"fair share" now "negotiated reimbursements"

[CADsortaGUY]

Hey! I'm not the guy squeezing your time line, I'm the guy who doesn't give you enough room and enough information!

That too As long as you approve the field change orders - I'm fine with that though.

 

[nobodyknows]

Already did Einstein..

All I can see you doing is trying to deny the little innocent guys the same access to play the system the way the big evil corporations do every single day.

 

[nobodyknows]

You're the one not trying to understand the others position. You really have no clue as to how much unions have benifited the working class, even the people who never payed union dues and don't beleive in unions have bennifited from unions. Are they perfect? Hell no but they are better then nothi8ng by a long shot.

I don't belong to a union but as someone who worked his whole life in a right to work state without one, I would have loved to have had the chance to be in one. If you don't have a union to back you up then when there's a prolem it's just you, the little guy against a corporation full of cheats, liars, ass kissers, and lawyers clawing their way up the corporate ladder and every last one of them is like you who would sell the little guy down the river in a heartbeat to further his own agenda. It's obvious to me that you're just a selfish little bitch worried about your own reimbusment and to hell with everyone else.

I know in your conceited little brain you're so proud of that you think you can negoiate your own deal, but what you're not experienced enough to see is how a the unions before us have helped you to be able to negoiate with a coporation. Either that or you're so conceited you think you could do it all by yourself which is funny as hell IMO.

Now, what was that you were saying about assine assumptions??

full text you think is fluff

 

[CADsortaGUY]

full text you think is fluff

You clearly didn't pay attention to what I posted(big surprise). The first paragraph was in response to yours. 2=2 ....

Now please try again and actually address what I posted if you can...

Yawn... Same old tired BS of the union fluffers. Yes, I understand and fully acknowledge what unions USED to do. Now they have become what they fought against though.

Ah yes, it's always the little innocent guy vs the EVIL corporate guy... :roll; well however you want to frame it - why would anyone want to work for a company that doesn't treat them right? It just doesn't make sense to help them make more money if you feel they are bad/evil/etc.

lol, yep the same old BS - blah blah blah. What exactly has a union done for society lately? That's right - nothing. They had their place back in the day but now there is little use for them.

 

[nobodyknows]

Now please try again and actually address what I posted if you can...

Are you really this slow? Unions can't just be eliminated and not replaced with something. Especially not in today's corpoarte enviroment.

Look at what's going on in the country today. Look at what wages have done. Look at health care costs. Only an idiot could think otherwise.

As jet engines get more powerful the wings on an airplane can get smalleer, but IT STILL HAS TO HAVE WINGS TO FLY!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Are you really this slow? Unions can't just be eliminated and not replaced with something. Especially not in today's corpoarte enviroment.

Look at what's going on in the country today. Look at what wages have done. Look at health care costs. Only an idiot could think otherwise.

As jet engines get more powerful the wings on an airplane can get smalleer, but IT STILL HAS TO HAVE WINGS TO FLY!!

really? You really think they are a requirement today? puhleeze. I can see them being ok in some situations but definitely not a requirement. AND furthermore the legislation they are trying to push just shows how corrupt and power/money hungry they've become.

Unions distort wages - so that doesn't help your argument
Unions also have little to do with "health care costs" - so I don't see why you try to bring that up.
The only "idiot" I see are those that continue to work for an "evil" corporation. It seem that it suddenly becomes ok to work for these companies if you give a portion of your wages to a 3rd party. :\


I see you still haven't responded to my post above... Hmmm wonder why.

 

[nobodyknows]

really? You really think they are a requirement today? puhleeze. I can see them being ok in some situations but definitely not a requirement. AND furthermore the legislation they are trying to push just shows how corrupt and power/money hungry they've become.

I beleive you defended the ex CEO's of EXXON's 400 million dollar retirement package. He was making 70 million/yr., WTF did he need a retirement package like that for? Yet you paint the unions as the corrupt ones? Try to catch up.

Unions distort wages - so that doesn't help your argument
Unions also have little to do with "health care costs" - so I don't see why you try to bring that up.

Distort wages as compared to what, slavery??

