Would you cross a picket line?

[bicker]

That doesn't answer the question.

I will answer the question again, this time in bigger letters:

Society is no longer deriving benefit from exemptions granted to unions, and so the exemptions are now no longer justifiable.
​

Do keep in mind that this isn't an inquisition, and you aren't the inquisitioner. You don't get to dictate the premise of all arguments in the thread, nor do you get to impose your own personal requirements for how arguments get presented, so that only what you believe gets presented in a manner conducive with its support -- you only get to control what your point is. So if you choose to belabor the point further, then be sure that your reply is in response to what I'm actually saying (see big type, above), rather than something easier to argue against. I'm sure we'd all prefer that, as arguing against something easier to argue against just makes the thread repetitive and boring, as the context of messages just becomes, "You misunderstood," "No I didn't," "Yes you did", and so forth.

As it is, I'm on vacation until the weekend, so I may or may not get back to you until then. One thing that I will add, preemptively, is that it would be indefensible to offer benefits to some unions and not others, just based on past actions of specific unions. Again, if there are transgressions, then those are addressed in court, not the legislature. The determining factors for laws is whether or not the overall impact for the public is good, and nothing else. Therefore, the decision about whether such criminal collusion is exempted from prosecution or not must be based on the overall. Specifically, since the overall impact of unions is now negative, then the exemption for unions should not exist any longer.

 

[bicker]

Its called crossing crafts. No union member does it , not because they don't want to , but to provide job security for everyone .

Such selfish tenets increase costs and, in private contexts, reduce long-term shareholder value, while in public contexts, negatively impacts taxpayers. The economy is best served when efficiency is achieved, and that requires that the free market determine who does what for what compensation -- not when the economy is capriciously manipulated by self-centered forces, for their own benefit (i.e., job security).

We all want job security. Nothing justifies some people colluding with each other to threaten their employers to get it, at the expense of their employers, the patrons, and society. No private enterprise, surely, owes job security to anyone, and the manner in which unions assert their insistence on such things is unfair and indefensible. Society owes everyone job security in the same measure, not a certain group more so because they happen to be in a union.

If everyone needed or did everyone elses job everyone would be out of a job.

That's ridiculous. I install my own software at work, instead of having IT do it for me. My company still employs people. Everyone is NOT out of work.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I would go in. I've never worked in a union shop. In my career, I've always done what my employer has asked me to do. When I had employers ask me to do things that I didn't want to do, I quit.

As for the notion that not "crossing crafts" adds efficiency, I just can't see it. If it were more efficient, greedy employers would mandate it. My biggest pet peeve as a manager (and as an employee) is having other employees with an "it's not my job" attitude. Obviously, I don't want everyone trying to do everything and causing chaos and inefficiency. On the other hand, nothing burns me up like an employee leaving a customer out to dry when they could easily help because it isn't their job. Every employee should work like they own the company and have the company's best interests at heart.

 

[MushyMushy]

AS a union worker can I shed some light on your lightbulb example. Lets say your a teacher in a school and your class room lights don't work. You call in the electrician and he checks it out and says it is just a bulb. He won't change it because its not in his job description. He calls the janitor and he changes the bulb. Now could you, the teacher have changed the bulb, sure you could but your job is to teach. How would you like it if one day the principal said the janitors were going to teach.

Its called crossing crafts. No union member does it , not because they don't want to , but to provide job security for everyone . If everyone needed or did everyone elses job everyone would be out of a job. In addition it gives the electrician a chance to do more of the things he is trained to do and compensated to know. The teacher can teach and the janitor can do his job and the system works. Do we really want top craft electricians doing the work of janitors and if janitors were to do the work of electricians then that would devalue the wages of the electricians. No disrespect to any of these hard working professionals just an example.

I recently posted this in another thread, but thought it would fit here -- and a prime example of why I think unions are unnecessary and breed the entitlement mentality. When I was student teaching, teachers were allowed to leave at 3:15. Custodians at 3:00. One of the custodians was in the room talking to us just past 3, and the office made an announcement for a custodian to please go unlock room XXX -- which was 2-3 doors down from us. Just down the hallway. The custodian looked at the clock and said, "Nope, I'm off the clock" and wouldn't go unlock that door. I thought he was joking and I even laughed about it, but he said in all seriousness that he *couldn't* go unlock that door.

Unfortunately, that mentality is the norm around here. Where my husband used to work (a utility company, BTW), union workers had all those protections to keep them from doing anything above and beyond, yet I watched him and all his coworkers having to work 70-80 hours a week with not a penny of overtime because they were non-union salaried employees.

