what is your opinion of unions?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?

Because of increased govt interference and regulation in employment over the years. HR depts spend the majority of their time dealing just with compliance.

And why? Because unions are part of the free market. As I posted earlier, labor has every bit as much right to organize as does capital. An union is, in effect, a corporation which pools and sells labor. All the classical free market economists were united in agreement on this.
So big govt and big corps have been undermining the unions through regulation to make them seem unnecessary. But strip away the regulation, and the circumstances would change.
But ask yourself, seriously, without such big govt intervention in the marketplace, how could unions be made to go away without violating the free assembly clause in the 1st amendment?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

I helped my father build the house he is living in. Not sure where you were going with your little bold and quote there but maybe you shouldn't assume that everyone on this forum works in an office.
Ah a Weekend Warrior with a Hammer:laugh: I guess that qualifies you as a hard worker:roll:
 

EMPshockwave82

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2003
3,012
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Most of you who consider yourself hard workers really are just soft pussies that wouldn't know hard work if it bit them on the ass. Try framing a house or working on a Skyscraper, now that's hard fucking work.

I helped my father build the house he is living in. Not sure where you were going with your little bold and quote there but maybe you shouldn't assume that everyone on this forum works in an office.
Ah a Weekend Warrior with a Hammer:laugh: I guess that qualifies you as a hard worker:roll:[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHHAA

there you go with your high horse again.....
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?
Because the workforce doesn't exist in a vacuum. Not all workers in the workforce have to be unionized in order to provide salary pressures across all areas. As long as there are unions jobs paying attractive salaries, other jobs are going to have to compete on salaries in order to keep people interested in such careers. Why don't you take a look at newly emerging industrial nations that don't have unions or have weak unions and take a look at salaries there? Why do you think they can outsource jobs to, say, India? Why are computer programmers so much cheaper in India than in the United States? Have the trades unions been fighting for higher salaries for the past 100 years in India? No? Do you think a student in India thinks to himself, "Hmmmm, what career for me? I could be a plumber and make $60k per year, or I can be a computer programmer and make $10k per year." I don't even have to google wages in India or any other country to have a rough idea of the relative salaries between computer programmers and plumbers. Unions have fought, tooth and nail for decades so that their employees can get a decent portion of a company's profits. And, even non-union workers benefit from this. I can also point to many areas where there are union jobs and non-union jobs doing the exact same tasks for different companies, with union employees making 150% or more of the pay that the non-union employees receive. I can point to companies where the designers, engineers, draftsmen, etc., silently whine about their salaried jobs that require them to sometimes work 50 or more hours in a week, while the guys in the shop are getting time and a half on weekends and wind up making far more than the people with degrees, simply because of all the overtime benefits. And, what do the people in this forum say to the people forced to work 50 hours a week? "Don't like it? Quit."
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
no, but it's the unions that have the US automakers handcuffed because they refuse to lower wages commensurate with their job level and skill set, reduce healthcare costs by refusing to have employees pay a portion of the premium, continue to pay idle employees at idle plants, outlandish pensions etc.
with all these legacy costs, they are unable to pump money into R&D to produce competitive products.

then they have the audacity to go on strike to demand higher pay, as if they weren't overpaid already?

well, guess what. now US automakers are now suffering and if they crumble, all the union members will be out of jobs.
which would you rather have? less pay or no pay?

i'm not saying the blame is all on the unions, management shares the blame by relying too much on trucks.
but unions aren't exactly helping the situation. they're making it far worse.

Every US automaker has instituted a tiered wage structure which lowers the wages and benefits of new employees.

When was the last strike by a union at an automaker for higher wages? It is just a matter of time before the automakers too have wages and benefits cut similar to what suppliers have already done.

Although, I'm sure that an increase in funding for R&D would be beneficial, I have to believe other non-domestic automakers spend their money on R&D more wisely and their expectations are much higher.


I have seen first hand the detriments that a union can impose on a manufacturer, but I have also seen those same union workers compete successfully against all others. It is going to require both sides to change their way of thinking for the US auto industry to thrive.



