So I had a union grievance filed against me....

[BoomerD]

You know, when the workers at my organization chose to organize, the company had a choice, they could choose to hire all new workers or to accept the union, they chose to accept the union.

I am very happy at my job and consider the return I get from the modest dues I pay to be well worth it.

With the gap between union pay & benefits and non-union pay & benefits (if any), I always considered the difference to be "non-union dues." Why the hell anyone would consider working non-union if they have the opportunity (and skills) to work for a union contractor and make more money for their labor is beyond me. Aren't you folks afraid your friends will find out you can't add?

Around here, non-union heavy equipment operators make $15-$20 tops. Union scale averages about $32 PLUS a great fringe benefits package that costs nothing out-op-pocket for the workers. That's a HUGE difference in total compensation. In Modesto, there is no "prevailing wage" for city jobs.
Non-union contractors are NOT required to pay union scale...yet the union contractors still get something like 90% of the bids. Why? Because the union workers do the job better, quicker, and with fewer "re-do's" because of shoddy work. The biggest non-union contractor is always having to do "re-work" because the mutts he hires don't know their jobs...He's been banned from bidding on work in a couple of valley cities and counties, as well as from bidding on state jobs because of his shoddy work.
When I was a business agent, I'd audit his certified payroll every week. I loved to catch him trying to pay an equipment operator laborer's wages, or not pay them prevailing wage at all. (jobs with state or federal money) We got him fined numerous times for fraudulent certified payroll.

Folks here seem to believe that unions have out-lived their usefullness.
IMO, not the case. In almost every case, when a state goes "Right to Work" (for less), wages drop dramatically for those in unionized jobs, and as a result, wages in non-related jobs start to decline as well, because those industries are no longer having to compete with union wages.

Union workers built America...and the American middle class. If all unions disappeared on Jan. 1, 2010, it would only be a couple of years before we'd all be working for minimum wage. The companies and corporations ONLY care their bottom line, not their workers.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

- The company is perfectly fine financially yet they keep trying to eliminate our pension. This likely will never happen, but it certainly would if we were not unionized.

I'll go out on a limb and say this is because pension liability grows and grows until it's an albatross hanging off the companies neck. For an example of why companies hate pensions, see domestic automakers and the UAW.

 

[Zargon]

With the gap between union pay & benefits and non-union pay & benefits (if any), I always considered the difference to be "non-union dues." Why the hell anyone would consider working non-union if they have the opportunity (and skills) to work for a union contractor and make more money for their labor is beyond me. Aren't you folks afraid your friends will find out you can't add?

Around here, non-union heavy equipment operators make $15-$20 tops. Union scale averages about $32 PLUS a great fringe benefits package that costs nothing out-op-pocket for the workers. That's a HUGE difference in total compensation. In Modesto, there is no "prevailing wage" for city jobs.
Non-union contractors are NOT required to pay union scale...yet the union contractors still get something like 90% of the bids. Why? Because the union workers do the job better, quicker, and with fewer "re-do's" because of shoddy work. The biggest non-union contractor is always having to do "re-work" because the mutts he hires don't know their jobs...He's been banned from bidding on work in a couple of valley cities and counties, as well as from bidding on state jobs because of his shoddy work.
When I was a business agent, I'd audit his certified payroll every week. I loved to catch him trying to pay an equipment operator laborer's wages, or not pay them prevailing wage at all. (jobs with state or federal money) We got him fined numerous times for fraudulent certified payroll.

Folks here seem to believe that unions have out-lived their usefullness.
IMO, not the case. In almost every case, when a state goes "Right to Work" (for less), wages drop dramatically for those in unionized jobs, and as a result, wages in non-related jobs start to decline as well, because those industries are no longer having to compete with union wages.

Union workers built America...and the American middle class. If all unions disappeared on Jan. 1, 2010, it would only be a couple of years before we'd all be working for minimum wage. The companies and corporations ONLY care their bottom line, not their workers.

probably the biggest PR issue with unions is the UAW and the Teamsters.

Good luck getting past that.

Your statement in bold is pretty well nutjobish and out there though.

I have NEVER been a Union employee and I have been VERY WELL taken care of by some of my employers.

