Why all the union bashing?

[disney4us2002]

As PD pointed out, unions protect the weakest link. I suppose it does protect those at the top earnings as well, but most people complain about the ones that should be fired but are protected by the union. Thus those of us who are hardworkers and have integrity do the job and are expected to do even more. You know, the harder you work, the more you are expected to work. Surely, that is common in most jobs.

It really irks me that teachers strike. I don't think they should be legally permitted to strike. I know as a social worker in child welfare our salaries are pretty crappy, we don't get summers off and we surely cannot strike.

 

[Sleeping~Beauty]

That said, we do have some people who SHOULD be fired, and are not because of union protection. That sucks too. Why? Because it makes so many people who are not in unions angry about unions in the first place.

So, IMO, you can't make a blanket statement pro or con UNLESS you know both sides.

In my post I did say I was talking specifically about the teacher's union, and that I was a teacher. So I do know both sides.

 

[Papa Deuce]

In my post I did say I was talking specifically about the teacher's union, and that I was a teacher. So I do know both sides.

Yeah, but I was just making a general point, regardless of which union.... I have seen MANY a DIS thread where unions get bashed. And before anyone thinks I am really a big union guy, I'm not. I definitely have mixed feelings.

 

[Sleeping~Beauty]

Ahhh, I tend not to read some of those threads.

I'm sure my dad would disagree with me about his unions (FDJC). It does all depend where and when and what union.

 

[yasmina]

OP...if you live near Pgh...then I'm sure you have heard of the SV teachers strike going on right now. Our kids have been on strike for 3 weeks and it's solving NOTHING. There are NO negotiations going on right now. No meetings. No bargaining. The only thing it is doing is causing anger, pain, and turmoil. It's affecting many people financially and emotionally.

The union's demands are completely ridiculous. They bring nothing in writing to any of the previous meetings that have occurred. The school board brings 3-4 written proposals and the union brings nothing then they all storm out. They are asking for a 6.3% raise (they started at 7.8%) and they don't wish to PAY ANYTHING for their healthcare. Their union rep makes his big show on the radio...big media blitz blah blah blah. When he receives an offer from the school board ...he doesnt even take it back to the teachers for a vote.

We've eaten through Thanksgiving and Christmas vacation so far and extended the end of the year to June 15th. The teacher will be forced to go back to school Nov 16th and then they can go on strike again next semester. This will finish off the last of our vacation for the school year and make us go to school until June 30th.


as a parent, I am FURIOUS over this. I'm not saying teachers should not get a raise or fair salary but the offered 4% increase with $10 a pay towards healthcare is more than reasonable IMO. Most parents in the school district feel the same way as I do also.

In fact, we are so angry that we have all been working to pass a bill to make PA a no strike state along with one of our state reps. We have petitions meetings, etc going on to help this along.

so ....teachers union?...no thank you! I'll pass.

I don't blame you for being upset. I teach in a district south of the city which is notorious for strikes. I've been on the teacher's side of strikes more often than I care to admit, and I've lived in the district where I work, so I got earfuls every time we went on strike. Rather than rehash the comments I made previously, I'd like to refer you to that thread. After you read that, I'll be happy to respond to any additional comments or questions you have:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1624583&page=3

See posts #35 & 46

 

[Honu]

Obviously, some of you haven't worked for a company that would replace you as soon as look at you as soon as you made "too much money".

But every person that works for someone else is in the same position. If you are being paid above market, you need to be worth it or you will get booted. No one should be guaranteed a job.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

I've always associated unions with blue collar type jobs. Teachers are professionals and it seems districts have no qualms paying their administrators the big bucks. It's so lopsided.

 

[DISUNC]

Quit whining and UNIONIZE!

THANK GOD my father retired from TWU. My parents have NO worry's about finances or Heath care at ALL. Also makes my life much easier for me, not having to concern myself with these issues for them.
I have many friends who now financially support their elderly parents (none were in unions)

 

[Minnie_me]

If it weren't for teachers' unions, the Boards of Education would be pressured to constantly replace the higher paid teachers with new ones for less money. We'd be losing our jobs just to keep taxes low. Unions prevent that from happening.

