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

[Adrenaline]

Nope. I am for CHOICE for the employee. If a person wants to work for a company - they shouldn't also be forced to join a union and have their wages confiscated.

I understand this is done in some places but where I work it is optional to join the union.

 

[Red Dawn]

wrong - addressed in other posts.

Lol, the victim mentality again. Nobody is forcing them to work for a company that has a Union presence.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Hey nobody's forcing them to work for that company. If they don't want to pay dues or belong to a union they can find work elsewhere. They need tofind a place of work where the Management doesn't want the Union's presence.

Agreed. If employee don't like the way a company is run (including the presence of a union), they can find employment elsewhere.

 

[Geekbabe]

I worked part-time at a grocery store when I was in highschool. The union didn't do anything to benefit part time employees, but we were forced to pay union dues anyway (even if we didn't want to be in it)

Most unions pro rate dues based on how many hours you work. Also, things like your starting salary are in large part the result of the collective bargaining that happened before you took your job.

 

[Adrenaline]

are all of the employees at your place unionized? if not, how well are the non-union employees treated?

all of my family has done well in regular jobs. then again, we are math/science people (except my mom, who was a teacher) so the comparison may not be exactly apples to apples. point being though, AFAIK all the employers we have worked for have treated us well. sure, someone somewhere is going to have an asshole boss, but not the "you'll be fired tomorrow" type. especially when it'll actually take months just to re-train whoever the new hire is.

The non union employees are treated the same at my job. My job treats people very well in general.

Before I had this job I have had numerous bosses, as well as friends who had bosses, that were just outright rude and disrespectful. I have seen numerous times where if they were talking to someone like that outside of the place of work they would be beat down for their outright disrespect. Yes, I have seen it that bad.

 

[Red Dawn]

Agreed. If employee don't like the way a company is run (including the presence of a union), they can find employment elsewhere.

When I was a Carpenter in the SF Bay Area, a region that has a strong Union presence, I could have found a non Union job if I wanted. It probably would have been with a small contractor and my wages would have been drastically lower with little or no benefits but it was there for me if I had not wanted to be in the Carpenters Union.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Lol, the victim mentality again. Nobody is forcing them to work for a company that has a Union presence.

wrong. I've already addressed this. It's not about "victim" or victim hood. It's about CHOICE for the employee. The union doesn't pay an employee's paycheck - the company does. The CHOICE should be the employee's to join or not. If people WANT to join - fine, but don't even attempt to claim they have as much CHOICE as those in RTW states.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

To join a church tithing is expected. They preach about it all the time. Every church I have gone to for a period of time has done this. Everyone does not do this and it is understood but a portion does.

To join a union you have union dues, this is understood. The union at your job has helped the foundation for all of your pay and benefits you will receive.

Again, one is a free choice - the other is not.

 

[Red Dawn]

wrong. I've already addressed this. It's not about "victim" or victim hood. It's about CHOICE for the employee. The union doesn't pay an employee's paycheck - the company does. The CHOICE should be the employee's to join or not. If people WANT to join - fine, but don't even attempt to claim they have as much CHOICE as those in RTW states.

LOL, what part of "They don't have to work there if they don't want to belong to the Union" don't you fucking understand?

To listen to you one would think a Union member ran off with your wife while you were busy toiling at work

 

[Geekbabe]

wrong. I've already addressed this. It's not about "victim" or victim hood. It's about CHOICE for the employee. The union doesn't pay an employee's paycheck - the company does. The CHOICE should be the employee's to join or not. If people WANT to join - fine, but don't even attempt to claim they have as much CHOICE as those in RTW states.

Yeah, it figures you'd love the open shop concept.

 

[Adrenaline]

Again, one is a free choice - the other is not.

A Union has Union dues it is understood. And you would be surprised but some churches if you join expect you to tithe. Not just donate money but to tithe. They literally ask to see your pay stub and calculate how much you will OWE THEM when you join. If you do not meet what they expect they can kick you out of the church membership.

Welcome to the Bible Belt, where some membership is not free.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

LOL, what part of "They don't have to work there if they don't want to belong to the Union" don't you fucking understand?

