Unions in general are about as current a topic as talking about blacksmiths or cobblers.

irish_buffalo wrote: Just today outside Lansing MI the UAW is ratifying $12.00 start pay. Look it up.

I wear pants - you are going to use Microsoft, Adobe, and Google? Then you throw out the old 'worked well in the past'? Great input.

Glory Days - no kidding and those laws are in place because of UNIONS. Lose Union strength and it wouldnt be long before those laws are loosened and broken, to think otherwise is foolish.

I was playing devil's advocate. It's a fun game on the internet.

I think that for the most part unions are past their prime. We have legal protections now for how employers can treat and pay their employees. Much of that is due in part to the unions but now that they are in place and are a social norm I don't think they're going anywhere so unions might not be needed.

[/quote]
I was playing devil's advocate. It's a fun game on the internet.

I think that for the most part unions are past their prime. We have legal protections now for how employers can treat and pay their employees. Much of that is due in part to the unions but now that they are in place and are a social norm I don't think they're going anywhere so unions might not be needed.
[/quote]

Wait a minute... I'm Devils Advocate!

I agree with many unions being obsolete. especially in setting when you can have some kind of contact with the owner of the business.

Unions over time have devolved from a positive to a negative impact on business. Most of the big union halls are filled with retired people that could care less about the ability of the company to run efficiently. They only care about how the contract impacts them. The retired men have sold their brothers down the river with scope plan in order to maintain their own standard of living.

It is a sad statement that a retired man might be making as much as 40 percent more than a a new hired man doing the same job as the retiree.

I also think that a union job is a demotivator. There is no reason for them to do anything better or extra, they would not be compensated any more than the slacker sitting next to them

The first place unions should be abolished is in the public sector.

All those have accomplished is driving government costs higher than necessary and made an inefficient form of bureaucracy even more inefficient.

If we could magically get rid of these scourges, taxpayers would see an immediate savings in the billions of dollars -- and places like California might stand a chance of becoming solvent once again.

^^^
We actually agree on most of that.

irish_buffalo wrote: Glory Days - no kidding and those laws are in place because of UNIONS. Lose Union strength and it wouldnt be long before those laws are loosened and broken, to think otherwise is foolish.

refer to this post:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Unions in general are about as current a topic as talking about blacksmiths or cobblers.

+1

its 2010, not 1910. thats great what they did in the past, but the world isnt the same place. haha you really think if unions went away, it would go back to what it was 100 years ago?

Writerbuckeye wrote: The first place unions should be abolished is in the public sector.

All those have accomplished is driving government costs higher than necessary and made an inefficient form of bureaucracy even more inefficient.

If we could magically get rid of these scourges, taxpayers would see an immediate savings in the billions of dollars -- and places like California might stand a chance of becoming solvent once again.

I know the DoD union doesn't have all that much pull. They only thing they did was block NSPS but that was because it had to be voted on within the unions and they never got around to it by the time Obama killed it. While the GS system is pretty crappy, the NSPS paypool crap really was a load of shit. I do also know that the process to fire a non-union vested employee is the same as firing a union vested employee.

How much pull do the state and local unions have?

jmog, you're an expert.

I've heard countless stories about Honda and yes many people believe that it is a great place to work. However, I have also heard horror stories about people who have gotten hurt and soon thereafter 'let go'.

Allow me to state that the UAW makes me sick at times as well. The TRADE UNION (I countlessly need to stress this fact) opperates much differently than a MANUFACTURING UNION. Regardless, the old UAW is DEAD and gone and the new UAW is MUCH MUCH different. As stated earlier, just today in Wyoming, MI (just outside Lansing at a GM plant) the UAW ratified start pay at $12.10 an hour.

I too have worked in non-union plants and union ones (both auto) and there really is little difference other than pay but as stated above that has all changed.

To continue to regurgitate the old 'unions had a place at one time' mantra without actually knowing is foolish. Leave the propaganda at the door.

