gut;1324116 wrote:No, I reject that the answer is that simple. Companies that survive the long haul are able to adapt and change, but when you have a labor intensive business and labor costs that are inflexible (because of unions) your options are limited.

In most cases, the issue you site where people overproduce and take a loss is because reduced volume costs them MORE money because of guarantees to union workers. I know at one point a laid-off UAW worker would get 95% of their take home (something like making up the difference vs. unemployment, obviously before 2008). Idling or closing plants have costs associated with them, so often the lower cost alternative is doing exactly what you are siting as evidence of mismanagement.

I'm not saying management was good or even not poor, but it's a fallacious assumption to think you can just turn a wage structure put in place over decades on a dime to be more competitive with a changing marketplace.

UPS turns a higher profit than FedEx despite being unionized. Companies can thrive unionized, they just have to be efficient. The only problem with unions for companies is they have to usually pay better, that's about it

Classyposter58;1324149 wrote:UPS turns a higher profit than FedEx despite being unionized. Companies can thrive unionized, they just have to be efficient. The only problem with unions for companies is they have to usually pay better, that's about it

Sometimes. UPS utilizes a fair high number of temps and part-timers, something unions don't always go for. What has done most of these union shops in is the accumulation of legacy costs in the form of retirement pensions and medical. It's a ponzi scheme, and the same thing is or will happen with SS. The unions and management making those agreements 20-30 years ago probably didn't realize (or more likely, didn't care since they are long gone) that the growth assumptions were unsustainable.

The problem is competition or declining markets means you need to downsize. Except you have to pay $0.25 per twinkie in legacy costs, but you reduce volumes and now you have to pay $0.50 per twinkie (because your legacy costs are fixed). So the only way to turn the company around ultimately is to downsize, but usually you have to go through bankruptcy to discharge those legacy commitments.

Manhattan Buckeye;1323162 wrote:"And the factory will need workers to run the machines, and what better than the ones that already know how to make the product they've just bought the rights to."

Well maybe ones that wouldn't allow the product to cause the business to go into bankruptcy. This isn't highly skilled labor.

"You have people fighting for you over sexual harassment, supervisor and employee personality conflicts without the fear of being fired. "

In my experience with family members in unions and working with various business, this benefit is highly inflated. When there are legitimate workplace claims the union lawyers are rarely to be found. Both of my NEA union family members had legit claims (one involved a forced grade change, the other involved after-work harassment). The NEA was WORTHLESS!

This is 2012, and let's be honest. Unions are there for the benefit of the unions - which means benefits for the union heads and a certain political party that these latter-day socialists (and that is what they are) put its clout behind. Any benefit to actual union workers is peripheral. I don't see the heads of the Teamsters or the AFL-CIO starving, despite that they continue to grow their idiotic "union mustaches." They prey on the foolish and weak, and are just as bad as management in many circumstances.

You're a business owner, right? (just curious). Now be honest, unions are there for the BENEFIT of the workers! Teamsters, Iron workers, UAW, IBEW,AFL-CIO and even the NEA(?). Plus a great deal of other people make a decent living because of unions. Policemen, Firemen, Air-transport, Construction, Highway workers and on and on and on.

In a greivence between a union and a company, there is two sides to every story! I think you're hearing only one side and you're blaming all unions based on your two family members experience with the NEA.

Nobody ever said life is fair but unions try to make the job place fair.

hang_loose;1324526 wrote: Nobody ever said life is fair but unions try to make the job place fair.

That my be some unintentional hyperbole.

I've got some experience with the UAW. Grievances are very much a negotiation and not everyone is represented equally. They might cave on an OT or pay grievance to bring back someone who got fired. That's just one example. A common tactic is to find and identify safety issues to hold as leverage over management. In another case (different union) the stewards got a fee on benefits, so given a choice between laying off a few or cutting the benefits for everyone guess what the union agreed to?

In other words, while you are 100% correct there are two sides to every story, that's not always relevant to the agreement reached between mgmt and the union.

Classyposter58;1324143 wrote:You wanna see a union with some power then be a Teamster. I swear a supervisor looks at me funny and his a** is grass. My buddy switched to management a few months ago and said, "You're right, I did lose all my power when I got promoted". I mean the only thing they can do is tell me where I'm needed basically

And who is going to stand behind your buddy when an issue comes up concerning him? The company will dump him just to "wash their hands" and never look back!

hang_loose;1324526 wrote:You're a business owner, right? (just curious). Now be honest, unions are there for the BENEFIT of the workers! Teamsters, Iron workers, UAW, IBEW,AFL-CIO and even the NEA(?). Plus a great deal of other people make a decent living because of unions. Policemen, Firemen, Air-transport, Construction, Highway workers and on and on and on.

