly small group of lawyers I know still work for the same money they did 5 years ago. (Those who work on contingencies may not have seen their percentages go up, but in most cases, the overall value goes up as jury awards increase...

Are you saying that if unions were eliminated today, wages for people who are now union members would not go up in the future?

Also, what makes you think that jury awards are increasing?

MotionMan

 

[BoomerD]

If unions were eliminated today, wages would plummet. Benefits would drop. Working conditions would get as bad as the companies could get away with. We'd quickly revert to the sweat-shops of old.
These companies only pay good wages because they have to...not out of the goodness of their hearts.
I had a few friends who worked for a unionized locomotive plant in Boise, Idaho when the Right-to-Work (for less) law went into effect there many years ago. On the first day the law took effect, EVERY worker in the plant was fired, and attached to their final check was an application for employment. They were offered to re-apply for their jobs, with a reduction in pay ranging from 1/3 to 1/2. Many had no other option in the area, so they took the cut in pay. Working conditions also got worse, because there was no longer a shop steward or business agent on site making sure safety measures were followed. Employee benefits went from among the best in Boise, to mediocre, with high monthly premums, and poor insurance.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
If unions were eliminated today, wages would plummet. Benefits would drop. Working conditions would get as bad as the companies could get away with. We'd quickly revert to the sweat-shops of old.
These companies only pay good wages because they have to...not out of the goodness of their hearts.
I had a few friends who worked for a unionized locomotive plant in Boise, Idaho when the Right-to-Work (for less) law went into effect there many years ago. On the first day the law took effect, EVERY worker in the plant was fired, and attached to their final check was an application for employment. They were offered to re-apply for their jobs, with a reduction in pay ranging from 1/3 to 1/2. Many had no other option in the area, so they took the cut in pay. Working conditions also got worse, because there was no longer a shop steward or business agent on site making sure safety measures were followed. Employee benefits went from among the best in Boise, to mediocre, with high monthly premums, and poor insurance.

That seems like an extreme example. However, obviously, any drastic change needs to have some safety measures in place. Going from 100 mph to zero will cause injury without the proper equipment.

MotionMan

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
If unions were eliminated today, wages would plummet. Benefits would drop. Working conditions would get as bad as the companies could get away with. We'd quickly revert to the sweat-shops of old.
These companies only pay good wages because they have to...not out of the goodness of their hearts.
I had a few friends who worked for a unionized locomotive plant in Boise, Idaho when the Right-to-Work (for less) law went into effect there many years ago. On the first day the law took effect, EVERY worker in the plant was fired, and attached to their final check was an application for employment. They were offered to re-apply for their jobs, with a reduction in pay ranging from 1/3 to 1/2. Many had no other option in the area, so they took the cut in pay. Working conditions also got worse, because there was no longer a shop steward or business agent on site making sure safety measures were followed. Employee benefits went from among the best in Boise, to mediocre, with high monthly premums, and poor insurance.

Thats complete and utter bull. If thats the type of company you are working for then I suggest you get the hell out. Even with unions a company who does not care for its workers will screw them any way they can. Our pay/benefits is structured to be competitive to any union company (we are non union at the moment). I believe our workers are happier, work harder, work smarter, and better trained than just about any other comparable company.

I tried to not generalize all unions because you guys said they are not all the same. I would appreciate the same respect back.

 

[BoomerD]

I agree there are good non-union companies...I've never said any different. BUT, it's the presence of union wages that keep your wages high. If union wages weren't competing for your hands, your wages would fall. Simple as that. Your company doesn't pay (above scale according to you) good wages because you want to, you pay them because you have to in order to keep your hands. If you cut everyone's pay by $10./hr tomorrow, how many would stay and absorb the cut because it's beneficial to the company, and how many would go to work somewhere else?
Unions (in most cases) set the standards for the non-union companies to meet...if they want to play in the same ballpark, they have to be able to "play with the big boys"...This does not apply to places like grocery stores, or the city clerk's office, but instead, in the heavy construction industry, which I freely admit, is about the only experience I have. I have worked as a public employee and was a union member, I have been a union business agent for my union, (and hated the job...too many politics, internal and national) but for most of my over 30 years working, I've worked heavy construction. MOST of that in a union. I have worked non-union, and for a couple of decent companies, but again, the only reason companies pay high wages, is because they HAVE to if they want to attract employees. Whether it be from competing non-union companies, or to keep their people from leaving to go to the union companies...wages (and benefits) are the tool companies use to get people.
I've worked for a few union companies that treated their hands like sh!t...People usually don't stay with them long, but they make good wages and benefits while they're there, then move on as soon as they can, or else in spite of the crappy treatment, the work is steady enough, and there's enough overtime to make up for the treatment.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