To listen to you one would think a Union member ran off with your wife while you were busy toiling at work

What part of free choice do you not fucking understand? My position offers the MOST choice for employees. Why would someone not be for employees having the most choice?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yeah, it figures you'd love the open shop concept.

Yep, I support choice for workers.

 

[Red Dawn]

What part of free choice do you not fucking understand? My position offers the MOST choice for employees. Why would someone not be for employees having the most choice?

So you think the employees and not the Employer should be able to make the choice? And that's different than the Union ?

They have free choice, they can choose to work for a non Union Company.

 

[Geekbabe]

Btw, not all unions or union members are greedy, lazy people. Many of us are more than aware of the challenges impacting our employers and
are more than willing to be reasonable at the bargaining table. We also lobby quite strongly to support political issues which could help our companies. It's not some sort of one way street where the employer is being bleed dry by horrible union monsters.

 

[Geekbabe]

Yep, I support choice for workers.

ok, so if a worker chooses not to join what benefits should he/she forego or are you suggesting that it's ok for new hires to enjoy the same rate of pay and benefits as dues paying members?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So you think the employees and not the Employer should be able to make the choice? And that's different than the Union ?

They have free choice, they can choose to work for a non Union Company.

Nice try but that's not the reality of the situation. If a person is hired -they are hired by the company - NOT the union. If the employer states during the hiring process that by accepting the position they must also join a union then that person is free to not accept employment. However, it's not the companies choice on whether it's a closed shop or not -that was the choice of the union - even in non-right-to-work states.

So again, why would anyone be against what gives the employee the most choice?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

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.

This is a problem when you have a bunch of blue collared workers here talking about how they understand the industry and because of their limited experiences in unions which occupy sub 10% of the workforce of the private industry, and only ~30% of the public workforce, they claim that they understand how the job market works.

Really....

The funny thing is that all the new industries in the last 20 years or even 50 years have been huge booming industries without the need for unionized labor. They are huge magnets and offer great pay and benefits. You have trillion dollar industries like the semiconductor industry which is pretty damn well organized compared to other industries, and not only is it successful, it has been built without the need for unionized labor.

And I don't get the comparison of jobs being shipped off to China and India. Those are manufacturing jobs. Sure some software and hardware design is shipping off there, but why are the technical jobs still here? Hmmmm. Fabs don't belong in the US if they can't produce chips for cheap. This is why new fabs are outside of the US. Unionized labor isn't the solution, and globalization is the reality. You can't deny another country's competitiveness by using unionized labor. In the end you get crappy overpriced products (cough... domestic cars...cough)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

ok, so if a worker chooses not to join what benefits should he/she forego or are you suggesting that it's ok for new hires to enjoy the same rate of pay and benefits as dues paying members?

A new hire negotiates his salary/wages, position, and responsibilities with the employer - just like anywhere else. If the employer decides that it's easier just to follow what the union demands were then that is their choice.

 

[Geekbabe]

Nice try but that's not the reality of the situation. If a person is hired -they are hired by the company - NOT the union. If the employer states during the hiring process that by accepting the position they must also join a union then that person is free to not accept employment. However, it's not the companies choice on whether it's a closed shop or not -that was the choice of the union - even in non-right-to-work states.

So again, why would anyone be against what gives the employee the most choice?

because the starting salary ranges and benefits being offered came to be as result of collective bargaining by dues paying employees.

What you're hoping will happen is that enough people will come in and decide "I don't wanna pay dues" over time no more union... but no more of the good things the union brought the workers and possible return of some bad things that caused the workers to organize in the 1st place.

 

[Red Dawn]

Nice try but that's not the reality of the situation. If a person is hired -they are hired by the company - NOT the union. If the employer states during the hiring process that by accepting the position they must also join a union then that person is free to not accept employment. However, it's not the companies choice on whether it's a closed shop or not -that was the choice of the union - even in non-right-to-work states.

So again, why would anyone be against what gives the employee the most choice?

