I'm not sure what happened to the Union thread, but here is a recent example (in my own life) where I think a union would be beneficial. I'm a fence rider on unions. I can see how they can hurt, but I have also seen instances where they help. Here is an example of one:

My wife gets paid weekly, and she works at a non-unionized factory (she's an office worker). My wife opts out of insurance at the company b/c she is on my insurance. Her business pays any employee who chooses to opt out of insurance $100 per month for choosing to do so. This is cheaper than providing insurance to the employee, and a plus for the business. Well, she informs me that at the beginning of the new year, the business is going to stop paying employees the $100 per month, the employees who opt out of insurance.

Yes, it is an added expense to the business to pay these employees $1,200 per year, but the expense to the business if they opted to take insurance is much greater (unless I'm missing something). If the factory was unionized, I don't see something like this happening.

/Rant

It really was a privilege for her that the company did that.

Is it her right to have that bonus for opting out? Is it the company's right to offer it or not? Why does the company have to offer one or the other?

CenterBHSFan;581868 wrote:It really was a privilege for her that the company did that.

Is it her right to have that bonus for opting out? Is it the company's right to offer it or not? Why does the company have to offer one or the other?

I'm not saying it's her right. It was just a nice bonus. The purpose of the thread/rant was to just give an example of a situation where the presence of a union would not have allowed that to happen.

However... with the presence of the union, she would more than likely be paying more for dues anyway. Just an example, nothing more, nothing less. From a business standpoint, I understand of the privilege vs. right, and it was no "right" for her to have it. Just another example, in these tough economic times, where the BUSINESSES have all the upper hand...

Her businesses has used this line a lot when cutting pay, bonuses, etc... "At least you have a job." Sad, but that's the ups and downs of our great market economy.

ernest_t_bass;581887 wrote:I'm not saying it's her right. It was just a nice bonus. The purpose of the thread/rant was to just give an example of a situation where the presence of a union would not have allowed that to happen.

But that's just the cruxt of it! What business is it of a union to "allow" that to happen or not? The union did not create that business and it is not management.
The union is supposed to be there to ensure *fair wage* and safety. That's it.

CenterBHSFan;581892 wrote:But that's just the cruxt of it! What business is it of a union to "allow" that to happen or not? The union did not create that business and it is not management.
The union is supposed to be there to ensure *fair wage* and safety. That's it.

I don't disagree with you. In the situation, however, most would agree that if a union were present, it probably would not have been taken away. Just this ONE instance.

That's why people are growing a disdain for unions. There's no reason at all they should be involved in securing the incentive to opt out of that health-care plan.

Unions aside, can anyone at least agree with me that it sucks for my wife?

ernest_t_bass;581937 wrote:I don't disagree with you. In the situation, however, most would agree that if a union were present, it probably would not have been taken away. Just this ONE instance.

You MAY be correct.....the union MIGHT have tried to keep this perk in their members union negotiated contract...and they MIGHT have won.

But, how many jobs, possibly including your wife's would have been lost to keep that perk? How much future business expansion might have not been able to happen to keep that perk?

Be careful what you ask for....

I would hope she would view it in an appreciative way for ever having the offer provided as opposed to a bummed out view for it now being gone.

ernest_t_bass;581943 wrote:Unions aside, can anyone at least agree with me that it sucks for my wife?

Yes, I agree. That would suck for your wife. $100 is alot of money when you have babies.

Con_Alma;581946 wrote:I would hope she would view it in an appreciative way for ever having the offer provided as opposed to a bummed out view for it now being gone.

She's not that bummed... however, I AM, since I'm the one that handles the bills! It's pre-tax added anyway, so it doesn't amount to an actual $100.

I understand. $70 is $70.

Have her go to the individual of the company that handles the insurance at tell that person that she wants to join the insusance ..but only as a secondary coverage provider...


The company can pay for the secondary coverage or pay the $100.00 mo. they wiil once again be paying your wife the $100.00

They have to offer your wife secondary coverage provide.. ...........

I basically don't want any money taken out of my wife's check for insurance. Guess it's one of the things I should have checked, to see if they have a company "matching" policy.

Your wife was essentially getting a bonus at the discretion of the company. Unless it was somehow a part of the overall union contract, it wouldn't have been a union matter (and probably shouldn't have been).

