Boards > Pirate's Cove

Unions - Best Foot Forward . . .Err . . Best Fist Forward

<< < (5/5)

CBWx2:

--- Quote from: spartan on December 14, 2012, 05:23:33 PM ---
--- Quote from: CBWx2 on December 14, 2012, 04:32:17 PM ---
For starters, federal laws prohibit it in many cases, and for finishers, how many organizations do you think are willing to negotiate separate contracts for union and non-union members in the same positions?

Whether unions exist in a workplace or not, companies typically don't vary greatly in pay, benefits, etc. from worker to worker. Every person that does a particular job usually starts at about the same rate, and gets raises or benefit increases at the same rate. The only difference between union and non-union workplaces is that the union ones typically pay more and have better benefits.


--- End quote ---

Lots of companies already negotiate with their employees. How do you think non unionized companies do it now?

--- End quote ---

The same way unionized companies do, except the workers don't typically get to negotiate. In the corporate world, salaries and benefits are regularly negotiated. In the hourly wage world, places usually have a set rate that you start at, and a set benefit package that you start at, if they have benefits at all.

For example, when I was younger I worked at a hospital that was non-union. They started at $11.00 an hour to do this job, and the benefits were not great. I opted not to even get the healthcare that they offered because the deductibles were so high it wasn't even worth it. I worked there for 6 months before I got hired for the exact same position by a county run facility that was unionized. The starting pay was $13.00 an hour, the healthcare was excellent, and the benefits were head and shoulders better than anywhere else in the area. I personally didn't negotiate pay or benefits at either place. It wasn't really even an option. The rate was set at both places before I even got there.


--- Quote from: spartan on December 14, 2012, 05:23:33 PM ---With regards to the Federal Law, I would interested knowing who pushed and the intent of the law, i.e. did Organized Labor push for it? And, what can be made can be unmade.

--- End quote ---

Fair question. But I wonder who would be pushing to unmake it? Perhaps, the Koch brothers, and other anti-labor forces?

EDIT: I forgot to mention that at the non-union place, the workers there had complained that they hadn't gotten raises in years because of a wage freeze implemented by management. At the union facility, wage increases were yearly until you maxed out in the 5th year, as required by the union contract.

dbucfan:
My family and I have been members of the international unions for construction trades - because one can't work on many federal, state and local government projects unless they belong to a union.

While working at a mall under construction the job superintendent allowed a non - union company (ABC workers) to work on a mid size store.  A helicopter flew over the mall.  Everyone was told move away - a man came out of the copter, walked into the construction office and shot the superintendent killing him.  No one knew or saw anything.  I finished my time in school - and got the hell away from the unions. 

Revis and Butt-head:
Crowder didn't deserve to be hit in the face.  However, he obviously wanted to start some sort of trouble.

spartan:

--- Quote from: CBWx2 on December 14, 2012, 06:19:31 PM ---

--- Quote from: spartan on December 14, 2012, 05:23:33 PM ---With regards to the Federal Law, I would interested knowing who pushed and the intent of the law, i.e. did Organized Labor push for it? And, what can be made can be unmade.

--- End quote ---

Fair question. But I wonder who would be pushing to unmake it? Perhaps, the Koch brothers, and other anti-labor forces?

EDIT: I forgot to mention that at the non-union place, the workers there had complained that they hadn't gotten raises in years because of a wage freeze implemented by management. At the union facility, wage increases were yearly until you maxed out in the 5th year, as required by the union contract.

--- End quote ---

To answer the question, maybe people like me that would like to see people join a Union if they wanted, but not if they did not.

And to you edit, you're saying you got a raise whether you earned it or not and whether the hospital could afford it or not? You don't see a problem with that?

CBWx2:

--- Quote from: spartan on December 14, 2012, 11:44:17 PM ---you're saying you got a raise whether you earned it or not and whether the hospital could afford it or not? You don't see a problem with that?

--- End quote ---

The word "earned" is subjective. Any company can come up with a reason why any employee hasn't "earned" a raise. If a person is doing a crap job, fire them rather than keeping them there and not giving them raises. People should get raises every year to account for cost of living increases.

Although I never didn't get a yearly increase in wages when I was there, there were years where the increase was less than others based on the financial outlook of the facility. It was taken into account, and we didn't get anything that the facility didn't think they could afford to give.

The non-union facility, however, implemented a wage freeze that lasted for long after the place had gotten past it's financial troubles. The place wasn't hurting for business when I worked there. In fact, it was one of the more expensive facilities to go to in the county, and their rooms were always full. They chose not to lift the freeze because they didn't want to. They were spending the money on everything other than their employees.

jbear:

--- Quote from: CBWx2 on December 14, 2012, 05:06:42 PM ---
--- Quote from: jbear on December 14, 2012, 04:37:49 PM ---
--- Quote from: CBWx2 on December 14, 2012, 02:36:52 AM ---
--- Quote from: Illuminator on December 12, 2012, 08:14:18 PM ---If you're not a dues paying member, you don't get to vote on issues like how much will be deducted from your check for the pension fund.

--- End quote ---

True, but you can take solice in that 2% raise and the extra week worth of vacation days they got for you. I suppose the argument is that you should get that for free? Kinda like...I don't know...a moocher?

--- End quote ---

Contradiction?  I thought you liked moochers?  ;)

I'm sure you'll just say, you're just putting it like the conservatives put it when they're talking about the 48% but uh... I'm getting the idea that you aren't a big fan of someone mooching off the union.  Even to the point that you don't have a problem denying a job to anyone who doesn't want to join a political organization with an agenda that many people find distasteful.   

--- End quote ---

Who's being denied a job? You either choose to work there, or you choose not to. No "denying" is taking place. Aren't you right wingers big on choice? You don't want to work for a union, work for a place that isn't unionized. There are plenty to choose from.


--- Quote from: jbear on December 14, 2012, 04:37:49 PM ---At least stop hating and be consistent.  Can't only have a big heart for those collecting public assistance.  Fiscal conservatives are people too.  ;D

--- End quote ---

If you don't see a distinction there then you are either a moron, a jackass, or both.

--- End quote ---

Oh grow a sense of humor.  Mostly I was just trying to point out your obvious bias.  I mean that in the sense that you have your own ideas about what you think is right.... as we all do. 

The fact is Michigan is now just like Florida.  The unions will be emasculated and have to stand on their own merits.  Just like in the real world.  They don't have to be marginalized.  They can still be important but they need to be streamlined and efficient.  They can't be gluttonous money gobblers as they have been, putting their own versions of bigshots in political power positions because of a monopoly.  Unions should exist even though the world has changed much since the robber barrons of the late 19th century but thats exactly why right to work states need to be the norm not the exception in these times.  Unions should have the right to organize without the fear of losing jobs but forcing people to be in a union is anti freedom and not nessessary in this day and age.  I'm all for Unions in the sense that people can choose to associate with them if employers mistreat employees in anything close to the ways they did in the days when Unions were originally formed in this country.  People should always have freedom of association and that includes freedom of association in workers negotiations.  Those rights should be protected in my mind and that is despite my libertarian leanings.  I'm always going to be for the right of people to associate with who they choose and I would go so far as to still expect that right of association to be ensured by our government despite my mistrust of most centralized power.  Some things should be ensured.  Freedom of association is one of those things.  If you choose to be in a union you should be.  Those unions should be protected in some manner to ensure that employers are not allowed to discriminate against those who choose to associate with those unions.  We have laws.  The world is not ending. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version