Half of the issues I have at my current job are problems created by Unions being assholes. Or threatening strikes to get whatever they want and the other half get dicked because the Union takes all the benefit/raise money because they feel super entitled.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Union workers built America...and the American middle class. If all unions disappeared on Jan. 1, 2010, it would only be a couple of years before we'd all be working for minimum wage. The companies and corporations ONLY care their bottom line, not their workers.

The Union worker built the American middle class and helped destroy it.

There will always be competition in the work force. The best and brightest will always make more money. It stands to reason though the cost of production would help lower (or keep stable) consumer prices. In the end, you're buying power with the lowered wage wouldn't change that much.

You could argue that the company wouldn't lower prices and would keep the profit to themselves, but with less money floating around sales would plummet forcing them to lower prices. The difference is the lower production costs would help the company compete globally.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

With the gap between union pay & benefits and non-union pay & benefits (if any), I always considered the difference to be "non-union dues." Why the hell anyone would consider working non-union if they have the opportunity (and skills) to work for a union contractor and make more money for their labor is beyond me. Aren't you folks afraid your friends will find out you can't add?

Around here, non-union heavy equipment operators make $15-$20 tops. Union scale averages about $32 PLUS a great fringe benefits package that costs nothing out-op-pocket for the workers. That's a HUGE difference in total compensation. In Modesto, there is no "prevailing wage" for city jobs.
Non-union contractors are NOT required to pay union scale...yet the union contractors still get something like 90% of the bids. Why? Because the union workers do the job better, quicker, and with fewer "re-do's" because of shoddy work. The biggest non-union contractor is always having to do "re-work" because the mutts he hires don't know their jobs...He's been banned from bidding on work in a couple of valley cities and counties, as well as from bidding on state jobs because of his shoddy work.
When I was a business agent, I'd audit his certified payroll every week. I loved to catch him trying to pay an equipment operator laborer's wages, or not pay them prevailing wage at all. (jobs with state or federal money) We got him fined numerous times for fraudulent certified payroll.

Folks here seem to believe that unions have out-lived their usefullness.
IMO, not the case. In almost every case, when a state goes "Right to Work" (for less), wages drop dramatically for those in unionized jobs, and as a result, wages in non-related jobs start to decline as well, because those industries are no longer having to compete with union wages.

Union workers built America...and the American middle class. If all unions disappeared on Jan. 1, 2010, it would only be a couple of years before we'd all be working for minimum wage. The companies and corporations ONLY care their bottom line, not their workers.

You have a huge, known bias towards unions, extrapolate union experience in the construction field to the entire workforce, and you are full of crap with your last paragraph. I wouldn't deign to debate with you as your stubbornness prevents logic from getting through.

I will simply say that unions had a place. Modern labor law has made them much less necessary. Also, with only 12% of the workforce unionized, a large portion in the public sector, I don't think the dissappearance of unions would change the way most employees are paid.

By the way, the difference between union and non-union pay, on average, is about $5/hr.

I'm done.

 

[Scouzer]

You have a huge, known bias towards unions, extrapolate union experience in the construction field to the entire workforce, and you are full of crap with your last paragraph. I wouldn't deign to debate with you as your stubbornness prevents logic from getting through.

I will simply say that unions had a place. Modern labor law has made them much less necessary. Also, with only 12% of the workforce unionized, a large portion in the public sector, I don't think the dissappearance of unions would change the way most employees are paid.

By the way, the difference between union and non-union pay, on average, is about $5/hr.

I'm done.

So in your opinion $5/hr is the difference between a competitive company and a non competitive one? No, I think it's unions get blamed for uncompetitive companies even when they're really not the largest factor by far.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

So in your opinion $5/hr is the difference between a competitive company and a non competitive one? No, I think it's unions get blamed for uncompetitive companies even when they're really not the largest factor by far.

Where the hell did I state that? I was posting that in reference to his extreme spread stating non-union of $15-20 and union of $32+...sorry PLUS!...

Competitive companies have many more factors than base pay going for them, and they can be unionized or non-unionized. I, for one, hate the whole negotiation/labor relations process, and I enjoy having more time to focus on programs to make our company more competitive. Thusly, I don't care for unions.

 

[Geekbabe]

By the way, the difference between union and non-union pay, on average, is about $5/hr.

$5 an hour or $200 per week.. not an insignificant sum of money for many, many workers.

 

[SearchMaster]

$5 an hour or $200 per week.. not an insignificant sum of money for many, many workers.