Also, when you have a crappy administrator who tries to screw you over by doing things the wrong way (yes, I'm talking about a situation that happened to me last year), your union protects you and the adminstrator gets put in her fat place.

 

[Papa Deuce]

But every person that works for someone else is in the same position. If you are being paid above market, you need to be worth it or you will get booted. No one should be guaranteed a job.

That's just it... we are NOT being paid above market.

 

[firstmickey]

I don't blame you for being upset. I teach in a district south of the city which is notorious for strikes. I've been on the teacher's side of strikes more often than I care to admit, and I've lived in the district where I work, so I got earfuls every time we went on strike. Rather than rehash the comments I made previously, I'd like to refer you to that thread. After you read that, I'll be happy to respond to any additional comments or questions you have:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1624583&page=3

See posts #35 & 46

thanks for the link...moving to that thread.

 

[Honu]

That's just it... we are NOT being paid above market.

No one should be guaranteed a job still applies. Outside of unions, you keep your job by doing it well. If an employer continually replaced good workers with lower paid employees, they'd be losing a lot of money in recruitment and training. Employers eventually add up these costs and catch on that these losses cost more than actual wage increases. So the good employees stay and are rewarded and the rest get replaced.

 

[Papa Deuce]

No one should be guaranteed a job still applies. Outside of unions, you keep your job by doing it well. If an employer continually replaced good workers with lower paid employees, they'd be losing a lot of money in recruitment and training. Employers eventually add up these costs and catch on that these losses cost more than actual wage increases. So the good employees stay and are rewarded and the rest get replaced.

Not really in this case... Bottom scale... $375ish a week. Top scale... $1200ish a week. They would make that up in no time at all. That's a difference of $42,900 a year per employee. I'm thinking you might have been in a union once and didn't like that someone you thought should be fired, wasn't, because of union protection. Maybe I am wrong.

Let me give you another scenario. And this is 100% true.

We have an UNBELIEVABLY talented guy who works for us. He was in 4 car accidents while on the road / job. All 4 were not his fault, as per police reports. He also had a van broken into and all his equipment was stolen. He was the only one in the truck. He had to leave ( to go in a building for the job ) and so he locked the doors and went to do part of his job. Our employer tried to fire him. The union stuck up for him and he retained his job.

But what DID happen after that is reprehensible, IMO. After 25 years on the job, they made him work overnights and weekends, AND took him off the job that he was so good at. So, now, he hardly ever sees his wife and kids. But the union has no control over this, so the employer did what it wanted to him. But he is at top scale, and he was making good money.... so he felt like he had to stay.

ETA: This guy also was in his van, doing his job one time, when angry people FLIPPED HIS VAN OVER, with him in it. He was chastised for not leaving the scene quickly enough. According to him, things seemed somewhat peaceful, just prior to the incident, and then it all exploded around him.

 

[Papa Deuce]

It is my opinion that if you don't like your job you should go get another one. If you don't like what you're paid, go find a job that will pay you more.

The unions make me especially pissed off when they take money from people who make very little to begin with, like hotel maids. Those people need their money.

And tell the folks who worked in the steel industry how great the union is.

That was more about CHEAP foreign imports than anything else. And those countries that export that to us can do that BECAUSE they pay so little to their employees.

 

[Rafiki Rafiki Rafiki]

All you people who say unions have outlived their usefulness should take a walk in my husband's shoes.

My husband is an airline pilot. He has 20 years of flight experience--something like 5000+ hours in the cockpit. To find a job outside the military, he had to go to work as a first officer, making roughly 1/3 of his salary from the military. Yeah. That's how they treat people who have spent an entire career standing up, willing to die for our freedom.

Without unions, airline pilots would still be working 14+ hour days. If you want a pilot who has just come off of 10+ hours on duty to fly you home, GO AHEAD. Nevermind his level of fatigue or the fact that he likely had a 9-hour turnaround from the time he got off of work the night before.