I'd also like to stress that if Unions do get busted (through immense propaganda which is blatantly obvious here) wages will drop drastically. Minimum wage and just above will be the norm. After all, our economic system is driven towards the cheapest labor cost makes you win. CEO's and board members do not care about you, they care about their bottom line.

jmog, what union are/were you affiliated with and what line of work are you in? What about your parents? Just curious. As stated previously, I am a UNION Ironworker.

Matter of fact, what does everyone here do for a living?

irish_buffalo wrote: Matter of fact, what does everyone here do for a living?

Why does that matter?

irish_buffalo wrote: Regardless, the old UAW is DEAD and gone and the new UAW is MUCH MUCH different. As stated earlier, just today in Wyoming, MI (just outside Lansing at a GM plant) the UAW ratified start pay at $12.10 an hour.

Too little too late. the companies have already been run into the ground. imagine how much better off they would be had they made these changes years ago.

I'm a Pharmacy Intern soon to be a Pharmacist. My company doesn't have a union for its pharmacy technicians but my brothers does. This is a 100% true story.

My brother had been a Technician for 4 years and was making ~$8.00 an hour. He was nationally certified (which is now required, but at the time was not required) Again this was a Union job.

I started working at my pharmacy and being uncertified was given $8.50 an hour. When I got certified six months later It went up a dollar, plus my raise for being there 3 months brought my pay-scale up to $9.75.

SO.... My experience was 6 months at a non-union store and I made $9.75 an hour
His experience was 4 and half years at a Union company and he still made ~$8.00 an hour. (before union dues were taken out)

What did the union get him? 2 paid 15 minute breaks and a half hour non-paid lunch. (breaks were non-negotiable... you were forced to take them)

I got a half hour break and one optional 15 minute break. We usually didn't take them because the pharmacy tended to get backed up if we did take a break. We were never discouraged from taking a break and sometime we did if we were slow.


My company also has profit sharing which is hands down better than his company. When I started the company was putting in 3 dollars for every 1 dollar I put in.... Yeah sounds too good to be true right? well it was, now its only 1:1. His company to my knowledge has never been better than 1:1.

Now some of this better pay, better retirement, etc. Could be due to my company being more successful than his, but is it possible that the reason for my companies success has been its ability to keep unions out?


If you want more info PM me.

I am curious, what is an adequate salary for a trash driver? If the market determines what that is then what is wrong with workers flexing their collective muscles to get what the market can give them? By the same token what is wrong with a company flexing its muscles by getting rid of workers who strike or who threaten to strike for that matter? I think there are legal implications here too? Any insights?

Everyone living in Ohio has to realize the cost of living in most of Ohio is very cheap. Seattle is not exactly Cleveland.

If a business (which most of the posters on here are in favor of) can leverage themselves to get their best deal,... why can't employees leverage themselves to get the best deal for them? Why the need to insult and belittle them? Why can't they, if they think they can, demand more?

Or should we all just shut up and accept the bread crumbs we're given?

It is a race to the bottom. After productivity meets its limit, the only other way to increase profit is through cutting other costs. And labor is the easiest. Without a union, it's every man for themselves. And I guarantee you, whatever job you have, I'm sure if, straight-up, someone would do it 50 cents an hour cheaper your business would seriously consider it. And then there's somebody to undercut them. It's all a matter of whether your company has reached that _point_ yet. They might not have reached it yet, but they will. When those reports come in, and they're not making as much as That Other Company, or their stock plunges because earnings weren't meeting expectations, you'll become the target

The republicans on this board astound me. They seem to crave businesses having complete control of their lives. We're no longer a wage-earner society. We're an ownership society. And those owning everything are quite happy with that setup. It means they have control. And the little peons who own next-to-nothing live week-to-week.

Some American dream.

You don't trust government. You don't trust your fellow man. All you can trust is yourself and the hand that feeds you.

Mr. 300 wrote: This is why companies have moved out, and America is a 2nd or 3rd rate country at the moment. Our economy can't return to levels it was at with unions forcing this kind of shit upon major corps.