They stay in business because of government work and unions lobbying a few architects to require their projects to have a certain percentage of union labor.

My company has learned that you get and retain the best talent by paying them well. All of our foreman that have quit to pursue other jobs have always came back to work for us. We have a lot of workers that used to work with our union competitors (if you could call them that, we almost never see them bidding the same projects as us and if they do they are significantly higher).

About prevailing wages, at least around here they are a joke. The "prevailing wage" for a mechanic in our field of work, $12 and some change, is less than what we pay experienced helpers. Hell, an inexperienced laborer gets paid $10 to start with a dollar raise in 3 months. Most of our foreman/mechanics make well over $20 an hour.

 

[Darwin333]

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?

We do not keep employees on when there is no work, we simply do not run out of work. From my experience of union labor, and its limited, we simply get the job done better and have more work. On one of the few jobsites I have been on with union labor they where using union carpenters. I swear there where 8 people doing the job of 2 people. One guys entire job was to hand the other guy a piece of wood every 20 minutes or so. The rest of the time he stood there talking to his buddy. Maybe there was a reason for it but all I know is they couldn't be making money like that OR thats the reason they are so expensive.

From what I have seen (once again, rather limited) it takes our union competition 2 to 3 times the manpower to get the same job done. You're never going to be competitive in the real marketplace like that.

Let me ask you a question, do you feel that it is fair and right that we be excluded from bidding on some projects because we are NOT union?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

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?

You are completely missing the point. Either what the unions are negotiating for is "fair and right" or it is not.

If it is "fair and right" then you are awfully arrogant to say that only the people who "paid for the fair wages" or paid for a safe workplace should benefit. Should only the people who participated in civil rights marches be afforded the gains?

Its absurd to say on one side that all unions do is get their members fair wages and fair working conditions but people that don't pay for it should not be entitled to fair wages and fair working conditions.

Now, if you are arguing that unions get their members wages and conditions that are above and beyond "fair" then you have a point.

 

[MotionMan]

Here is an article about the author's condemnation of the NFLPA's handling of the Michael Vick matter.

Interesting read regarding the purpose of unions.

The responsibility of a union is to defend its membership -- every time, all the time, if for no other reasons than to send a dissenting vote to management that its membership always will be protected by a strong union and to alert the commissioner that his powers always will be checked by an advocate for the players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/...yant_howard&id=2986420

Comments welcome.

MotionMan

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
Here is an article about the author's condemnation of the NFLPA's handling of the Michael Vick matter.

Interesting read regarding the purpose of unions.

The responsibility of a union is to defend its membership -- every time, all the time, if for no other reasons than to send a dissenting vote to management that its membership always will be protected by a strong union and to alert the commissioner that his powers always will be checked by an advocate for the players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/...yant_howard&id=2986420

Comments welcome.

MotionMan

comparing the NFL players union to the standard trade unions is a farce. The issues facing todays NFL players are not in the same league.

 

[db]

There are hosers working in and out of unions. Not just a union problem by any means. Sometimes, nothing can be done about it. But more often, it's a lack of pear pressure or management not holding someone accountable which enables someone to continue being a total hoser.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: bctbct
<blockquote>quote:
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</blockquote>


Dude no offense but almost everyone hates lawyers more than they hate Unions. I think its time we regulated your employment industry.
</blockquote>

I hate most lawyers, too. I just take solace in the fact that I know that I am just not one of those kind of lawyers.

MotionMan

The only GOOD lawyer is one working for ME!!

 

[PrinceofWands]

However much of a problem unions have become, corporations have been (and in my opinion always will be) worse. Until someone figures out another check on business I'll stick with unions.