Salaries have increased significantly for pilots over the past 10 or so years, but you can count on your starting pilot to be making $35K/year and working 12 hour days...with 7 days away from the family at a time. A pilot who wants to work for Southwest Airlines would have had to pay $10K of his own money to get 737 training...a certification required by the airlines they won't pay for. My husband paid for this training--a training he will NEVER use for the rest of his life--and then was not offered a job by Southwest. There are thousands of guys in his same shoes.

Additionally, my husband's company has seen record profits over the past few years. Without a union, there would be no pay increases to bring their salaries in line with the profits they bring into the company. Thanks to the Teamsters, DH will likely see his pay double next month.

Unions not only work to make better salaries and working conditions for employees, they are also a mediation device for employers to change policies that aren't working out for them. In each contract negotiation, the pilots give up something that isn't really working out well for the company. The working relationship between the union and the company is friendly and works out well for everyone.

I used to be naive enough to think the usefulness of a union had passed as well. I no longer believe that. I'm so thankful to the Teamsters for everything they've done for us.

 

[bumbershoot]

My mom was shop steward for the Teamsters, when she worked for Cost Plus Imports in the 80s. She thought it was ridiculous, and she was only shop steward b/c no one wanted to touch that job with a 10 foot pole, and they voted her in. She did have an extra fascination with Jimmy Hoffa after that job, but other than that, thought it was crazy that they were unionized.

My dad was a Greyhound bus driver from the late 60s through 80s, when they were unionized. The drivers had to wear full, pressed, uniforms, had the right to put ANYONE off ANYWHERE, for ANY reason (usually an obnoxiously drunk person or someone doing something nasty to another person). The buses were clean, the drivers had power and cared, and knew that they would be backed up in situations. He *supposedly* has a pension coming to him next month. He probably liked the union, b/c they were good for that industry.

A friend of mine had a part time job at an upscale grocery store, and they were unionized. She had killer benefits and got good pay. I worked part time for a non-union upscale grocery store, and got nice pay and I don't remember if I had benefits (college job, I was clueless at the time).

DH was laid off, along with most of Seattle's Amazon.com customer service, shortly after a TINY minority of misguided and delusional CS reps started having unionization meetings. Almost no one cared about it, they were well paid, they had good benefits, the company was an absolute BLAST to work for, but there will always be a slight wonder about if those stupid little meetings were what caused management to wash their hands of Seattle.

On the other hand, they were paying Seattle reps 15/hour, or so, in the early 00s, and got serious attitude (most CS employees were Seattle-cool-funky-grunge with attitude 20 somethings) from them...when they could pay their West Virginia reps far less. Still an excellent wage for their area (I helped train them!), but FAR less than Seattle's going hourly rate. They also had/have reps in North Dakota, which, again, cost the company far less than Seattle.

I personally go with "best decision for the company, financially" over "union meetings"... If someone had managed to unionize amazon, and suddenly they weren't ALLOWED to lay off all those reps, where would the company be, 6 years later? If they had to hold on to those reps, who, almost to a person, staged a MAJOR work slowdown immediately after being told they were laid off (told in late January, but layoffs didn't start until May, they were given a NICE severance package...my engagement ring came from that severance, it was a good one, LOL...others used their severance to go back to school or travel). A person who is going to not do an excellent job after that *deserves* to have been laid off, IMO. My then brand new fiance (he proposed the day before they were all told of the lay offs) saw that happening around him and couldn't stand it, so when they offered early lay offs, he took it. His last day was St Patrick's Day, and he was at his new job the next Monday.

But anyway, where would the company be? How much would we be paying for books, if a union forced them to keep the top salary but no extra benefit-to-the-company reps? It would only have benefited those people, but not the company, not the stuff-buying public, not anyone else. A company has the right, IMO, within reason and humanity and law, to make business decisions.


With teachers, it gets interesting. Why? Because there is no *industry* buying things so that a company can pay them. It's coming from tax dollars. So the money can't come from nowhere. A CEO can't take a pay cut to fund higher wages (I know, that wouldn't happen elsewhere, but still, it would be *possible* for Jeff Bezos to do such a thing for his company, but there's no CEO of schools to do such a thing) for teachers. Teachers are told to strike by their union, the union might get them a pay raise (and I am not sure I've ever seen a "no, they didn't do it, we got nothing" outcome on the news after teacher strikes), but ultimately that money has to come from yet another increase in levys or taxes or whatever, from the public.