America is a 2nd or 3rd rate country? You are out of your mind. Maybe 2nd or 3rd rate compared to America of the past, but not to the world. We are still #1 (for now).

irish_buffalo wrote: You all have no clue for two reasons.

Yes, it is everyone else that has no clue, you are the only one who has a clue on here. :rolleyes:

irish_buffalo wrote: 1). I am a member of a TRADE UNION. In our union if you dont work, or work hard enough, you STARVE. There is no protection job wise. Our union is there solely for the basis of collective bargaining (wage, health care, retirement).

There is a difference between Trade Unions and Labor unions. You have a skilled trade as an ironworker and should get paid more because of that trade. The work you do is specialized and not everyone could do it without proper training. A labor union in let's say and auto plant is not needed except to get workers overpaid for work anyone that can turn a nut or bolt can do.

irish_buffalo wrote: 2). If you think for one second that without unions you would somehow get a fair shake you are out of your mind. It will simply be a race to the bottom.

Unions of the past have given everyone now a better deal, but most unions are not needed now. They do more harm than good. I am a member of the Teamsters (I have no choice) and I can't stand it. I get paid the same yet I work twice as hard as some people I work with. Thanks union, maybe I should just slack off and do the minimum like they do.

IMO, productivity would be higher if we were paid off of merit. Then each of us would try to produce as much as possible in hopes of getting promotions, bonuses and raises. There is no incentive to do more than the minimum at this point.

irish_buffalo wrote: Times like these equal the balance. Take the UAW for example. I've seen first hand the excessive contracts of the UAW and etc... However, you HAVE to think about the fact that today new hires at UAW auto plants make $14.00 wereas they USED to make $24.00 starting out. Keep in mind that the non-union's pay scale is based off of UNION pay scale. So, if Chrysler USED to pay new hires $24.00 an hr. and Toyota paid $18.00 and NOW Chrysler pays $14.00 then it wont be long before Toyota pays $9.00 and so on and so forth. RACE TO THE BOTTOM. Our economic system is based on this.

If anyone has bought into the propoganda it is you that has bought into the union propoganda The union is like a government that creates dependant citizens. Think for yourself, you don't need the union to negotiate for you, you can do that on your own. Who is going to look out for you better than you? UAW workers don't deserve to make more than $14 starting out. I'm sorry, but it takes no intelligence to do the same thing day in and out. Turn this bolt. UAW members are takling concessions happily because they know they're not as needed as they once were.

irish_buffalo wrote: I've owned my own business and have my college degree and now am a Union Ironworker and we get paid a very fair wage for a honest days work. Just think of our society, with all of the money that we have, and a middle class that cannot afford health care, education for their children, or retirement. All three of which are pillars in gauging strength of your society. If you firmly have been DUPED into believing that 'there is no need for unions in todays world' then sit back and see what happens. When the vast majority reaches the tipping point of not being able to attain those three things I have mentioned you will only be left with one choice - revolution.

Uhhh, we are already reaching the tipping point and we are there because of unions. Unions have drove the price of operating so high, that companies can no longer afford to do business. As one poster stated, the most successful companies with the happiest employees are the ones that don't have unions. The examples of Microsoft, etc. were great examples.

irish_buffalo wrote: Keep in mind, in our society, no company will look out for their workers overall well being. The only thing they look after is their bottom line, and through competition that will lead to that race to the bottom. People who preach about their dad being a 'union' guy or whose mom works with 'unions' take for granted that they wouldnt have the wage, retirement, or education due to the very union that they badmouth.

Again, you have been brainwashed by the union if you believe this. You really believe companies don't value their employees? Without the employees, the company gets no where. The companies you are thinking of are companies that have no brained people working for them. Workers that are "a dime a dozen" are easily replaced and don't deserve any higher pay than minimum wage. Workers that provide a specialized and unique skill are compensated fairly without the need of a union and are valued by a company. Unions are needed for the jobs in which no skill or intelligence is needed.

irish_buffalo wrote: Since roughly 2003 our country has not seen such an imbalance between the rich and poor/mid class than the 1920s and we all know what happened then. As much as I hate to say it we almost NEED another depression to awaken the labor class of our society (white and blue collar together) that OUR needs are not being met whatsoever.