Are you seriously going to try to argue that the average people without unions have better health care then people with unions? Unions may not have anything to do with health care costs, but they sure as hell have some collective bargining rights when it cpmes to negoiating benifits. Why the hell do you think the "EVIL CORPORATIONS" wanted to bust the unions ij the first place? You have been drinking too much of the kool-aid.

The only "idiot" I see are those that continue to work for an "evil" corporation. It seem that it suddenly becomes ok to work for these companies if you give a portion of your wages to a 3rd party. :\

Like I said, drink that kool-aid.

I see you still haven't responded to my post above... Hmmm wonder why.

What post? I'll go look and see what it says?

 

[nobodyknows]

I see you still haven't responded to my post above... Hmmm wonder why.

LOL, quit kneejerking, I responded to more of your points then you have mine. Like it or not, unions still have a role to play in this country. Professionals band together, wheteher they be doctors, lawyers, carpenters, or plumbers.

Get used to it.

 

[Double Trouble]

All that is generally true but the trade unions can bring real value to the table. The difference between a union-trained electrician or plumber with seven years of training and apprenticeship and non-union which varies from no requirements to four years can be pretty spectacular. Also there are the union rules as to how many apprentices (and of what level of training) can work per journeyman or master whereas a non-union shop might well be one journeyman and two dozen illegals who were subsistence farmers or unskilled laborers a year ago. These things make a real difference in quality, yet in most cases the union trade companies have to compete for bid contracts with non-union shops for the lowest bid.

I was a pretty anti-union guy (except for miners) before I began doing construction engineering. Now if I could I would restrict all my contracts to union-only contractors. And I would get a better product. There are some good non-union contractors and some areas (like Minnesota) that are batshit crazy union areas, but overall union contractors give a much better product for a competitive price. (Most non-government contracts are low bid.) That's been hard for me to swallow, but I've now changed 180 degrees to be totally in favor of trade unions. I'm still generally opposed to unions of non-skilled or semi-skilled workers, where unions serve more to artificially inflate wages than to provide any benefit to the company, but for skilled or dangerous work I've become a big union advocate.

No doubt, unions played an important role in helping create and maintain a middle class over the decades, and helping create better working conditions. They can certainly provide value in some specific way and in certain specific scenarios, even today. However, outside of specific scenarios, they essentially just distort the cost of labor and create more overhead, more bureaucracy, more red tape, less flexibility. There's a reason why the only place where unions are growing is in the government where there is no pressure to perform and no cost efficiency pressure.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I beleive you defended the ex CEO's of EXXON's 400 million dollar retirement package. He was making 70 million/yr., WTF did he need a retirement package like that for? Yet you paint the unions as the corrupt ones? Try to catch up.

Distort wages as compared to what, slavery??

Are you seriously going to try to argue that the average people without unions have better health care then people with unions? Unions may not have anything to do with health care costs, but they sure as hell have some collective bargining rights when it cpmes to negoiating benifits. Why the hell do you think the "EVIL CORPORATIONS" wanted to bust the unions ij the first place? You have been drinking too much of the kool-aid.

Like I said, drink that kool-aid.

What post? I'll go look and see what it says?

1. CEO salary has exactly ZERO to do with this union discussion.
2. corruption - nowhere did I say it was exclusive to unions but you and the other fluffers want to paint them as some saviour when they are have been corrupted themselves. They have become what they once fought.
3. Distort wages relative to market value. Nice try with the "slave" thing though - what you leftists just can't seem to understand is that employment isn't a "right" nor are you forced to work somewhere - you can always leave. That's what's great about freedom.
4. INSURANCE? or healthcare? There is a difference. If you are talking insurance then it really depends on which union you are in. Healthcare itself - no. Unions people do not have better healthcare - Union people make up what percent of the employed?
5.yes "benefits" - which is part of the wage distortion.
6. busting unions? who cares what intentions you want to attribute to those awful/evil corporations that pay your salary. The issue as I see it is about workers freedom. The OP shows just how desperate Unions are - they are trying to force people to pay dues who do not want to be in a union. That is just plain wrong and anti-freedom.
7. The post that I bolded portions of - duh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Just out of curiousity - anyone else ever worked with the 757ers out of Joliet Il? Yes, Electricians.... of the FLEA variety.