Maybe - just maybe - if MORE professions organized, they wouldn't see their wages stagnate and their healthcare costs rise while their employers demand more work out of them in less time.

But where is that money coming from, in the private sector? Using the amazon idea (it's high in my mind b/c DH just got a new job with them!!!!woohoo!!!!!! making TWICE what he used to make there!), they can't FORCE people to buy more books and DVD players, they can't take a vote and make their customers buy more Kitchen Aid mixers to fund it. So where is it going to come from? With schools, it's approved and soon there's a vote demanding more more more money. With Jack in the Box, there's no way to do that.

And healthcare costs are rising everywhere. I don't know why, it's a bit mysterious to me, but it's happening. To have the union falsely keeping that reality from truly hitting a group of people is silly. And, perhaps, raises the rates for others in other industries, b/c let's face it, we're all one big pool of customers...

If unions have done so much good for teachers, how come one of the most frequent complaints from teachers is that their salaries are too low?

I dislike institutionalized teaching. I dislike the profession. I never had a good teacher until I got to chiropractic school, and even then, those weren't *teachers* they were people who were experts in their fields, who chose to come teach what they knew...they weren't actual teachers. But even I knew from college on that as a profession, it's one where you're going to be broke. I'm not 100% clear on why those who WANT to go into the profession aren't aware of that, why they didn't accept it before they got into their teaching programs.

If I decide I want nothing more than to make french fries at jack in the box (my first job), I am going to KNOW that I'm going to make minimum wage. If I don't like that, I go make fries at...I don't know, some upscale fry place.

Also, when you have a crappy administrator who tries to screw you over by doing things the wrong way (yes, I'm talking about a situation that happened to me last year), your union protects you and the adminstrator gets put in her fat place.

That happens in regular jobs as well, only you don't have a union doing it. I didn't stick it out, I chose to quit instead b/c my mental health was at stake, but the reason I left amazon was b/c of a supervisor. He was an awful boss, he'd been an awful CS rep, he was an awful person (now working for World Vision, oddly). Although I chose to quit (b/c I wasn't allowed to leave his team), I had all of his nasty little emails printed out, and I handed them all to the HR rep at my exit interview. I quit in late September, which is already the holidays at amazon. By the end of "returns" season, they fired him. Problem solved.

DH has had problems solved while actually still at a job...his mental health is a little stronger than mine, LOL.

On the flip side...an ex of mine (pre-hubby) was a...oh what was he? Paraprofessional? His acronym for his position was almost "SLAP". He worked with little kids with mental, physical, and emotional problems. He made almost NOTHING, but he knew that going into it without a college degree. He adored those kids, he was terrific with them. He worked hard. But he was having some problems in his personal life (which sounds funny since I sort of *was* his personal life, but they stemmed from before me), and he missed some days that he shoudln't have. Because his reputation in our town preceded him, they never believed that he had been at home sobbing his eyes out over problems. They thought he was out partying. He ended up being FIRED, because none of the union reps would back him up, they would just sit there at meetings and not lift a finger. All the while, his colleagues and the teachers he worked with ALL missed MORE days than he did, and some of them hung out with him extra-curricularly (from work, not personal life, LOL) and weren't angels themselves, but they never got into trouble, nor were they fired. So just b/c you have a union backing you up doesn't ALWAYS mean they will actually back you up.



I personally think that unions did a good job. In the days of The Jungle, they had such a good purpose! And I'm even OK with meatpacking industries still being unionized. Maybe I'd be cool if they brought it back to Greyhound, so I would feel safe riding the buses I grew up on, again. But I'm just not sure that professions like teaching should still have that backing.

And, even though we don't plan on utilizing it for DS, I absolutely despise it when the unions have the teachers strike, just as school should be starting. It takes the TINY bit of respect I have for them (union and those who take union jobs that do such things) and tosses it out the window.