I would argue that this has more to do with people living and spending well beyond their means than unions. And if you haven't noticed, we did just go through something similar to the depresion of the 20's. Unions are still not needed.

irish_buffalo wrote: Just today outside Lansing MI the UAW is ratifying $12.00 start pay. Look it up.

I wear pants - you are going to use Microsoft, Adobe, and Google? Then you throw out the old 'worked well in the past'? Great input.

Glory Days - no kidding and those laws are in place because of UNIONS. Lose Union strength and it wouldnt be long before those laws are loosened and broken, to think otherwise is foolish.

What is wrong with using Microsoft, Adobe and Google. 2 of those companies (Microsoft and Google) are 2 of the top 5 wealthiest companies in the US. I'd say they are terrific examples.

Writerbuckeye wrote: The first place unions should be abolished is in the public sector.

All those have accomplished is driving government costs higher than necessary and made an inefficient form of bureaucracy even more inefficient.

If we could magically get rid of these scourges, taxpayers would see an immediate savings in the billions of dollars -- and places like California might stand a chance of becoming solvent once again.

+ infinity. Look no further than what is happening in Toledo with the police union. They are effectively digging a hole. They don't want to have to pay their own "employee" share of their pension (yes, the city of Toledo pays 19.5% and then also pays the employees 10% contribution) and they don't want to pay any of their helathcare costs. They feel the taxpayers should be doing all of that. Sorry, everyone has had to pay into their pension and a portion of their healthcare, police (public employees) are not immune.

jmog wrote:

irish_buffalo wrote: You all have no clue for two reasons.

1). I am a member of a TRADE UNION. In our union if you dont work, or work hard enough, you STARVE. There is no protection job wise. Our union is there solely for the basis of collective bargaining (wage, health care, retirement).

2). If you think for one second that without unions you would somehow get a fair shake you are out of your mind. It will simply be a race to the bottom.

Times like these equal the balance. Take the UAW for example. I've seen first hand the excessive contracts of the UAW and etc... However, you HAVE to think about the fact that today new hires at UAW auto plants make $14.00 wereas they USED to make $24.00 starting out. Keep in mind that the non-union's pay scale is based off of UNION pay scale. So, if Chrysler USED to pay new hires $24.00 an hr. and Toyota paid $18.00 and NOW Chrysler pays $14.00 then it wont be long before Toyota pays $9.00 and so on and so forth. RACE TO THE BOTTOM. Our economic system is based on this.

I've owned my own business and have my college degree and now am a Union Ironworker and we get paid a very fair wage for a honest days work. Just think of our society, with all of the money that we have, and a middle class that cannot afford health care, education for their children, or retirement. All three of which are pillars in gauging strength of your society. If you firmly have been DUPED into believing that 'there is no need for unions in todays world' then sit back and see what happens. When the vast majority reaches the tipping point of not being able to attain those three things I have mentioned you will only be left with one choice - revolution.

Keep in mind, in our society, no company will look out for their workers overall well being. The only thing they look after is their bottom line, and through competition that will lead to that race to the bottom. People who preach about their dad being a 'union' guy or whose mom works with 'unions' take for granted that they wouldnt have the wage, retirement, or education due to the very union that they badmouth.

Since roughly 2003 our country has not seen such an imbalance between the rich and poor/mid class than the 1920s and we all know what happened then. As much as I hate to say it we almost NEED another depression to awaken the labor class of our society (white and blue collar together) that OUR needs are not being met whatsoever.

IB, you again have no clue, you are obviously a quite biased individual.

I have worked in both union and non-union facilities, both of my parents are in unions.

I can tell you that the non-union facilities I worked at had much harder workers, the workers liked their job much better, the pay was comparable to non-union shops, and they WORKED HARDER because they knew that their yearly raise was proportional to how well they did their job, NOT by some set percent set by a union contract.

