Should work be able to dictate your life?

bobman1235

steveinaz wrote:

Here's how unions drove ALL of our wages up:

Company "A" has a union and pays it's employees $14/hr. Company "B" does not and pays it's employees $7/hr. Johnny wants a job, now he can either work for company A at $14/hr or Co. B at $7/hr. He chooses Company A. Pretty soon Company B realizes that all of its potential employees are going to Company A, because they pay better and have union represenation....

So guess what Company B does? You got it, now Company B is now paying $9/hr.

Yup, hat's why Unions are good. The reason they're BAD is because of the same reason everyone was railing about Walmart in that thread. THey use their muscle to get unfair advantages in certain things. A lot ofthe big unions have the power to put entire companies out of business, so they use that to get exhorbitant pay. Not to mention the fact that you can't fire someone from a union job no matter how grossly negligent they are unless you go through the most complicated rigamaroll imaginable.

Like most everything else, there's a good side and a bad side.

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

Here's how unions drove ALL of our wages up:

Company "A" has a union and pays it's employees $14/hr. Company "B" does not and pays it's employees $7/hr. Johnny wants a job, now he can either work for company A at $14/hr or Co. B at $7/hr. He chooses Company A. Pretty soon Company B realizes that all of its potential employees are going to Company A, because they pay better and have union represenation....

So guess what Company B does? You got it, now Company B is now paying $9/hr.

Unfortunately, it probably won't work out that way. If the products/services from Company A and B are of comparable quality, most likely Company B will be cheaper and therefor more profitable in the long run.

Regardless, discussion like this is really moot in my eyes. Paying people artificially high wages only pushes prices for goods and services up and makes the higher wages diluted due to inflation. Whether we like it or not, we are part of a global economy now, and no amount of government legislation/unions/etc. will change the fact that there if there are people out there willing to work harder for less money than we are, we're screwed.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

I can't lie brother, (Sung in Joe Walsh's voice) "Uncle Sam's been good so faaaaarrrr..."

LOL!

I TRULY feel for people working in the private sector---it is SCARY. Company buy-outs, bankruptcy, people loosing retirement benefits over night...****, I'm staying with the gub'ment.

haha, I don't blame you one bit!

steveinaz

It's not really "artificially" higher wages; you have to remember that union workers get highly specialized training in their fields. They go thru schools that vary in length and have to complete all of the blocks of instruction to get their "journeyman" status, which is where the money is at. For example, in Missouri a carpenter must complete 22 blocks of instruction; you are given 2 years to complete them, but you can complete early if you want. The blocks take new workers from pouring a foundation, all the way through to finishing work in a house---they literally build a home in 22 stages inside of a huge warehouse downtown, STL. This training is done on the employees time. During the work day, they are gophers for the journeyman carpenters and are taught things on the job, to go along with what they are learning in the program blocks. I know, I started an apprenticeship, but opted to go in the Army.

Why do alot of companies take union bids? Because they know the workmanship is far better and that union workers are held to a much higher standard with building codes, etc.

LessisNevermore

On topic: No, an employer has no business telling anyone what to do, or not do off hours. If you can't do your job, you lose it, end of story.

Off topic: All of this talk about union workers that can't be fired, is mostly heresay. ("but I know a guy who knows somebody, who has a cousin that works for an auto company......")
These discussions are usually centered around union workers that work in the Auto industry. Not all unions are the same. Face it, the union negotiates a contract with the employer, both parties find the middle ground, and sign. No one is putting a gun to the employer's head.

In the construction trades, a contractor can fire a union worker, or lay him/her off without a moments notice, or reason. It happens every day. Contractors hire union work because of the specialized training we recieve, and more specifically, the safety training we get. I have worked for non-union contractors, and the safety of a worker is not even on their radar. It costs too much.(or so they think)
Our safety record, quality, being on-schedule, and accountability speak for itself, and that's why we get the work, and the higher wages. What is your time and safety worth to you?

George Grand

I saw that segment on 60 Minutes last night too. I disagree with the policy, and would've LOVED to have been able to reach into the TV and given that smug old **** a chest slam. "NOW you have something to fire me for. PLUS, it looks like you're having a slight respiratory problem after that chest slam, and you don't smoke. I can't believe you didn't foresee this sir."