And sorry, but I don't buy that cross craft idea. If you take pride in working, then if a job needs to be done and you're there to do it, you do it. In my custodian example, do you really believe he would have been taking a job away from one of the afternoon shift guys by unlocking a door? How could anyone have that attitude in all seriousness?

 

[MushyMushy]

Thank you for that, and my husband just told me the same. Another thing that really angers him is the insinuation on these boards about union workers being lazy and doing their minimal. At my husband's job if he doesn't do 100%people can be KILLED. It is extremely dangerous work.

That's just another example of you and your husband taking this discussion personally. If any of us point out an example of someone doing a minimal amount of work (which I just did), how on earth does that implicate your husband, unless he indeed does do minimal work and sees himself in the description?

 

[daughtersrus]

They have received more training hours in the past 6 months than the union technicians will in the next 2 years.

Why is that? Shouldn't the union technicians also be getting training if the company is expecting them to do their job properly?

 

[daughtersrus]

I think unions have outlived their usefulness. We have laws to protect us from abuse.

The Dept of Labor laws have exemptions. Here is one example.
Exemptions from Overtime Pay Only

1. Certain commissioned employees of retail or service establishments; auto, truck, trailer, farm implement, boat, or aircraft sales-workers; or parts-clerks and mechanics servicing autos, trucks, or farm implements, who are employed by non-manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in selling these items to ultimate purchasers;
2. Employees of railroads and air carriers, taxi drivers, certain employees of motor carriers, seamen on American vessels, and local delivery employees paid on approved trip rate plans;
3. Announcers, news editors, and chief engineers of certain non-metropolitan broadcasting stations;
4. Domestic service workers living in the employer's residence;
5. Employees of motion picture theaters; and
6. Farmworkers.


It's interesting to note that many of the jobs that are exempt from the laws are those that are often represented by a union. Maybe that's because they want the same protections written into a contract that others are entitled to without a contract under the law.

 

[Quiksilvr]

What is the "cost of good sold" when referring to teachers, firemen, policemen...?

That's a good question. I'm not really sure what the answer is. I think it's apples and oranges, really, because the function of a corporation is to provide returns for its investors, while the function of a government is to provide services and protection to its citizenry.

To me, it seems that the dynamic is different between (i) a company that can choose to either employ union workers to produce a widget or instead go overseas, versus (ii) a local or state government that must provide education, fire, and police services and can only do so through an organized workforce because that's all they have (I admittedly don't know much about organized teachers, fire, police... I am assuming that most of them are unionized).

It would seem that the organized government service providers would more seem to have the government "over a barrel" than a manufacturer. The manufacturer isn't locked in to manufacturing the widget in the US (or necessarily in a union shop) while the government is locked in to providing those services. I think it changes the negotiation significantly.

I don't know if that helps answer your question, but it's how I see it.

 

[Piglets Mommy]

I'll do what it takes to keep food on the table and a roof over our heads. I also think that Teachers, Police, Fire Fighters Nurses, etc shouldn't be allowed to strike. Nothing is more frustrating than having to take unpaid days off work and not be able to pay for my health insurance because of it, while teachers are picketing for free health insurance.

 

[Quiksilvr]

If companies can go overseas and they can more the money they do, they are even give tax breaks to do so. They did that at my company with some of their accounts, and WE ARE NOT UNION, AND NO ONE THAT DOES MY WORK THAT I KNOW OF IS UNION. It is so easy to blame unions for these issues. Do you know I read an article about the Auto Workers and it was the healthcare, the big wig Insurance companies that was causing a problem and how hard it was to insure the workers. Why don't we address that. It isn't about me being owed anything, its about fair treatment and fair wages, not greed, not jealousy, etc. You want to work for 12-14 dollars an hour then? You can't live on that. We all see what has happened with the large corporations and it isn't the unions, its what happens when they are given too much power, no transparencies, etc, what do you think they would do their workers? It's plain old greed at the top.

I refer you back to my post. I said that manufacturing (and service) companies have competing motivations. These motivations are, once again, for those in the back of the room:

1. A company's stockholders demand increased earnings/revenues/profits in order to receive dividends and a capital appreciation in the stock share price.

2. A company's customers demand goods and services to be provided at the lowest price possible at any customer's particular quality point. (I.e., if Company A sells a widget for $10 and Company B sells a widget of identical quality for $8, most will purchase the $8 widget).