Those that worked hard did better than those in unions, those that did not did worse than those in unions and/or were eventually looking for employment elsewhere.

I'm sorry but yes, with no unions people get a "fair shake" all the time.

I used to live in Marysville, OH and knew many people who worked in the Honda plant there. Its non-union (drove the UAW nuts) and every person I knew that worked there LOVED working at the place, never heard a complaint.

I worked in a manufacturing place that was non-union for years, and overall the people were well taken care of and loved their jobs.

I worked in a union chemical plant for a few years and on average the union employees hated their job.

My parents too work at Honda (Anna) they absolutely love it. I don't know about the whole injury let go thing. They have temp disability and other things in their deal. irish, are you sure the person you were referring to wasn't a temp? I've heard of temps being let go like that, but those are temps.

That's one thing that Honda does to avoid layoffs, they layoff their temp employees, so it acts as a buffer for the full time associates.

I don't like how they take the union dues from you Regardless. If you don't want to be apart of the union, then don't be and keep your money. Might as well join it and get your money's worth.

dwccrew, where does your expert opinion come from?

What is your profession?

I have my college degree, owned my own business, and have seen both sides of unions (trade/labor/manufacturing). I am telling you exactly what I know and what I have seen. Horatio Alger seems to rule your thought process. Hate to break it to you man, Alger's dream is dead.

The more unions are broken, the more you lose. Do you honestly believe that companies, especially larger ones are looking out for YOUR best interests?

You got it all figured out bro. You're the union member on here bashing unions. What do you do? Teamsters may be a weak union but they still bargain for YOU. How do you earn a living that makes you an expert on why unions are bad?

Which begs the question - what does everyone on here bashing unions do for a living?

By the way, men died, fighting for these 'unions' and the rights listed above (overtime, 40 hr. work weak, retirement, health care).

Society was better off when people were defending those rights rather than big business. It is actually disgusting that people are on here defending an entity that cares nothing about them or those rights.

irish_buffalo wrote: Do you honestly believe that companies, especially larger ones are looking out for YOUR best interests?

Do you honestly believe that the idea of a company and its work force being at odds at best, enemies at worst is anything but an anachronism in the modern day?

irish_buffalo wrote: By the way, men died, fighting for these 'unions' and the rights listed above (overtime, 40 hr. work weak, retirement, health care).

And some on the union side also committed crimes up to and including murder. Don't dream of trying to paint this as one side wearing the white hats. It's bullshit and you know it.

Irish, after reading all your crap, I'm convinced YOU are the one that has bought into the propaganda, the propaganda distributed by the unions.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

irish_buffalo wrote: By the way, men died, fighting for these 'unions' and the rights listed above (overtime, 40 hr. work weak, retirement, health care).

And some on the union side also committed crimes up to and including murder. Don't dream of trying to paint this as one side wearing the white hats. It's bullshit and you know it.

Lol, not to mention that a ton of unions were run by the MOB haha. Is Irish really trying to defend the mafia as being some sort of shining light?

As an aside: Who was that guy from the old place that always brought up his garbage man for reference?
He/she always cracked me up!

CenterBHSFan wrote: As an aside: Who was that guy from the old place that always brought up his garbage man for reference?
He/she always cracked me up!

Chudecek.

irish_buffalo wrote: By the way, men died, fighting for these 'unions' and the rights listed above (overtime, 40 hr. work weak, retirement, health care).

Society was better off when people were defending those rights rather than big business. It is actually disgusting that people are on here defending an entity that cares nothing about them or those rights.

I do think that Unions need to be around but not in the capacity they are in.

For instance, actually protect the workers. In this instance here, they are not doing that. Being offered a 3.7% raise and refusing it for whatever reason isn't protecting the workers, it's bullying the employer.

Make sure their wages aren't cut,, they get sick/vacation time..., and they have safe work conditions.

Your best interest is having enough to pay your bills and have your family healthy. All the union should be doing is making sure you can do that. If you can do that on 20/hr, then so be it. Don't pressure the company into 23-24+. This is when the company gets pissed and goes to Mexico.