Q. Who agreed to the collective bargaining agreement?Originally posted by: Alistar7
2 companies bid on a construction project, the material costs are relatively the same. One company pays their employees $10 an hour, the other one has employees it must pay the union wage, upwards of $25 per person. Labor cost, being the highest cost generally, is going to dictate who gets awarded the contract. So how did that Union make that company more competitive in that situation? Or did they make them less competitive?
Who do you think will get the contract?
The fact that the employees didn't feel they were getting their fair shake? When was the last time a union was formed where the employees thought they were being treated well?and what created the collective bargaining process?
I disagree. Many times union labor, especially where there are certified skill levels (journeyman carpenters, etc.) involved, will get a job over a non-union shop. The new colisiem (sp) here in Memphis is a perfect example.Anyone who can beat your labor cost, and without a union it can be a substantial difference, will beat you in a fair market.
Both are present in the project I referenced. The only restrictions placed were on minority owned contractors.City contracts generaly are handled by unionized "professional" labor. If there is no restriction being placed they cannot compete.
Probably the non-union but we don't know for sure.If you had all the materials to build your house on site and asked for quotes from two builders, one union, one not, who do you think would be lower?
I disagree. I'd bet money the union company comes in at a lot less man hours than the non-union.The union company pays out $25 per hour on average, the nonunion $10 an hour.
Both companies agree it will take exactly 1,000 man hours.
If what you say is true then how do union contractors survive?I can give you 15,000 reason the union company will not get that job. I would suggest the fact that the high compensation demanded by the union workers put their company at a definite disadvantage to compete, considering they are not even in the ballpark....
There are people that already essentially have this. Get a policy with a $1000 deductable like I used to have and you're essentially paying for all your medical cost out-of-pocket. Policies like this are very uncommon among those that get their health insurance from employers but not among those that buy thier own insurance. It saves money, but not a lot. The thing is, "standard items" just don't add up to a big portion of health care costs so cutting them out of the pie helps only a little.I'd love to see a return to a direct pay system, at least for the standard items, retaining insurance for the transplants and such.