If a company's costs go up over time, the only way they can continue to offer a product or service at the SAME PRICE and to continue INCREASING PROFIT is to either (a) cut costs, or (b) sell more widgets at that price point to make up for the shortfall due to rising costs. As I said, companies try to do both.

Please note that I said in my earlier post that I believe unions are partially responsible for their own demise and for the destruction of the middle class. I did not say that they were the only cause.

Now, to your point. I read your response to my post and the only relevant point that I could find in there is that you say your company is nonunion and it outsources to other countries, therefore my argument is wrong. In fact, the opposite is true. You proved my point with your comment. A smart corporation, organized or not, is going to try to cut costs to continue offering a similar service at a competitive price and with increasing profits. Outsourcing to other countries is one of the methods of doing that. It's not specific to union manufacturing. Your company is outsourcing to other countries because you and your fellow employees are too expensive for the company to provide its goods/services at a competitive cost and still maximize profit.

I didn't understand the rest of your post. I don't see what it has to do with what I was saying. It seems to me that you are refusing to acknowledge the facts. Instead, you talk about fair wages and fair benefits and all of that without thinking about the side effect. What is the side effect of good wages and good benefits and all the other things that come with unionized employment?

Higher costs. Everything becomes more expensive. The companies that provide good wages and good benefits will be undercut continually by the companies that don't. The companies that don't provide good wages and benefits will grow, and the union shop company will go out of business.

Again, for the millionth time, companies have to make profits in order to grow, to be sustainable, and to provide returns to their investors and a good share price on the Street. As long as that motivation exists, companies will undercut one another in price in order to grab market share and to make profits. They'll cut costs in order to maximize profits. There are ways to avoid that, but they're all illegal (e.g., price fixing and collusion).

There is far more to this issue than good wages and good benefits for a line worker in Michigan or a secretary in Kansas. It isn't specific to unions; it reaches every employee, organized or not. It goes far deeper than that into our society and our economic model. It's not as easy as saying "everyone deserves good wages and good benefits." Sure, that sounds nice, but it completely ignores the reality of our national and global economy.

Rant over.

 

[Quiksilvr]

Just for the record, my family has never taken anything from anyone, my parents would never ever even allow someone to buy them as simple as a dinner, ever, for your information. My mother has helped support her mother and father, and her brothers and sisters, and always pays when she goes out with her friends. My father also, never took anything from anyone ever. I remember being 13 years old and I was tiny, petite and my parents paying full price for me in the movies, etc., etc. even tho they thought I was younger and didn't ask for the full price, my parents would tell me that wasn't right. My parents tip better than anyone I know. Never have they taken anything from anyone. I will swear that on my life that is the truth. Know what you speak of.

Its protection from being ripped off, not entitlement. Being treated fairly.
I don't have a union job if you read my posts. My husband does.
My job steals from me literally, has me do work that I am not only not paid for, but I am not getting paid the way they say they are, it amounts to them skimming from me, and will definitely with the answers I'm getting here be way over your head. And I mean that respectfully.

Uh... what? That made no sense at all. What did this blistering rant have to do with what I said?

The only thing in there that is even remotely connected to what I posted is the "Its protection from being ripped off, not entitlement" line. My comment is more that it seems there is an entitlement mentality to having the protection from being ripped off (although even that is a stretch from what I actually said). It sounds like you think that I said you want welfare? That's not what I said at all. Please read my posts carefully before responding; trust me, they tend to be cogent and full of good sentences and correct grammar.

You said something about this being over my head, which is funny considering that my post was well-thought out and argued and yours... didn't make sense.

 

[Quiksilvr]

My husband's company wanted to get rid of his straight pension and they almost went out thank god for his union. They had 6 billion dollars in this pension fund. All that money was going to reabsorbed back into the company with all the interest. That's what happens wo your union. 9000 members were going to walk out. You guys be happy in your dream world of being treated fairly and without your unions. They were going to leave them with a 401K.

*sigh*

This is illegal. It cannot happen. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 prohibits a company from terminating a pension plan and reabsorbing the money without providing terminal annuities that provide the exact benefit to which the employee is entitled as of the date of the plan termination. Once the plan has been terminated and all of the benefits paid out to employees in either the form of annuities or lump sums then the employer can take a reversion. However, this reversion of assets is subject to a stiff excise tax, which is why companies don't do it. This particular excise tax was added in the 1980s to prevent companies from doing what you're saying your husband's was trying to do.

It sounds like what the company was planning to do was a hard freeze of the pension plan. Under a hard freeze, no new participants are added to the plan and no current participant accrues any additional benefits. The company cannot take away the benefits already accrued. If they did, the plan's fiduciaries (high level executives) would go to jail.