True, but how much do the union dues cost? Probably $5/hour or more

 

[Geekbabe]

True, but how much do the union dues cost? Probably $5/hour or more

not even close, mine are $30 every 2 weeks.

 

[Red Dawn]

The Union worker built the American middle class and helped destroy it.

There will always be competition in the work force. The best and brightest will always make more money. It stands to reason though the cost of production would help lower (or keep stable) consumer prices. In the end, you're buying power with the lowered wage wouldn't change that much.

You could argue that the company wouldn't lower prices and would keep the profit to themselves, but with less money floating around sales would plummet forcing them to lower prices. The difference is the lower production costs would help the company compete globally.

How's that worked out...oh it hasn't, we've seen tons of Tech jobs shipped out to India and other Third World Countries because they can get people with the same skills as the American Tech workers to do the job for pennies on the dollar.

Same for the Manufacturing Jobs, Unions didn't kill them. Those Nike Air Force Ones you pay $70 for are made in Malaysia, Vietnam and China by a workforce that makes $20 a day if they're lucky. Those shoes probably cost Nike $5 each to make and ship plus what ever it costs for advertizing, accounting and so forth, the rest is pure profit.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

$5 an hour or $200 per week.. not an insignificant sum of money for many, many workers.

Never said it was. Of course, that's an average across all industries and locales. If we look at the healthcare sector, the difference is $69/wk. Hell, let's break it down to the financial, professional service, or even the federal government sectors and non-union workers make more than union on average.

Of course, that doesn't go into the many factors, both positive and negative, that having a union in place creates.

 

[Adrenaline]

The Union worker built the American middle class and helped destroy it.

There will always be competition in the work force. The best and brightest will always make more money. It stands to reason though the cost of production would help lower (or keep stable) consumer prices. In the end, you're buying power with the lowered wage wouldn't change that much.

You could argue that the company wouldn't lower prices and would keep the profit to themselves, but with less money floating around sales would plummet forcing them to lower prices. The difference is the lower production costs would help the company compete globally.

Unions did not help destroy the middle class, greedy corporations did mostly and unions played a small role in it. Corporations have stayed with their contracts over time even when their profit margins dipped because they were stubborn and thought doing the same crap over and over again would get them back to where they were and refused to believe time actually changed anything. Then when their profits are much lower they blame their workforce for it when it is poor management (GMC and Chrysler come to mind instantly).

The best and brightest do not always make the most money, the best along with the butt kissers do. I have seen just as many butt kissers promoted as I have seen bright people.

 

[Adrenaline]

How's that worked out...oh it hasn't, we've seen tons of Tech jobs shipped out to India and other Third World Countries because they can get people with the same skills as the American Tech workers to do the job for pennies on the dollar.

Same for the Manufacturing Jobs, Unions didn't kill them. Those Nike Air Force Ones you pay $70 for are made in Malaysia, Vietnam and China by a workforce that makes $20 a day if they're lucky. Those shoes probably cost Nike $5 each to make and ship plus what ever it costs for advertizing, accounting and so forth, the rest is pure profit.

I fully agree with you on this. Companies only care about their bottom dollar, they don't care about workers. Most of their employees are expendable and can be replaced with someone who will do the job for less. I got tired of hearing bosses tell people "I can fire you today and have someone in here tomorrow for less if you don't get this done by the end of today" (a usually big job). I work in TN. Work in a state where it is a right-to-work (3 states like this in the US last I heardx, TN being one) and you can be talked to like crap.

Nikes have been made overseas for decades using cheap labor. I would say the people making them would be lucky to make $20 a week if they were lucky. How do you think Nike is able to pay numerous athletes millions upon millions of dollars and rarely see an athlete dropped by them?

Tech jobs have gone overseas nonstop. I got tired of calling places and hearing someone speaking some foreign language I could barely understand because they don't want to pay tech suppot here $15 an hour (this would be non union most likely) or so compared to maybe $7 an hour (guessing, but this may be high) overseas. I laughed when I saw the deal Dell made a few years back with India (I think this was the country) to help create 15,000 new jobs (it was this or 10,000 but I believe it was 15) over there. Yep, the American corporation dream.

 

[Adrenaline]

The issue is unions hurt the companies ability to compete.