 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,583
80
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: Vic
... Because unions are part of the free market. As I posted earlier, labor has every bit as much right to organize as does capital. An union is, in effect, a corporation which pools and sells labor...
Wrong, what you describe would be an employee owned contracting company. A union does not equate to a corporation, because corporations arent aloud to use monopolistic methods.
...But ask yourself, seriously, without such big govt intervention in the marketplace, how could unions be made to go away without violating the free assembly clause in the 1st amendment?
The same way Standard Oil & trust was broken up in 1911, using anti-trust laws. You are forgetting that Anti-Trust laws dont apply to unions, so again, they arent held to the same standards as corporations. They have a thier own special "definition" under the National Labor Act, which lets them play by thier own rules in an otherwise free market.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Most of you who consider yourself hard workers really are just soft pussies that wouldn't know hard work if it bit them on the ass. Try framing a house or working on a Skyscraper, now that's hard fucking work.

I helped my father build the house he is living in. Not sure where you were going with your little bold and quote there but maybe you shouldn't assume that everyone on this forum works in an office.
Ah a Weekend Warrior with a Hammer:laugh: I guess that qualifies you as a hard worker:roll:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHHAA

there you go with your high horse again.....
Just pointing out that you have no fucking clue about how hard a Union Member works, especially in construction despite your little hobbiest foray into home building.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Me, I'm on the other side of the argument...I think people who work in offices are GROSSLY over paid for what they do...degree or no degree.
White Collar and Tech Industry workers are definately over paid but if they can get it more power to them..until their job is outsourced to some . in India

Most people have a very negative view of outsourcing, and it's often misplaced. I initially learned this in college - I had to write an opinion research paper on a topic of my choice, and my choice was outsourcing. I went into the paper arguing it as a negative, but by the time I'd done my research, I'd changed it to a positive.

Outsourcing initially costs jobs, but leads to higher profits, which leads to...more jobs. I'm currently benefiting from the real world version of that. My company outsourced a bunch of software work to India. Their profits soared, which allowed them to greatly increase their domestic work force. Hence, I have a job, due to their recent expansion.

It doesn't always work that way, and the jobs that are lost are not always replenished (for instance, customer service. might still lead to more domestic jobs as a whole, but probably not customer service jobs), but all in all it can have a positive effect.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: Vic
... Because unions are part of the free market. As I posted earlier, labor has every bit as much right to organize as does capital. An union is, in effect, a corporation which pools and sells labor...
Wrong, what you describe would be an employee owned contracting company. A union does not equate to a corporation, because corporations arent aloud to use monopolistic methods.
...But ask yourself, seriously, without such big govt intervention in the marketplace, how could unions be made to go away without violating the free assembly clause in the 1st amendment?
The same way Standard Oil & trust was broken up in 1911, using anti-trust laws. You are forgetting that Anti-Trust laws dont apply to unions, so again, they arent held to the same standards as corporations. They have a thier own special "definition" under the National Labor Act, which lets them play by thier own rules in an otherwise free market.

:roll:

Originally posted by: Vic yesterday in this thread
The only thing I disagree about with unions is their ability to monopolize. I don't see why they're allowed to say they can be the only union in a particular shop or for a particular occupation.

OTOH, if capital is allowed to organize, the labor should be allowed to as well. To disallow the right to organize would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,583
80
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: Vic
... Because unions are part of the free market. As I posted earlier, labor has every bit as much right to organize as does capital. An union is, in effect, a corporation which pools and sells labor...
Wrong, what you describe would be an employee owned contracting company. A union does not equate to a corporation, because corporations arent aloud to use monopolistic methods.
...But ask yourself, seriously, without such big govt intervention in the marketplace, how could unions be made to go away without violating the free assembly clause in the 1st amendment?
The same way Standard Oil & trust was broken up in 1911, using anti-trust laws. You are forgetting that Anti-Trust laws dont apply to unions, so again, they arent held to the same standards as corporations. They have a thier own special "definition" under the National Labor Act, which lets them play by thier own rules in an otherwise free market.

:roll:

Originally posted by: Vic yesterday in this thread
The only thing I disagree about with unions is their ability to monopolize. I don't see why they're allowed to say they can be the only union in a particular shop or for a particular occupation.

OTOH, if capital is allowed to organize, the labor should be allowed to as well. To disallow the right to organize would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
Ok so we are in agreement then. Remove the monopolistic abilities of unions, and all the other ills of unions will quickly go by the wayside.

 

EMPshockwave82

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2003
3,012
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Most of you who consider yourself hard workers really are just soft pussies that wouldn't know hard work if it bit them on the ass. Try framing a house or working on a Skyscraper, now that's hard fucking work.