What most companies do after a hard freeze is to create a 401(k) plan (or modify an existing one) that gives the participants in a frozen pension plan a nonelective contribution, plus a good match. You're right in saying that in general a straight pension is better (especially considering the state of the market). Of course, I'm biased in favor of straight pensions; I think annuity payments are the best way to provide retirement income to workers. Still, they're really expensive, which is why companies are doing away with them and moving to a different format for future benefits.

 

[chris1gill]

I have read all the the 'facts' posted on the CWA sites. Even if taken as truth, which relates to the safety of the worker?

Maybe it's the unlimited forced overtime even when not a time of emergency? Working 22 hours in a day and being reprimanded when you leave to go home to sleep might not be something the union workers are interested in doing.

Maybe it's being forced to carry and respond to a pager for two weeks out of a month depending on your location and what the employment situation is at said location, at no additional pay? No weekends away, no nights out, not even a drink with dinner. You must respond within a certain number of hours (4) and must be sober to do it.

Or maybe it could be the .5% wage increase that would be paid in a one time payment, not added to the base salary, so next year your base salary doesn't go up, and maybe the year after that and after that.

Whether you want to work like that is fine, but I suspect if employees weren't hired under these conditions they might not be amenable to such changes.

If someone worked for 40 years and was promised health care and a pension for the forty years while earning less than they could have, only to have it taken away when they retired, maybe that is something the current workers are looking out for.

I doubt very much the strike is over one single issue, particularly health care payment.

Having said all that, if a strike has an issue of unlimited forced overtime, I'd never cross the line.

 

[SundancePass]

Yes, I'd cross a picket line in a heartbeat.

As has been mentioned in many posts in this thread, I also agree that Unions have outlived their original purpose and usefullness including the Teacher's (my daughter is one) and the Police and Firemen's Unions.

 

[Jestocost]

I would and I have. I was a staff person at a school district during a teachers strike and the central office was co-located on a property with a school, so there was a picket line where I worked. The amusing thing about this situation is that even the Teamster bus drivers crossed the teachers' picket line during the strike in retaliation for the fact that the teachers did not honor the Teamsters' picket lines during a bus drivers' strike a few years earlier.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Uh... what? That made no sense at all. What did this blistering rant have to do with what I said?

The only thing in there that is even remotely connected to what I posted is the "Its protection from being ripped off, not entitlement" line. My comment is more that it seems there is an entitlement mentality to having the protection from being ripped off (although even that is a stretch from what I actually said). It sounds like you think that I said you want welfare? That's not what I said at all. Please read my posts carefully before responding; trust me, they tend to be cogent and full of good sentences and correct grammar.

You said something about this being over my head, which is funny considering that my post was well-thought out and argued and yours... didn't make sense.

You were insulting my family saying that people that were raised in union families seem to think they are entitled to things and obviously they never act that way. It is about rights, plain and simple and protection against mistreatment and being able to have a voice. It is not about entitlement. When you are a worker you do not have as much power. Don't insinuate anything about my family, they never took a dime from anyone ever. Swear on my life that they won't even let someone buy them a dinner or even a soda without paying themselves. Do those sound like people that feel they are about entitlement. You were replying to Bicker pages back, trying to get digs at me in a very backhanded sleazy manner making inuendos about my family and how I was raised. I'll go dig it up so you can read it yourself.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

*sigh*

This is illegal. It cannot happen. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 prohibits a company from terminating a pension plan and reabsorbing the money without providing terminal annuities that provide the exact benefit to which the employee is entitled as of the date of the plan termination. Once the plan has been terminated and all of the benefits paid out to employees in either the form of annuities or lump sums then the employer can take a reversion. However, this reversion of assets is subject to a stiff excise tax, which is why companies don't do it. This particular excise tax was added in the 1980s to prevent companies from doing what you're saying your husband's was trying to do.

It sounds like what the company was planning to do was a hard freeze of the pension plan. Under a hard freeze, no new participants are added to the plan and no current participant accrues any additional benefits. The company cannot take away the benefits already accrued. If they did, the plan's fiduciaries (high level executives) would go to jail.

What most companies do after a hard freeze is to create a 401(k) plan (or modify an existing one) that gives the participants in a frozen pension plan a nonelective contribution, plus a good match. You're right in saying that in general a straight pension is better (especially considering the state of the market). Of course, I'm biased in favor of straight pensions; I think annuity payments are the best way to provide retirement income to workers. Still, they're really expensive, which is why companies are doing away with them and moving to a different format for future benefits.[/QUOTE

I did go on to explain in another post and it was a 401K as you say.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Uh... what? That made no sense at all. What did this blistering rant have to do with what I said?