Again it's the Employers choice to be a Union Shop so they want the employee to be a member of that Union. If the prospective employee doesn't want to be a member of that Union he can find work elsewhere

 

[Geekbabe]

A new hire negotiates his salary/wages, position, and responsibilities with the employer - just like anywhere else. If the employer decides that it's easier just to follow what the union demands were then that is their choice.

so what you're saying is that you support a form of welfare for folks who want to benefit from a union pay scale without paying any dues?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

so what you're saying is that you support a form of welfare for folks who want to benefit from a union pay scale without paying any dues?

No, that's not even close to what I've stated. Employment negotiations are between an employee and the company.... which give them...you know.... CHOICE.

 

[EricMartello]

Hardly. American companies outsource to places like China, Vietnam, Mexico (etc) because they can pay pennies compared to American workers, union and nonunion alike, since they are essentially 3rd world countries. As shitty as the wages seem, it's better than the alternative and part of the industrialization process. American workers can't compete with people that are just moving above the world poverty line.

You're missing the point. It's not purely about wages, although that is a large part of it. Take Hong Kong, for example - the government pays companies to build factories there and skilled, well-educated laborers who work for pennies are abundant. Not only that, but the U.S. has a lot of red tape to cut through with environmental regulations, zoning issues, local politics that interfere with a company trying to build a new factory. Add to that expensive fees and licensing costs...it can take 5-10 years or more - compared to 1-2 years in china. In 5-10 years, whatever you were going to manufacture will be outdated and so will your manufacturing processes.

How does this relate to unions? They're not solely to blame, but they're not helping the matter by demanding that their workers continue to be overcompensated for work that requires no specialized skill or knowledge to do other than a willingness to do it. America's "equal opportunity" employment laws which force employers to hire people who aren't white just to be P.C. WTF is that? How about whoever is best qualified for the job gets it? No...not in the USA...in the USA if you are a "disadvantaged minority" that entitles you to a job you're probably not cut out to do so we can all be "equal". Non of that BS in HK where the workers know that if they don't do their best they get fired.

It's not just Blue Collar Jobs getting outsourced. I also don't understand why you think because you went to College you automatically think you are worth more than some guy that didn't. The vast Majority of those with White Collar Jobs end up just being overweight Paper Shuffling Middle Management who sits in a cubicle all day scared of losing their jobs as they get older to some snot nosed kid fresh out of College who's so desperate for work that they'll work for much less because they are up to their eyeballs in debt from School loans .

I never went to college. I finished highschool and start my own company in the late 90s and have been running it ever since...however when it comes down to worth, you can run a simple calculation to figure out how much you are paying a person in terms of wage/salary vs how much they produce for the company.

In almost all cases, the union laborer would be upside down on that figure, meaning it costs more to employ them than the revenue they generate for the company. So who is worth more? Someone who's not costing the company more than they produce.

I don't consider college-educated people better qualified or more intelligent; in fact most of the people coming out of colleges are the same underambitious, unmotivated sacks of shit that couldn't get a job at their local steel mill like their pappy dun did. They're all looking for the same deal "If I show up from 9 to 5 I get paid. That's enough."

Do you think that companies would be laying off droves of white-collar employees if they were actually producing revenue for said company? No...they're just as worthless as the lazy blue collar workers - they all have the same entitlement mentality and just aren't willing to accept the fact that in a global economy you cannot scoot by and expect your degree, union affiliation or whatever to carry you through life.

I cant wait till all the middle and upper execs start to get replaced by lower cost "globalized" alternatives too... wont it be super when they get a taste of their own bitter medicine.

It has been happening already with mixed results. Laziness is not exclusive to America but it is very prevalent here in the workforce when compared to other countries which know that if they don't give it their all they get nothing. As evidenced this year, the USA has plenty of safety nets for failures - both for individuals and companies - something that developing countries do not have.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Again it's the Employers choice to be a Union Shop so they want the employee to be a member of that Union. If the prospective employee doesn't want to be a member of that Union he can find work elsewhere

Nope. We've been over this before. The UNION is the one who sets themselves up as a closed shop. They could file themselves as an open shop but due to their nature they want to force everyone into it. It is NOT the company that chooses it at all.