 

[Hacp]

You know unions are bad when you have a janitor making 40k with pension while the fresh engineer is making 50k.

Here's the problem with unions. When you have janitors making union wages, it raises the cost of doing business here. They'd rather eat the cost of shipping and corruption and move to China where the janitors make 100 dollars a month.

 

[bctbct]

You know unions are bad when you have a janitor making 40k with pension while the fresh engineer is making 50k.

Here's the problem with unions. When you have janitors making union wages, it raises the cost of doing business here. They'd rather eat the cost of shipping and corruption and move to China where the janitors make 100 dollars a month.

Then the Engineer should refuse to work until he can get a larger salary.

See how that works, free choice of employment and all that shit CadGuy talks about.

 

[werepossum]

No doubt, unions played an important role in helping create and maintain a middle class over the decades, and helping create better working conditions. They can certainly provide value in some specific way and in certain specific scenarios, even today. However, outside of specific scenarios, they essentially just distort the cost of labor and create more overhead, more bureaucracy, more red tape, less flexibility. There's a reason why the only place where unions are growing is in the government where there is no pressure to perform and no cost efficiency pressure.

Yes, I'm just pointing out that not all unions are bad. The trade unions function much like the old medieval-era trade guilds, except they focus on keeping wages and working conditions up for all the members rather than just the masters. In some areas they are a negative force in needlessly raising wages and promoting waste, but in others they function as a positive force not just by protecting jobs but also by increasing training and quality of output. I've done jobs in some markets where the unions made life miserable for everyone, but more markets where the non-union low bid contractors were absolutely unqualified and turned out crap work. At least in the former, after all the crap and extra expense the owner has a well-crafted building, whereas in the latter the owner often has a maintenance nightmare.

I had one job where the owner ended up paying a union contractor $40K to go over every single electrical connection because one of the two non-union contractors (both went tango uniform during the project so there's no way of knowing which one) had "electricians" who didn't understand that wire nuts are to be twisted, so due to normal cycling expansion and contraction the pushed-on wire nut would pop off and the circuit would open or short. I'm just saying that never happens with union contractors; their training brings extra value to the table. The faults are seldom so blatant as this example, but overall I probably have seen ten to one non-union to union shop code violations and problems. Things like screwing a 100W medium base A-19 incandescent light bulb into the medium base socket of a 100W metal halide lamp - which has a starting pulse of approximately 4,000 volts. Ever seen a light bulb blown so hard that pieces of the filament were embedded into the glass in little bubbles? NEMA-1 (indoor) 240V disconnects on a 480V roof-top unit? 4 ton roof-top units ordered and installed in place of the 5 ton units specified and approved? 1,000 amps of wire on a 1,200 amp service? Half the circuits and outlets arbitrarily left off? Union contractors have never done these things to us. Non-union contractors have done all this and more.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Even if the little guy can show a history of being able to handle/complete such a project?

You can't build a $3MIL bridge for $2.6MIL any better than you could make a Lexus for the price of a Ford.

Don't confuse an inflated bid for the cost of a project. If a project costs $3MIL and the bid is $3.2, then you'd have a point. But if the cost of a project if $3MIL, the onyl way to do it for $2.6 is to cut corners.

<<<Construction estimator.

Inflated bids are caused by several factors, work load, inefficiency, higher profit margin, inexperience, etc. Our company has a higher than usual overhead, but we are still able to procure work due to better customer service and quality. Owners like dealing with us because we get the job done and do it better than the competition would (because they are cutting corners to get a lower price).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You can't build a $3MIL bridge for $2.6MIL any better than you could make a Lexus for the price of a Ford.

Don't confuse an inflated bid for the cost of a project. If a project costs $3MIL and the bid is $3.2, then you'd have a point. But if the cost of a project if $3MIL, the onyl way to do it for $2.6 is to cut corners.

<<<Construction estimator.

Inflated bids are caused by several factors, work load, inefficiency, higher profit margin, inexperience, etc. Our company has a higher than usual overhead, but we are still able to procure work due to better customer service and quality. Owners like dealing with us because we get the job done and do it better than the competition would (because they are cutting corners to get a lower price).