The only thing in there that is even remotely connected to what I posted is the "Its protection from being ripped off, not entitlement" line. My comment is more that it seems there is an entitlement mentality to having the protection from being ripped off (although even that is a stretch from what I actually said). It sounds like you think that I said you want welfare? That's not what I said at all. Please read my posts carefully before responding; trust me, they tend to be cogent and full of good sentences and correct grammar.

You said something about this being over my head, which is funny considering that my post was well-thought out and argued and yours... didn't make sense.

Here it is, you have to go back to see the context to which this was posted between me and Bicker having a conversation about this. Also my point stands about my company outsourcing and not being union. They do it bc they can. It has nothing to do with unions, nothing. You honestly believe your point that companies only do things to their workers to make a profit? Look at what companies have done right now, look at this country right now, look what greed has gotten us. So my point stands that unions are needed more now then ever, if people so want them. We are union and we live pretty well for our area. If we didn't have a union, we would probably have to MOVE. What's to prevent a company from firing someone just before they are ready to retire? This is not about entitlement, it is about a living wage, being treated fairly and having a voice when you have less power, which you do as a worker. I'm just so happy we have a union and honest to gosh I sleep at night with my husband's job. I wouldn't even want to buy a house w/o a union job, I don't know how people do it, especially nowadays. With the cost of this war which has cost this country so much and everything else, its the workers that are going to pay, not the execs, they will do everything to keep their wages the same, get their BONUSES and everything else. Read your quote below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
A lot of this, I feel, is envy of how some other people have it better. Yes, executives get paid more, and get better benefits. And doctors get paid more than nurses, and nurses get paid more than orderlies. Professional baseball players get paid a lot, and teachers get paid less. None of this is earth-shaking news, nor is justification for colluding with each other to deprive the public from services entirely, because you're envious of what others have and you want. If you don't like your job, find another. If you didn't have the foresight to do so when the economy was better, or didn't have the foresight and industry to make yourself worthy of some other job when the economy was better, then blame yourself, don't blame others, and don't punish others for what you failed to do for yourself.

I agree with this 100%. I have to admit, bicker, that I'm surprised to see this comment from you considering earlier discussions on the now-taboo threads.

After taking some time to read some of these posts, I see something of a distinction in philosophy that I think is a product of upbringing and life experience. The most vocal in favor of unions seem to come from union families or have union jobs and they argue in favor of unions because of things like "protection". Because of their experience with unions, it seems that protection and grievance procedure has created something akin to an entitlement mentality re jobs, compensation, and benefits.

Those who don't have experience with unions seem more prone to say things like: "the company has the right to do what it wants/needs to in order to make a profit." This idea of an entitlement to the job doesn't seem to enter into the equation because it hasn't had a lifetime or two to sink into that family. It's interesting.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

You also explain to me the fact that if my husband doesn't give 100 percent to his job people can be KILLED. The job he had bf this one that he had for over 20 yrs was ranked #3 as the most hazardous place to work in the Tristate area. No one answered that one. My husband gives over 100 percent. I can give countless posts here about insinuating union workers do their least possible work. Also right to work states where unions are weaker the union workers have a higher rate of injury bc they are not given the same protection they need from unions, safety, etc. Safety is a big concern in these jobs so to just assume they do minimal or little is ignorant and not true. You all give all the power to the corporations, live that way, just do it, and see what happens. Trust them to pay you fairly, pay you what you think you are owed, and not fire you for stupid reasons, etc., etc. I'm just so glad it isn't us.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Quote Quksilver: After taking some time to read some of these posts, I see something of a distinction in philosophy that I think is a product of upbringing and life experience. The most vocal in favor of unions seem to come from union families or have union jobs and they argue in favor of unions because of things like "protection". Because of their experience with unions, it seems that protection and grievance procedure has created something akin to an entitlement mentality re jobs, compensation, and benefits. Those who don't have experience with unions seem more prone to say things like: "the company has the right to do what it wants/needs to in order to make a profit." This idea of an entitlement to the job doesn't seem to enter into the equation because it hasn't had a lifetime or two to sink into that family. It's interesting.

Actually Quksilver, as you were relating that to me I will reply to the above, looks like you believe and people against unions believe that workers have no right to a voice and a say in your job, and limited rights of any kind. You have that right, but I say good luck to you all, especially with the state of this country and what we have seen done by the higher ups, you are all going to need it.