The biggest misconception here that I see is this quote. Stubborn and poor management have proven time and again that their decisions are not in touch with reality (GMC and Chrysler come to mind again) and cause more problems than union members and their pay with benefit.

Not all supervisors are bad but when you have a stubborn person refusing to see daylight in financial numbers you are going to have issues. Union leadrship deal with their people regarding pay and benefits while it is the companies job to manage the companies total budget. I have yet to come across a finance department with salaried personnel that is union run. There may be one somewhere but I have not seen it yet.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

I fully agree with you on this. Companies only care about their bottom dollar, they don't care about workers. Most of their employees are expendable and can be replaced with someone who will do the job for less. I got tired of hearing bosses tell people "I can fire you today and have someone in here tomorrow for less if you don't get this done by the end of today" (a usually big job). I work in TN. Work in a state where it is a right-to-work (3 states like this in the US last I heardx, TN being one) and you can be talked to like crap.

Nikes have been made overseas for decades using cheap labor. I would say the people making them would be lucky to make $20 a week if they were lucky. How do you think Nike is able to pay numerous athletes millions upon millions of dollars and rarely see an athlete dropped by them?

Tech jobs have gone overseas nonstop. I got tired of calling places and hearing someone speaking some foreign language I could barely understand because they don't want to pay tech suppot here $15 an hour (this would be non union most likely) or so compared to maybe $7 an hour (guessing, but this may be high) overseas. I laughed when I saw the deal Dell made a few years back with India (I think this was the country) to help create 15,000 new jobs (it was this or 10,000 but I believe it was 15) over there. Yep, the American corporation dream.

I don't know where you got your info, but there are 22 Right-To-Work states, and your issues are at an employer level. There are plenty of companies who take care of the needs of their employees. Surprisingly, this makes the companies even more profitable.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

- My union dues are $1000/yr and fully tax deductible.

That is WRONG imo. There is ZERO reason union dues should be tax deductible. I'm sure it was some union lapdog politician who allowed that to be put in place but it's asinine.

 

[Scouzer]

That is WRONG imo. There is ZERO reason union dues should be tax deductible. I'm sure it was some union lapdog politician who allowed that to be put in place but it's asinine.

Too bad.

 

[Red Dawn]

I don't know where you got your info, but there are 22 Right-To-Work states, and your issues are at an employer level. There are plenty of companies who take care of the needs of their employees.

Yeah take Enron for instance.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Yeah take Enron for instance.

Yep, because I definitely said that there are no bad companies to work for.

 

[Adrenaline]

I don't know where you got your info, but there are 22 Right-To-Work states, and your issues are at an employer level. There are plenty of companies who take care of the needs of their employees. Surprisingly, this makes the companies even more profitable.

Ok, there are 22, I was unsure as I only knew of three. I had not bothered to look it up. Thanks.

Yeah, some companies do take cae of their employees, but unfortunately not most. I work for a great company that takes care of its employees. I am a union employee there and it is great, we get treated well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Yep, because I definitely said that there are no bad companies to work for.

Just pointing out there are plenty that don't take care of their employees. For every Google there's an Enron.

Back to the original OP, I can definitely understand the frustration about getting a grievance filed against you for carrying in a box, plugging in a light or emptying out the trash can. It seems the lessor the skill level the more petty the Union. For the life of me though I don't understand why a Company that has all Non Union White Collar Workers would use Union members for Janitorial or Shipping and Receiving.

Sounds like upper management isn't doing it's job.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Ok, there are 22, I was unsure as I only knew of 3 for sure. I had not bothered to look it up. Thanks.

Yeah, some companies do take cae of their employees, but unfortunately not most. I work for a great company that takes care of its employees. I am a union employee there and it is great, we get treated well.

If you are going to claim that most companies do not treat their employees well, back it up.

(BTW: Only ~10%±5% of the American workforce is dissatisfied with their job.)

 

[Adrenaline]

That is WRONG imo. There is ZERO reason union dues should be tax deductible. I'm sure it was some union lapdog politician who allowed that to be put in place but it's asinine.

People get to deduct money they give to churches. I bet atheists would have issues with that also.

 

[Saint Nick]

Pretty soon, unions will become the bureaucrats in Futurama!

Make sure you fill out the appropriate forms before moving said box!

And fill the the right forms before posting threads and in subsequent threads!