For sure. I understand the bid process as I do it myself in my position, however the idea that one contractor could be .6 mill more on a project is not that hard to imagine so you have to look at the company's project history to see if they can really do the project. If they've done similar, is it really a 3 mill bridge then? Most civil bids have a pretty good bid spec and process(unless it's co-opted by politics/good old boy process) which should flush out those who are bidding oranges when the project is apples.
In my line of work we bid thing and sub things out all the time and we have a pretty good feel for what to expect as should anyone who is letting a ~3 mill bridge contract. So again, if the company can build the bridge to spec for 2.6 and has a history of being able to do such things - you'd be stupid to choose the 3.2 bid.
I also agree, I work for a company that has a bit more overhead than I'd like(so I can't be as competitive as I'd like) but we make up for it in much the same way. We don't don't do change orders(unless the mechs/customer change the scope) and we spend an enormous effort in cust relations to continuously improve our methodology and processes. However, one of our competitors is consistently underbidding us and it's all about the overhead. Our advantage though is size -we can do medium and large projects - the competitor can only do small and maybe 1 medium project a year. They obviously win more small projects than we do as they are more mobile - they are where we were 10-12 years ago.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Then the Engineer should refuse to work until he can get a larger salary.

See how that works, free choice of employment and all that shit CadGuy talks about.

I would agree IF the market rate for an Engineer was higher than the engineer was being paid. But just because a union job wage is artificially high doesn't mean it's the market wage and thus everything else adjusts accordingly.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

For sure. I understand the bid process as I do it myself in my position, however the idea that one contractor could be .6 mill more on a project is not that hard to imagine so you have to look at the company's project history to see if they can really do the project. If they've done similar, is it really a 3 mill bridge then? Most civil bids have a pretty good bid spec and process(unless it's co-opted by politics/good old boy process) which should flush out those who are bidding oranges when the project is apples.
In my line of work we bid thing and sub things out all the time and we have a pretty good feel for what to expect as should anyone who is letting a ~3 mill bridge contract. So again, if the company can build the bridge to spec for 2.6 and has a history of being able to do such things - you'd be stupid to choose the 3.2 bid.
I also agree, I work for a company that has a bit more overhead than I'd like(so I can't be as competitive as I'd like) but we make up for it in much the same way. We don't don't do change orders(unless the mechs/customer change the scope) and we spend an enormous effort in cust relations to continuously improve our methodology and processes. However, one of our competitors is consistently underbidding us and it's all about the overhead. Our advantage though is size -we can do medium and large projects - the competitor can only do small and maybe 1 medium project a year. They obviously win more small projects than we do as they are more mobile - they are where we were 10-12 years ago.

No, as the design engineer you should have a pretty good idea that it's REALLY a $3MIL project. If his bid is $2.6, it is more likely he took a dive at it (intending to cut corners or make it up on change orders) or made a mistake. It should be a red flag.

 

[halik]

I see, so the only time "trickle down economics" works is when it's management getting the big bucks.

You guys act like such fucking idiots that it isn't even fun to troll you cheapasses anymore.

I see, so the only time "trickle down economics" works is when it's management getting the big bucks.

You guys act like such fucking idiots that it isn't even fun to troll you cheapasses anymore.

Was there an argument somewhere in that, or are you essentially conceding and have nothing to add?

You think that giving above market "big bucks" to blue collar leads to no consequences? Why do you figure virtually all new CapEx for manufacturing is happening in southern states? It's not a static game, you know.

If you press wages above market, business will choose to expand elsewhere. This is a big reason why Michigan has the highest unemployment rate of all the states, yet have huge unused industrial capacity. It's simply cheaper to build a new plant down south than pay 70K total cost for menial labor.

I should add that I don't have a problem with unions per se, but status quo is simply unsustainable. You can't have states with union pushed legislature and other states with right to work - the former will bleed workers like no other. Just look at Michigan.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

No, as the design engineer you should have a pretty good idea that it's REALLY a $3MIL project. If his bid is $2.6, it is more likely he took a dive at it (intending to cut corners or make it up on change orders) or made a mistake. It should be a red flag.

wow, again. If it's bid to spec and the bid comes in at 2.6 - is it really a 3 mill project? Sheesh. YES, there needs to be a history involved here and other such considerations but that is standard for ANY bid. I know for many projects we used to bid(got out of municipal work) the budgetary estimates were all over the board. Many times bids came in way low in comparison to budgetary(ie estimated like 3 mill) and many times they'd come in way high. I'm not sure why you and others go immediately to "cut corners" just because they may be a smaller company and came in with a lower bid. Yes, it COULD be the case, but it COULD be that it's a good bid. Again, it matters what the history of the company is - not necessarily how big it is.