Employer - "Do you smoke?"

Employed - "Yes."

Employer - "Based on that info, you JUST MAY contract a sickness, so you're outta here!"


Next situation...

Employer - "Do you drink?"

Employed - "Yes, I drink socially, maybe twice a month. Not to excess though."

Employer - "Hmmm. Based on that info, you could SOMEDAY develop a serious drinking problem, causing a loss of productivity, or worse, you may start drinking and driving. I can't risk you POTENTIALLY driving our company truck while you're drunk, so you're outta here."

steveinaz

No **** huh, even Morley called it "****" policy.

From the interview:

Morley: "How do you feel about dictating what your employees do after work in their own homes?"

CEO: "I don't dicate to them, the policy does..."

Morley: "Well, didn't you make the policy?"

CEO: (the **** smiles and says) "Of course, I make all of the policies."

What a ****.

Demiurge

Well, your experiences with unions and my experience with unions are obviously way different. We contracted with a company to make one part of an overal unit that one company was selling to another. To us it was going to be worth a few million dollars, something that would have been huge for a company of our size. It would have meant a lot of money in our employee's pockets and my pocket at the end of the day.

Once the end user (Union) found out that our shop wasn't a union shop and the old supplier was they started **** with the units, and eventually it cost the other company their contract, and ours in turn.

We may still get back in, but at this point it's up in the air. Unions hijack companies, and it's utter ****. Unions have no place in todays workforce other than to **** it up. The days are long gone where there was one factory in town and nowhere else to work. That excuse wasn't very valid back then either.

steveinaz

What if your company adopted a policy tommorrow that stated they didn't want NRA members on their rolls? Would you be ok with that? Would you still err on the side of capitalism?

Don't answer that, that is a rediculous question because what could you being an NRA member possibly have anything to do with your performance at work.

Get my point?

My personal business is my personal business, the day a company tries to influence my personal business is the day I'll take a huge **** on the bosses desk, and then wipe my **** with his/her "memo."

rskarvan

I'm as pro-union as they come. Unions had a place in years gone past. Unions have a place today. And, hopefully, unions will have a place tomorrow. Remember, the United States of America is nothing but a union of states.

People are brain-washed to think that they can compete as individuals. Not true. Companies are simply using "divide and conquer" mentality. The question on the corporate boards truly is... "how low can we go" with regard to salary disparity. Workers produce. Companies consume profits from workers efforts. Simple as that. If you want fairness, distribute the wealth. If you want wage disparity, let the companies divide and conquer the rights of individual employees.

Unions provided: 40-hr work week, safe work conditions, holidays, workers rights (yes, we have some), liveable wage, etc. To think that companies voluntarily signed up for these social changes is absolutely as crazy as "trickle down economics".


As for the "jobs banks" in the automotive industry... thats not the unions fault. GM outsourced much of the work to Mexico (paying $2/hr). The unions tried to discourage this successfully negotiating job security (jobs bank). As a result, we have a lot of perfectly productive employees that are being paid high wages to not produce. The companies signed up for this obligation when work contracts were negotiated.

Quite honestly, the union would much rather have all those jobs back from Mexico so that they can once-again take pride in a fair days work for a fair days pay. Companies robbed their own employees of this.

F#$% Corporate America. I'm an American and I want good jobs where English is the primary language.

W WALDECKER

Demiurge wrote:

Well, your experiences with unions and my experience with unions are obviously way different. We contracted with a company to make one part of an overal unit that one company was selling to another. To us it was going to be worth a few million dollars, something that would have been huge for a company of our size. It would have meant a lot of money in our employee's pockets and my pocket at the end of the day.

Once the end user (Union) found out that our shop wasn't a union shop and the old supplier was they started **** with the units, and eventually it cost the other company their contract, and ours in turn.

We may still get back in, but at this point it's up in the air. Unions hijack companies, and it's utter ****. Unions have no place in todays workforce other than to **** it up. The days are long gone where there was one factory in town and nowhere else to work. That excuse wasn't very valid back then either.

the ****'s Banned Unions, Trade Unions have highly skilled employees instead of sniveling **** kissing rats who do a piss poor job because they dont know any better.