 

[minnieandmickey]

The only issue I really have with the union and my school district is them forcing me to take benefits that I don't want. DH has great benefits that his work covers, me I have to pay over $200 per month for benefits that he can cover. I'm a secretary get paid half of what the teachers do and they have the same rate scale for benefits, doesn't seem fair to me. That and being told that I have to donate a whole months salary so that others can have lower rates on benefits I don't even need.

As for teachers, my district new teacher salary starts at 41,000. For working 9 months out of the year I think that is pretty good. Yes I know that teachers take work home, but so do a lot of us. Plus teachers in my district have opportunities to work during that time off as subs if they want to, or overtime for afterschool clubs. Me, nada, no OT and thanks to NCLB can't even supervise a club because I am not certificated.

 

[barbeml]

My grandfather was a union laborer who felt his union stood up for him.

My dad was a teacher (when teachers made very little) who became a negotiator for the treacher's union, and he says it has gone way to far.

My BIL is a union grocery worker who pays plenty of dues and can't get a return call from his union. Sometimes he works 21 days without a day off, gets grief for taking a lunch break (he's a diabetic), so his union is pretty useless.

That being said, I have no problem with unions for private sector employees. I can choose not to buy products if the price is too high.

However, unions for professions funded by taxpayers have been a recipe for fiscal disaster in NJ. The only party who has no say in the negotiations here in NJ is the taxpayer. The Governor is (or was) in bed (literally) with the state employees union. The unions give HUGE bucks to political campaigns. The unions make their demands publicly, make their deals privately, the politicians line their pockets and the taxpayers get screwed.

When we vote down another outrageous school budget here, the school board takes off a couple of dollars and submits it to the state department of ed who "passes" it. I have no idea why we waste money (more taxpayer dollars) to vote on school budgets.

Those we know who are state workers (several friends and family) have truly been brainwashed by their union. They seriously believe that everyone in the private sector makes high six figures, gets months of vacation time, fully paid health benefits, pensions, flexible hours, etc etc etc. They claim they are paid so little that they must have guaranteed pensions and healthy care for life (at taxpayer expense). In reality, state employees in NJ are in many cases paid more than private sector workers. When the bennies are factored in, the state workers are living large. And now they are whining because the Governor has decided to make them work the day after Thanksgiving. Boo hoo hoo.

My brother works for a state agency (part of the handicapped program). In the 20 years he has been there, he has been harrassed and threatened by a co-worker, seen a supervisor held at knifepoint by another worker and watched others eat snacks for a living. None of those people have been fired yet, thanks to the union.

When NJ (already in dire fiscal condition) has to come up with more billions for public employee pensions and health care next year, taxpayers may finally revolt.

 

[yasmina]

Well firing the bad teachers at the end of the year if something better came along would not be a problem for me. Neither is asking teachers to pay a portion of their healthcare costs. Neither is the fact that they get raises not every year, Welcome to the real world where that is common place. And the teachers in CA have some of the best retirements around. MY MIL was a GOOD teacher for 30 some odd years and her retirement fund keeps her going on many exotic trips a year. Add to that all the time off for a full time salary and I don't really feel too sorry for teachers. I wouldnt want to do their job ever but I am not snowballed by the teachers make such low pay arguement either.

So you would like to be fired from your job every year, say on June 1st and not know if you were going to be rehired? No matter how well you do your job? No matter how long you've been there?

 

[DISUNC]

No one should be guaranteed a job still applies. Outside of unions, you keep your job by doing it well. If an employer continually replaced good workers with lower paid employees, they'd be losing a lot of money in recruitment and training. Employers eventually add up these costs and catch on that these losses cost more than actual wage increases. So the good employees stay and are rewarded and the rest get replaced.

Thats a good theory! But just a theory, this is not what is really happening!

I have seen way too many good workers get laid off, while management collected bonuses for doing so. It all comes down to 'fun with numbers' and showing a quarterly profit.

Often the recruitment & training $ come from a 'column" that is not deducted from the profits, while payroll/benefits are. So in many cases it cost (example) $10k a month to recruit & train a $4k a month employee. In Reality it cost more, but 'on the books" it saves a wopper of $!

Most corporations live & die by the current quarter earnings, long term goals & responsibility are not even thought of any more.