 

[nobodyknows]

1. CEO salary has exactly ZERO to do with this union discussion.

The hell it doesn't. You want a cheaper product them everyone's wages AND benifits are on the table. LMAO at you and your arrogance.

2. corruption - nowhere did I say it was exclusive to unions but you and the other fluffers want to paint them as some saviour when they are have been corrupted themselves. They have become what they once fought.

Once they onc3 fought jhas become so big and powerful they were forced to become just as big and powerful in orer to be effective. That is all fluffrsr like you want, is to make the unions ineffective because they SCARE your arrogant asses. [/quote]
3. Distort wages relative to market value. Nice try with the "slave" thing though - what you leftists just can't seem to understand is that employment isn't a "right" nor are you forced to work somewhere - you can always leave. That's what's great about freedom. [/quote]

And you don't have the "freedom" to operate in this country without dealing with unions. You can always pack up and take your company/jobs elsewhere if you don't like our laws. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, I say good bye and good ridance to you. Your very attitude about workers lower on the totem pole then you shows EXACTLY why unions are still needed.

4. INSURANCE? or healthcare? There is a difference. If you are talking insurance then it really depends on which union you are in. Healthcare itself - no. Unions people do not have better healthcare - Union people make up what percent of the employed?
5.yes "benefits" - which is part of the wage distortion.

Bkah, blah, blah, you got nothing except your BS here do you. Next you'll be questioning my readin comprehension again. You're just another overpaid phoney, hipocrit suit.

6. busting unions? who cares what intentions you want to attribute to those awful/evil corporations that pay your salary. The issue as I see it is about workers freedom. The OP shows just how desperate Unions are - they are trying to force people to pay dues who do not want to be in a union. That is just plain wrong and anti-freedom.
7. The post that I bolded portions of - duh.

You who would love to try and further bust the unions and eliminate people's choice for your own benifit have no room to talk.

As far as that goes, even if all you tightie-righties are right and both sides are the same one is left with the choice of having overlords who have soem heart or overloards with no heart whatsoever.

I CHOOSE HEART!!

 

[nobodyknows]

blah,blah,blah

get your lazy ass to work, you're costing the shareholder money you phoney fuck.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

wow, again. If it's bid to spec and the bid comes in at 2.6 - is it really a 3 mill project? Sheesh. YES, there needs to be a history involved here and other such considerations but that is standard for ANY bid. I know for many projects we used to bid(got out of municipal work) the budgetary estimates were all over the board. Many times bids came in way low in comparison to budgetary(ie estimated like 3 mill) and many times they'd come in way high. I'm not sure why you and others go immediately to "cut corners" just because they may be a smaller company and came in with a lower bid. Yes, it COULD be the case, but it COULD be that it's a good bid. Again, it matters what the history of the company is - not necessarily how big it is.

because after 10 years in the biz, and having several architects and engineers as fairly good friends, I know nothing is EVER built exactly to spec. Things slip through the cracks or get overlooked, and that is where a less scrupulous contractor will exploit it to make up the difference.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

because after 10 years in the biz, and having several architects and engineers as fairly good friends, I know nothing is EVER built exactly to spec. Things slip through the cracks or get overlooked, and that is where a less scrupulous contractor will exploit it to make up the difference.

Yeah, and that's why I stated that there needs to be a history of completing such projects. So again, if a company has a history of doing such projects and comes in with a 2.6 bid - is it really a 3 mill project? No, it's a 2.6 mill project. Anyway, the point still stands that just because a company may be small and have the low bid doesn't mean they are bidding low because they will or do cut corners - it may be that others have over bid the job and/or have a higher operating cost(overhead).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

get your lazy ass to work, you're costing the shareholder money you phoney fuck.

I'm salaried you twit.