While it sucks for you folks that you aren't going to get the money, anymore, you should be thankful for the years you had it. I haven't heard of many companies that do this sort of thing. Look at it this way: if the company can save money by not giving out that money, maybe it will help assure her job security during a time when so many are losing their jobs or enduring worse pay cuts.

My wife has negotiated based on not needing benefits at some of her jobs. To give this alternative to everyone in the situation was extremely generous of the company.

The $100 a month no-insurance "bonus" was a nice PLUS in her compensation but not required by law. It could be a negotiable item if the plant were unionized but that would most likely only apply to union members. Most office employees are non-union. So even if the plant were unionized and the bargaining unit was successful in getting the $100 bonus applied at the negotiating table, chances are your wife would still not qualify.

Unions are stupid. Why is it in Ohio a high school administrator can retire, get rehired at base pay, AND collect his pension? Oh that's right, because unions are bullshit. I can get fired at any time, get no overtime yet work more than 40 hours, and am ok with that. DEAL with it. Not to mention they destroyed the auto industry in the US. Good work.

iclfan2;582440 wrote:Unions are stupid. Why is it in Ohio a high school administrator can retire, get rehired at base pay, AND collect his pension? Oh that's right, because unions are bullshit. I can get fired at any time, get no overtime yet work more than 40 hours, and am ok with that. DEAL with it. Not to mention they destroyed the auto industry in the US. Good work.

+1

Writerbuckeye;582311 wrote:Your wife was essentially getting a bonus at the discretion of the company. Unless it was somehow a part of the overall union contract, it wouldn't have been a union matter (and probably shouldn't have been).

While it sucks for you folks that you aren't going to get the money, anymore, you should be thankful for the years you had it. I haven't heard of many companies that do this sort of thing. Look at it this way: if the company can save money by not giving out that money, maybe it will help assure her job security during a time when so many are losing their jobs or enduring worse pay cuts.

While I agree that this instance the company had done them a favor which they were not and are not bound to continue doing forever, I also find the "at least you have a job" argument troubling. Corporate profits were at their highest level ever last quarter so I find it hard to continue to believe the companies are doing people favors when they cut their salaries and benefits when they're making incredible profits. It's also one of the reasons that I think has held back job growth. If corporations can achieve higher profits than ever with a smaller workforce why wouldn't they continue to do so?

I Wear Pants;582623 wrote:While I agree that this instance the company had done them a favor which they were not and are not bound to continue doing forever, I also find the "at least you have a job" argument troubling. Corporate profits were at their highest level ever last quarter so I find it hard to continue to believe the companies are doing people favors when they cut their salaries and benefits when they're making incredible profits. It's also one of the reasons that I think has held back job growth. If corporations can achieve higher profits than ever with a smaller workforce why wouldn't they continue to do so?

You MIGHT have a point if we stuck to Wall Street. Not every company is making "incredible profits". Especially in the smaller venues. So, you're argument is partially invalid.

People, people, people... I stated a situation in which I thought the presence of a union may have led to a different outcome. STOP TWISTING MY WORDS!

1) we are very thankful for her employment

2) we were very thankful(and surprised) when we found out she received that "bonus" a few years ago.

4) I realize it is not an obligation of the business, but a "bonus."

5) I realize I just skipped #3

6) regardless of everything, even though it's a bonus, it still sucks.

Many of you twist words to further your own viewpoint.

BOOBS!

iclfan2;582440 wrote:Unions are stupid. Why is it in Ohio a high school administrator can retire, get rehired at base pay, AND collect his pension? Oh that's right, because unions are bullshit. I can get fired at any time, get no overtime yet work more than 40 hours, and am ok with that. DEAL with it. Not to mention they destroyed the auto industry in the US. Good work.

well if your ok with it then thats fine. if not you have choice. tell me how did the unions destroy the us auto industry? this gotta here

iclfan2;582440 wrote:Unions are stupid. Why is it in Ohio a high school administrator can retire, get rehired at base pay, AND collect his pension? Oh that's right, because unions are bullshit. I can get fired at any time, get no overtime yet work more than 40 hours, and am ok with that. DEAL with it. Not to mention they destroyed the auto industry in the US. Good work.

The reason an administrator in Ohio can do this is because the district does not have to hire another administrator to take his/her place at a salary which includes the fringe benefits. Believe it or not, the district actually is saving money by doing this.

That added protection of job security gives me a good peace of mind in a union I won't lie