Demiurge

The **** ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The **** went to bed at night. The **** brushed their teeth. The **** wiped their **** after taking a ****. The **** killed 6 Million Jews too, what's your point? Any other stupid comparisons you wish to make? :rolleyes:

Funny we're making the best equipment of it's kind in the industry and we're not a union shop.

George Grand

I like the minimum wage concept....

"If I could get away with paying you LESS money to do this sorry-**** job, I would. But the law says I have to pay you at LEAST, THIS much."
What a motivator huh? Would it really kill some of them to pay individuals 10 freakin' cents more than minimum wage?

mrbigbluelight

Demiurge wrote:

What? lol, Unions are the biggest joke going.

disagree with you.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

Funny we're making the best equipment of it's kind in the industry and we're not a union shop.

But you are the exception, not the rule. There are many fine suppliers that aren't union because they probably provide well for their employees.

sucks2beme

I was never in a union. But like many of us, enjoyed the benefits that came
with the age of unions. I don't think unions mean a good or bad product.
Sometimes, they also don't do much other than collect dues.
But I do believe they would of stood up to some of the crap going on now if they were still in power.
Let's hope some reason returns to the workplace.
Political correctness in the workplace often backfires. Work is the place for work. Home is where you go to relax with your family and enjoy the love of music that all Polkies share. I think I'll go into ignore mode(turn off the company cell phone) and listen to some K.T. Tunstall.

PolknPepsi

For the last 15 years I have had a very well groomed and very short beard. recently I turned down a job with a very large hotel chain that said to be employed I would need to loose the beard. During my interview I met a very clean shaven young man who had a pony tail down to his waist......WTF!

schwarcw

My humble opinion is that employers should have the right to monitor employees for drug and alcohol use, subject to random testing. It is legal to drink, but you should not have a blood alcohol level above the 0.07% limit that most states use as the intoxication threshold. Illegal drugs are just illegal. Prescription drug use, the intoxicating kind (pain killers, opiates, benzos, etc.) that you do not have a prescription also should not be tolerated. If your caught, there should be a treatment service available for first time offenders. Second time, out the door. Many employers have these requirements already. Do you want your airline pilot to have a herion habit? Interestingly, physicians are not subject to this kind of policy. Drug abuse by physicians (according to the AMA) is high. No pun intended. How would you like to be operated on by a surgeon who is speedballing?

Overweight, smoking, sexual preference etc. should not be a condition of employment.

opus

W WALDECKER wrote:

the ****'s Banned Unions, Trade Unions have highly skilled employees instead of sniveling **** kissing rats who do a piss poor job because they dont know any better.

Well this is just great. In one week I have had a polk member tell me and my family to f&^k off because I shop at Wally's and now I am a sniveling **** kissing rat who does a piss poor job. WW, and this may be the beer talking, but you can screw off. That whole "highly skilled " **** is just that, ****. You can barely get a union painter to work because he is too busy telling you how much he is making per hour. Don't ask him how any hours a year he works because he sits on his **** most of the winter. Piss poor job? Why don't you open your eyes next time you walk through a new ballpark, airport or school that some union hack painted. You call that quality work. You make me laugh. We fire guys that do that kind of **** work. I do a good job because I want to. It gets me more money, promoted and gives me a sense of satisfaction. I work through breaks, stay late, work OT and appreciate my boss. In turn he treats me well, gives me a truck to drive, offers a safe workplace, pays me 3$ under union scale and respects me enough to expect excellence when I show up on a job.

You union smucks have to get over this "We are unions and we saved the poor working man" mentality of the '30s. Back then you fought against a problem but now you have become the problem. Go ahead and start all the name calling and keep chasing all of your jobs out of the country. Guys like me that know how to work and like to work will be here to pick up your slack.

sincerely , kevin aka sniveling **** kissing rat currently doing a piss poor job

brettw22

Can't fault ua Opus for standing your ground.

It appears that any time I've seen Union vs. Non arguements that the people that start the slamming first is the Union side. I'm not making any judgements, but find that to be a bit odd when they don't understand the type of anger they receive like Opus has displayed.

Anger should be pointed towards shoddy work and poor ethics by ANYONE.....and no one should be so ignorant to believe that those people are all on one side of the fence.

mrbigbluelight

for the Cardinals was built union, on time and under budget. Using Project Labor agreements. With local union labor.
The Cardinals could have imported non-union folks from Texas and Arkansas and put some extra cash in their pockets, but chose not to.
The result ? The labor money went into the local commnunity. Local people spend that money at car dealerships, grocery stores, and even Wally-worlds.