I helped my father build the house he is living in. Not sure where you were going with your little bold and quote there but maybe you shouldn't assume that everyone on this forum works in an office.
Ah a Weekend Warrior with a Hammer:laugh: I guess that qualifies you as a hard worker:roll:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHHAA

there you go with your high horse again.....
Just pointing out that you have no fucking clue about how hard a Union Member works, especially in construction despite your little hobbiest foray into home building.[/quote]

[/quote]


When you assume...............
I get it, you're in a union.

There are hard workers in unions, there are also piece of shite workers in unions. I've seen both and I've always been one of the hard workers. The wonderful thing about the union is that even though I bust my ass to do my best every day I get the same amount of raise at the end of the year as the person I'm working next to that takes HOURS worth of breaks.

Once again. Get off your high horse.

PS. quoting appears to be broken?
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,583
80
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Just pointing out that you have no fucking clue about how hard a Union Member works, especially in construction ....

Dont you mean to say "you have no f***ing clue about how hard a construction worker works"?

Unless I missed the part where non-union contruction is somehow easy? And with this I will again question the relevance of your posts.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82


When you assume...............
I get it, you're in a union.

There are hard workers in unions, there are also piece of shite workers in unions. I've seen both and I've always been one of the hard workers. The wonderful thing about the union is that even though I bust my ass to do my best every day I get the same amount of raise at the end of the year as the person I'm working next to that takes HOURS worth of breaks.

Once again. Get off your high horse.

PS. quoting appears to be broken?
First of all why do you care what the other guy is making as long as you get your raise? Secondly in Construction if you aren't worth a shit they don't keep you for the next job so in essence you do make more than the guy who takes a lot of breaks besides I've seen Union members who goofed off shit canned and the Union didn't raise a finger to get them their job back.
 

EMPshockwave82

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2003
3,012
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82


When you assume...............
I get it, you're in a union.

There are hard workers in unions, there are also piece of shite workers in unions. I've seen both and I've always been one of the hard workers. The wonderful thing about the union is that even though I bust my ass to do my best every day I get the same amount of raise at the end of the year as the person I'm working next to that takes HOURS worth of breaks.

Once again. Get off your high horse.

PS. quoting appears to be broken?
First of all why do you care what the other guy is making as long as you get your raise? Secondly in Construction if you aren't worth a shit they don't keep you for the next job so in essence you do make more than the guy who takes a lot of breaks besides I've seen Union members who goofed off shit canned and the Union didn't raise a finger to get them their job back.

Why should myself and a person that I greatly outperform get the same raise and be paid the same? Because we've both been doing it for the same amount of time?

Unions FTW
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Train
Ok so we are in agreement then. Remove the monopolistic abilities of unions, and all the other ills of unions will quickly go by the wayside.
:thumbsup:

 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?
Because the workforce doesn't exist in a vacuum. Not all workers in the workforce have to be unionized in order to provide salary pressures across all areas. As long as there are unions jobs paying attractive salaries, other jobs are going to have to compete on salaries in order to keep people interested in such careers. Why don't you take a look at newly emerging industrial nations that don't have unions or have weak unions and take a look at salaries there? Why do you think they can outsource jobs to, say, India? Why are computer programmers so much cheaper in India than in the United States? Have the trades unions been fighting for higher salaries for the past 100 years in India? No? Do you think a student in India thinks to himself, "Hmmmm, what career for me? I could be a plumber and make $60k per year, or I can be a computer programmer and make $10k per year." I don't even have to google wages in India or any other country to have a rough idea of the relative salaries between computer programmers and plumbers. Unions have fought, tooth and nail for decades so that their employees can get a decent portion of a company's profits. And, even non-union workers benefit from this. I can also point to many areas where there are union jobs and non-union jobs doing the exact same tasks for different companies, with union employees making 150% or more of the pay that the non-union employees receive. I can point to companies where the designers, engineers, draftsmen, etc., silently whine about their salaried jobs that require them to sometimes work 50 or more hours in a week, while the guys in the shop are getting time and a half on weekends and wind up making far more than the people with degrees, simply because of all the overtime benefits. And, what do the people in this forum say to the people forced to work 50 hours a week? "Don't like it? Quit."

so you only think competitive wages exists because unions lobby for higher wages and benefits?
you think companies won't compete with each other to bring in the best talent? are they somehow colluding with each other to keep wages down?
i highly doubt it.

programmers are cheaper in india because $10k to them is $100k to us... different standards of cost of living. isn't that obvious?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82


When you assume...............
I get it, you're in a union.

There are hard workers in unions, there are also piece of shite workers in unions. I've seen both and I've always been one of the hard workers. The wonderful thing about the union is that even though I bust my ass to do my best every day I get the same amount of raise at the end of the year as the person I'm working next to that takes HOURS worth of breaks.

