Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Union is what union does

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Idunno
    started a topic Union is what union does

    Union is what union does

    Organize

    Dems just don't get it. This is not the stuff of contenders. It's the stuff of contentious. Legislating employers and employees for the good of the unions alone? Unions that bargain with strong arm tactics like striking to paralyze an employer need to open their eyes and take a look around the manufacturing landscape for a clue or two. Those days are over by virtue of an available global market of cheap labor. While I agree that their original purpose (ensuring work place safety) is still valid, OSHA, state and local guidelines have the reins now, not to mention the ever-prying eyes of the blood-thirsty personal injury attorneys creating victims as they need them. Point being, unions need to vanish and let the right-to-work aspect of a free market economy compete for workers. I despise unions and their pocketing of politicians.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...nion-wish-list

  • gp2112
    replied
    Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post


    I disagree.

    "Right to work"simply means a person seeking employment may do so without being compelled by the state to do so as a union member.

    It also means a business may hire an individual that is not a member of a union.

    Pretty basic rights really.

    I know plenty of tradesmen /skilled professionals who would rather set their own terms of compensation rather than have a union do it for them AND charge them a fee for it.

    Nothing about RTW limits workers rights to organize and present collective bargaining terms to employers.

    Disagree to your hearts content. That does not make you, or the users of that term, correct. Everyone can get a job they desire as long as they meet qualifications or hiring demands of a job. That includes becoming a part of a union. If a person wants to do a job that requires they become a member of a union then they have a right to refuse the job or become a member to get the job.

    No one is twisting their arm and any one who says that arms are being twisted are either lying or they are attempting to get rid of labor so they can set their own rules without being held accountable.

    Additionally, if a business chooses to do business as a non-union shop they can do so. Unions do not crop up out of thin air. Usually they become part of a company because the company has policies in place that either do not protect the employee: capricious firing or discipline, the jobs do not pay as well as the market can bear, benefits are cut or not offered, etc...

    Perhaps the business owner should look at his/her/its own behavior toward its employees when a shop unionizes.

    You are one of those in here who always advocates an employee negotiating his own terms singly. What you either choose to ignore, or are ignorant of, is the difficulty and time necessary to negotiate hundreds or thousands of contracts every year. It is simply not possible to do so and so many large employee work forces, and employers, find it easier to negotiate one contract to cover all employees.

    Tell me: How many single employee contracts have you negotiated in a year? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? If the answer is hundreds or thousands tell me how much time you had to do anything else. Of course you could do what most employers do and just tell the prospective employee that he/she will receive a pre-determined amount, take it or leave it. Then, each year that employee receives another pre-determined amount as a raise, if the company wishes to give it. That amount is usually 2-2.5% per year.

    That is how all the non-union companies I have worked for have paid their employees. The only one who allowed me to "negotiate" was my current employer and that for two reasons: I am an expert in what I do, I am better than most in what I do (even better than those who possess more "qualifications" than I do) and he was calling my bluff. Otherwise, I have not had an opportunity to negotiate my raises (one in three years) or my benefits.

    At the other private corporations I worked for I was hired at the same amount as every one else and received the very same wage increases as every one else.

    Your insistence that every employee can negotiate does not take into account that many large corporations do not "negotiate" with the peons, that is saved for those who come into the company "papered" and "pedigreed" (but usually no where near as capable as the slug who has been an hourly wage earner his whole time there).

    Now that, again, is an aspect that you (and others who think like you) either purposely ignore or are blissfully ignorant of.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vito Corleone
    replied
    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

    The thread is about UNIONS, not whatever subset you want to cherry-pick.


    Nice attempt at back-tracking, but it's a complete fail. You KNOW what we were specifically talking about.

    But fine, let's play it your way. In the broad sense of ALL UNIONS? Union members makes more. In the sense of the specific workplaces you and I were taking about? The gap is even greater.

    YOU were the one who cherry-picked the two exceptions the article mentioned and said "SEE! Non-union members makes more!"

    Either way, the data doesn't support your claims. All you have is "my own experience..." anecdotes.
    Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-07-2019, 11:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteinbergerHack
    replied
    https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colum...Non-Union-Jobs

    Leave a comment:


  • SteinbergerHack
    replied
    Originally posted by guido61 View Post

    We were discussing manufacturing and assembly line type jobs
    The thread is about UNIONS, not whatever subset you want to cherry-pick.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vito Corleone
    replied
    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

    Since when? The discussion is UNIONS.
    We were discussing manufacturing and assembly line type jobs and your assertion was that unions prevent these sorts of workers from being paid more if they can show better individual skills and productivity.

    That the source I provided mentioned "architects and engineers' as exceptions to the rule that union workers get paid more only serves to support MY argument, not yours.



    Leave a comment:


  • Vito Corleone
    replied
    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

    It's not "theory", it is my personal experience from having managed manufacturing facilities, both union and non-union.

    How many manufacturing plants have you ever managed?
    But yet there's no data to support it?

    Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteinbergerHack
    replied
    Originally posted by guido61 View Post

    Your theory that employers would pay those working in assembly plants would pay their workers individually based on their skills and productivity if not for unions?
    It's not "theory", it is my personal experience from having managed manufacturing facilities, both union and non-union.

    How many manufacturing plants have you ever managed?