Demi, you mentioned there was a need for unions back in the 30's.
I would suggest that there is definitely a need for unions NOW.
The 40 hour work week. Definitely a result of unions. There is a movement underway now, a STRONG movement to do away with the 40 hour work week.
Why ?
"We have to compete globally !".
Well, in that case, let's important foreign MANAGERS and keep the local union work force.

Ridiculous ? No. That's what the local area water company did. They were bought by a German concern, brought in their German management, and used the local unionized work force. And things improved.

Personally, from my experience, MANAGEMENT is sorely lacking. Points can't be proven anecdotally, to be sure, but MANAGEMENT in this country doesn't have a clue what they're doing.
Is it because they are saddled with antiquated union rules and regulations ? In some cases, the automotive industry, perhaps yes.
In others, it is the sheer incompetence of management.

I believe unions, with some foot dragging, have changed for the better and are actually trying to improve the work place. The carpenters that were previously mentioned are a good example.
Want to be a carpenter on some of the local projects here ? Be prepared for random drug tests conducted by the union.

It is MANAGEMENT that is unsure of itself in a changing workplace. So what do they do ? Fall back to places of safety, ie, "Let's do away with the 40 hour work week ! I can't get enough done otherwise !!".

Manadantory overtime ? I've seen it done because of management's not poor planning, but NO planning.

Unions can be a convenient excuse for failing businesses. Look behind the screen, however, and quite often I believe you'll see gross and incompetent management.

bobman1235

The Big Dig was done with Union workers.

End of point.

F1nut

It wasn't the union workers that were the problem with the Big Dig. Look further up the ladder at the people that were getting their palms greased for that.

bert26

When was the last time any of you worked only 40 hours in a week?

Shizelbs

schwarcw wrote:

It is legal to drink, but you should not have a blood alcohol level above the 0.07% limit that most states use as the intoxication threshold.

So I can't get a mild buzz in my own home, even if I don't drive? Its not like I fly planes for a living. Pretty sure that 0.08% BAC should stick to just whether or not you should be driving, and even 0.08% is pretty damn low.

Shizelbs

bert26 wrote:

When was the last time any of you worked only 40 hours in a week?

I am non-unionized and I only work 40 hours a week.

Demiurge

Demi, you mentioned there was a need for unions back in the 30's.

'twasn't me.

They're also not what they used to be. Some are mobbed up (still). What if a person doesn't want to be part of a union? Ever hear about how those folks get treated? When a union gives all of their money to political cannidates they don't support what is the incentive to the member? Just money? What makes them different than all of these supposed evil business execs?

Me? Treat the employees well. We've had the same employee base for a very long time. If we do well all of our pockets are a little fatter. It gives all of us the incentive to work harder, and it promotes loyalty.

Those of you in unions can rock on. I will never have one here as I have seen what they can do. Most business owners aren't evil looking to screw the little guy. Oh, but they make more. Whose neck is on the line? Lose your job and you can just get another one. Lose a business...that's a huge financial blow.

To say that anyone not in a union is making an inferior product is just a total farce. There's people making crap on both sides of the fence.

PhantomOG

why do some professions "need" unions when others don't? I'm an electrical/computer engineer and I've never heard of a union for "engineers". If we don't think we are being compensated fairly, we quit and find someone who does. why can't this work for all professions?

regardless of the employer, if most of their workforce is quitting, in order to retain employees they must raise their compensation level or be forced to shut down because of their lack of employees.

steveinaz

PhantomOG wrote:

why do some professions "need" unions when others don't? I'm an electrical/computer engineer and I've never heard of a union for "engineers". If we don't think we are being compensated fairly, we quit and find someone who does. why can't this work for all professions?

Because some people choose to make a stand.

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

Because some people choose to make a stand.

what stronger "stand" can you take than to refuse to work for an employer who you think is treating you unfairly?

You may see it as a sign of strength but it really is a sign of weakness. By leaving the employer you are showing your skillset is valuable enough that you don't "need" that employer. By staying you are implying no one else is willing to pay you what you deem fair.