Once again. Get off your high horse.

PS. quoting appears to be broken?
First of all why do you care what the other guy is making as long as you get your raise? Secondly in Construction if you aren't worth a shit they don't keep you for the next job so in essence you do make more than the guy who takes a lot of breaks besides I've seen Union members who goofed off shit canned and the Union didn't raise a finger to get them their job back.

Why should myself and a person that I greatly outperform get the same raise and be paid the same? Because we've both been doing it for the same amount of time?

Unions FTW

Theres nothing that says your employer can't pay you more than you co-worker if they determine you are worth it. They do it all the time in the Building trades.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,898
14,296
146
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

that's why i specified workers who provide the same quality of work.

Without the same levels of specialized training, you aren't going to get workers who provide the same quality of work. YES, some non-union hands are VERY good, but for the most part, they are the exceptions to the rule. Non-union companies don't have the benefit of a US Dept. of Labor sanctioned apprenticeship, (there are rat-apprenticeships, but they don't begin to compare to the union apprenticeships...not by a LONG shot) they don't have the benefit of a union hiring hall when they need qualified workers, (they hire off the street, often people who are only marginally qualified to do the work), and they don't have the benefit of a union health & welfare program that follows a worker from job to job, and is not employer specific.
I can work for 10 different contractors in one year or one contractor for 10 years, and my benefit package doesn't change. The money for the health & welfare benefits are paid to a 3rd-party administrator who oversees all the benefit packages.
This saves an employer from having to deal with insurance for its workers, (except for worker's comp insurance) it reduces their administrative staffing, since a 3rd party handle the administration and claims for the insurance, and it can reduce or eliminate all the associated insurance headaches that most companies' HR departments have to deal with.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,898
14,296
146
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82


When you assume...............
I get it, you're in a union.

There are hard workers in unions, there are also piece of shite workers in unions. I've seen both and I've always been one of the hard workers. The wonderful thing about the union is that even though I bust my ass to do my best every day I get the same amount of raise at the end of the year as the person I'm working next to that takes HOURS worth of breaks.

Once again. Get off your high horse.

PS. quoting appears to be broken?
First of all why do you care what the other guy is making as long as you get your raise? Secondly in Construction if you aren't worth a shit they don't keep you for the next job so in essence you do make more than the guy who takes a lot of breaks besides I've seen Union members who goofed off shit canned and the Union didn't raise a finger to get them their job back.

Why should myself and a person that I greatly outperform get the same raise and be paid the same? Because we've both been doing it for the same amount of time?

Unions FTW

Theres nothing that says your employer can't pay you more than you co-worker if they determine you are worth it. They do it all the time in the Building trades.

I haven't worked a "regular job" for union scale in 10+ years. Once in a great while, if I was between jobs for a couple of weeks, I'd take a short-term dispatch (less than 2 weeks) that "only " paid union scale, but for the most part, I always got $3 to $10 over union scale. Contractors know the good hands and keep them happy and well paid.

Sure, you can hire "Joe Blow" out of the hall, who is required to meet certain minimum qualifications to be dispatched for that piece of equipment, but he may not be a top-hand. He'll get paid union scale while he's there, but if the job slows down, he'll either sit at home waiting for more work, or get laid off and sent back to the hall.

The companies will keep their top hands busy even when work is slow, rather than lose them. Equipment always needs repairs or servicing of some kind. GOOD hands don't need to be told everything that needs to be done. They see something and either do it themselves, or if the work belongs to another craft, they make arrangements to have that work done.

I've been a foreman on large crane jobs, general foreman over large crews of Operating Engineers, and barge captain many times.

Barge captain is by far my favorite position. I enjoy the challenges and responsibilities that go with the job, and always push my crews to their absolute max when we have work to do. When we're slow, (at the mercy of tides, materials, etc.) we relax and tend to maintenance, have a crew BBQ, maybe even get in a bit of fishing. :D

My superintendent knows all this, and refuses to send us home because he KNOWS that the work we do it top-notch and we produce more than most other crews. Maintenance on a barge/crane working on saltwater is a never-ending chore. There's always rust to chip, things to paint, oil to change, things to grease, that alone can keep you busy 12 hours per day, and is why I have at least one qualified deck engineer to tend to it.

I worked non-union for a couple of years when we lived in the Rockies and unions weren't common, so I have a lot of personal experience to back up my judgements of non-union contractors.