    Leave a comment:


  • SteinbergerHack
    replied
    Originally posted by guido61 View Post

    But we aren’t discussing architects and engineers here.
    Since when? The discussion is UNIONS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vito Corleone
    replied
    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

    From that link:



    Simply put, unions are a business like any other. They will always gravitate to the higher-potential industries and facilities - and to urban areas where union support is strong and pay rates are higher. Adjust for all of those factors and you'll see that unions don't provide better pay.

    Would you rather work in a rural non-union plant in a small town where median pay is $25/hour and a house costs $125k, or a similar urban union plant where median pay is $28/hr and a house costs $300k?

    You also left out this little tidbit:



    Now, all of that said, unions can provide some benefits when management is particularly bad - and that's how unions generally get voted in. Trouble is, they don't go away when management is good, and that causes more harm than good. US management has learned this, and as a result, most facilities that don't already have unions work quite diligently to keep unions from getting a reason to convince employees that they need them. Hence, they have become rarer and rarer as management has learned how to operate in ways that don't attract union organizers. Win-win for the employees and companies. Sorry for the unions, but they are going the way of the horse and carriage - an interesting artifact of a bygone age, that has no modern need to exist.
    But we aren’t discussing architects and engineers here. (Who even knew there WAS an architects union?). We are talking about jobs like manufacturing. And if you follow the link to the breakdown chart you’ll see that those working in such jobs in unions earn more.

    Your theory that employers would pay those working in assembly plants would pay their workers individually based on their skills and productivity if not for unions?

    we have all sorts of non-union manufacturing plants in the US. Can you provide some data to support this claim? Show me how this works out in, say, a non-union Nissan plant in Tennessee vs a union GM plant in Michigan?

    Leave a comment:


  • SteinbergerHack
    replied
    Originally posted by erok123 View Post
    One graph tells all:
    ]
    ...except that there is no causal relationship. The loss of income share is due to the shrinking of the middle class, not a loss of income per household. Since the people who moved out of the middle class moved up more often than down, it's actually a good thing.

    Another possible way to view it is that the jobs which were least competitive globally and most likely to be eliminated were union jobs. This could be supported by the lack of assignment and cross-training flexibility in most union contracts.

    In fact, the jobs at our big tech firms that have replaced union jobs are FAR better compensated. The median (not average) pay at Amazon and Google is now over $200K.

    https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...hoo&yptr=yahoo
    Last edited by SteinbergerHack; 05-07-2019, 07:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erok123
    replied
    One graph tells all:

    Leave a comment:


  • SteinbergerHack
    replied
    Originally posted by guido61 View Post

    Then why is the average pay for union workers vs non-union workers more?

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ga...eek-2014-01-24
    From that link:

    That, of course, is a function of many different factors, as the Labor Department explains, including occupation, industry, firm size or geographic region. Breaking down by sector, and there are some professions where union membership actually is harmful to pay, like architecture and engineering. In the federal government, non-union members get paid more.
    Simply put, unions are a business like any other. They will always gravitate to the higher-potential industries and facilities - and to urban areas where union support is strong and pay rates are higher. Adjust for all of those factors and you'll see that unions don't provide better pay.

    Would you rather work in a rural non-union plant in a small town where median pay is $25/hour and a house costs $125k, or a similar urban union plant where median pay is $28/hr and a house costs $300k?

    You also left out this little tidbit:

    [J]obs growth has been stronger in states like Texas and Arizona where union membership is lower than average.
    Now, all of that said, unions can provide some benefits when management is particularly bad - and that's how unions generally get voted in. Trouble is, they don't go away when management is good, and that causes more harm than good. US management has learned this, and as a result, most facilities that don't already have unions work quite diligently to keep unions from getting a reason to convince employees that they need them. Hence, they have become rarer and rarer as management has learned how to operate in ways that don't attract union organizers. Win-win for the employees and companies. Sorry for the unions, but they are going the way of the horse and carriage - an interesting artifact of a bygone age, that has no modern need to exist.
    Last edited by SteinbergerHack; 05-07-2019, 04:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vito Corleone
    replied
    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

    BS. Try to hire qualified assemblers or machinists in today's market.





    You have clearly never managed manufacturing, or you would understand that production lines are absolutely balanced to level load and mminimize takt time. When one station becomes more efficient, the activities are adjusted to take advantage of it.

    And yes, competent management absolutely compensates people more for higher performance....that is, unless it is a union shop, which will prohibit pay for performance.
    Then why is the average pay for union workers vs non-union workers more?

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ga...eek-2014-01-24
    Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-06-2019, 10:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteinbergerHack
    replied
    Originally posted by guido61 View Post
    Wrong. Supply and demand indicates more workers qualified for the assembly jobs than there are jobs for them.
    BS. Try to hire qualified assemblers or machinists in today's market.

    They don’t offer people various wages depending up productivity. The jobs don’t work that way. If it takes 20 people to assemble a car, what value is it to have one worker more productive than the rest?


    You have clearly never managed manufacturing, or you would understand that production lines are absolutely balanced to level load and mminimize takt time. When one station becomes more efficient, the activities are adjusted to take advantage of it.

    And yes, competent management absolutely compensates people more for higher performance....that is, unless it is a union shop, which will prohibit pay for performance.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X