Do I think that every job out there needs to be unionized? Hell NO!
BUT, I think that every worker (regardless of his/her field has the RIGHT to be unionized if the majority of employees wants it.

I know that some unions and union workers have given unions a bad name. I personally am not too fond of the Teamsters, even though I were one...
"I'd rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother in the Teamsters," is a pretty common attitude in construction trades.:D

The construction trades don't put up with slackers, drunks, lazy fucks, or otherwise worthless workers. If you can't or won't produce, you're GONE, and while the union may question the firing, they rarely fight it, especially if you document everything. (as you should do before you fire any worker)
As a business agent, many, many times I had to deal with people who had been fired for a variety of assorted things. The fuck-offs usually got sent to our training facility for testing, and if they passed the minimum qualification test, they could be re-dispatched, but if not, they couldn't be dispatched until they could pass.

Operating heavy equipment is different than most other crafts. A back-hoe operator, dozer operator, or crane operator can do a LOT of damage and/or kill a lot of people in a quick amount of time if they don't know WTF they are doing. We do not tolerate fuck-ups, fuck-offs, or slackers, and we demand a high level of competency to be considered a Journeyman.
My union was the driving force behind crane operator licensing here in Kahleeforneeya. Many other states and large cities have had similar programs for years, but the NCCCO is the toughest there is, and is slowly being implemented by many other states and agencies.
Needless to say, the RATCO contractors and their ABC fought this tooth & nail, because it limits the personel they can put in a crane, AND it drives up the cost of those qualified crane operators.
 

Oceandevi

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2006
3,085
1
0
I am a member of CWA. I do not have much to do with my union. They are there if you need them. I have family to look after and having good benefits is a relief.

A union is made up of people. And there are shitheads everywhere. So do the math.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?


I thought you were older than you're statement reflects. 30-40 years ago middle class blue collars jobs came with pensions and paid health care (100% employers paid)


"Most union-negotiated pension plans are defined-benefit pension plans, which for decades have guaranteed retirees a fixed monthly income. These defined-benefit plans are usually funded entirely by employers through tax-exempt contributions and automatically cover all qualified employees. Since 1978, the number of defined-benefit plans plummeted from 128,041 plans covering some 41 percent of private-sector workers to only 26,000 today, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds 21 percent of workers in the private sector have defined-benefit pensions.

Many companies have eliminated their defined-benefit plans and others have reduced the value of benefits and shifted to providing benefits through 401(k)s and other defined-contribution plans. In these plans, the employer only contributes a fixed amount to the plan each year. Defined-contribution plans shift the investment risk and responsibility to individual workers and typically reduce corporate costs."

 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
When you assume...............
I get it, you're in a union.

There are hard workers in unions, there are also piece of shite workers in unions. I've seen both and I've always been one of the hard workers. The wonderful thing about the union is that even though I bust my ass to do my best every day I get the same amount of raise at the end of the year as the person I'm working next to that takes HOURS worth of breaks.

Once again. Get off your high horse.

PS. quoting appears to be broken?

Yep, I agree, unions only encourage more people at the end of the day to just say "fuck it" Where's the productivity in that? Men work best when happy or, legally speaking, reasonably satisfied, to do that, a company should not be constrained by some bureaucratic shit, because that only hinders the process.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
My FIL is a union electrician, usually doing large industrial jobs (power plants, factories, etc). It actually offers a tangible benefit to the companies that use them. The company says how many electricians they need and with what skills, the union arranges to have that number of qualified, trained electricians show up when they need it. The company doesn't worry about any benefits, they just pay the hourly rate and the union pays for all the worker's healthcare, pension, etc.

It works out pretty well, makes it much easier for companies to find the workers they need much more quickly.

However, some unions abuse their power. Shutting down a city because you can shouldn't be legal.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Originally posted by: Bignate603
My FIL is a union electrician, usually doing large industrial jobs (power plants, factories, etc). It actually offers a tangible benefit to the companies that use them. The company says how many electricians they need and with what skills, the union arranges to have that number of qualified, trained electricians show up when they need it. The company doesn't worry about any benefits, they just pay the hourly rate and the union pays for all the worker's healthcare, pension, etc.

It works out pretty well, makes it much easier for companies to find the workers they need much more quickly.

However, some unions abuse their power. Shutting down a city because you can shouldn't be legal.

i assume you're referring to the NYC MTA.
what a scumbag, that toussaint fellow. did he ever get fined and face jail time?