In a greivence between a union and a company, there is two sides to every story! I think you're hearing only one side and you're blaming all unions based on your two family members experience with the NEA.

Nobody ever said life is fair but unions try to make the job place fair.

I work for an international bank. My father was a dues-paying union member for almost 40 years because we lived in Ohio and as a union state if you want to teach in Ohio you have to join the union.

His dues went straight to the union heads and the Democrats, in return he got his yearly newsletter telling him who to vote for and what the union's platform was (why the NEA has a stance on abortion rights is beyond me, what does that have to do with education?). Other than that he got diddly squat from his dues.

The contract was negotiated locally and all basic comp was based on seniority. It didn't matter if the gym teacher that showed up drunk half of the time while my father taught specialized languages for 6 periods a day, they got paid the same if they were in the same level of seniority. The one grievance he had, the union was worthless. A guy who thought he was going to play linebacker at Ohio St. came to our house and more or less threatened my father to change his grade. Despite me not even being a lawyer yet I did more to diffuse the situation than the worthless union lawyers (they were too busy playing golf with their Democrat friends and honing their idiotic mustaches).

The NEA sucks. It isn't even a labor union. It is a Democrat PAC.

I mean, they were in bankruptcy from 2004-2009. People are acting like this was a healthy company that got murdered by unions. It was a shit company.

I Wear Pants;1324531 wrote:I mean, they were in bankruptcy from 2004-2009. People are acting like this was a healthy company that got murdered by unions. It was a **** company.

I would say it was a company that had challenges - with growing inflation in the flour and sugar prices and lower margins due to wholesale price pressures (who is going to pay a lot for a twinkie?) the last thing they needed was escalating labor costs. I don't think the company was murdered by the union, but I do think the union overestimated their leverage with a business that needed to cut costs. Look what happened. Now everyone is screwed.

If there's one thing we've learned in the past 10 years, it's that the real greed and damage to the economy comes from lower-middle class workers.

^^^

I would say it is more of the idea that we are all entitled to something, and that debt doesn't mean anything. At some point our federal government has to act like we all do in our households. If I can't afford that 5 series BMW, I shouldn't be buying it, or expect someone (China) to buy it for me. If not a luxury item like my BMW example, a more practical (yet unaffordable) example like a pension that pays someone for 40 years after they worked for 30 years. The math doesn't add up.

Manhattan Buckeye;1324530 wrote:I work for an international bank. My father was a dues-paying union member for almost 40 years because we lived in Ohio and as a union state if you want to teach in Ohio you have to join the union.

His dues went straight to the union heads and the Democrats, in return he got his yearly newsletter telling him who to vote for and what the union's platform was (why the NEA has a stance on abortion rights is beyond me, what does that have to do with education?). Other than that he got diddly squat from his dues.

The contract was negotiated locally and all basic comp was based on seniority. It didn't matter if the gym teacher that showed up drunk half of the time while my father taught specialized languages for 6 periods a day, they got paid the same if they were in the same level of seniority. The one grievance he had, the union was worthless. A guy who thought he was going to play linebacker at Ohio St. came to our house and more or less threatened my father to change his grade. Despite me not even being a lawyer yet I did more to diffuse the situation than the worthless union lawyers (they were too busy playing golf with their Democrat friends and honing their idiotic mustaches).

The NEA sucks. It isn't even a labor union. It is a Democrat PAC.

Then thank a union for your dads job safety and pay for putting food in your mouth and clothes on your back for 21+years. And hopefully your father worked for a public school system where he is receiving a great retirement. A lot of Catholic teachers in central Ohio receive just enough to get by on after 30+years. NO UNION!

How do you know that his dues went straight to union heads and :thumbdown: Democrats? You're blaming all unions on one incident and I'd like to hear the other side of the story.

I hope you have a good relationship with your bosses. If one of them takes an attitude towards you one of these days,keep all of your records and files up to date. Because you might be the only one protecting you.

"And hopefully your father worked for a public school system where he is receiving a great retirement. "

I'd thank him if my kids and grandchildren weren't paying for his retirement now and in the future. If you add up his current benefits it exceeds over $100,000/year. He's 63 years old and can easily live for another 30 years. He's in relatively good shape, no major surgeries. Doesn't drink. Doesn't smoke.

Who is paying for this again? The answer is likely no one...his pension won't be there in 30 years. It is nothing more than an empty promise. Our politicians keep kicking this issue down the road until the next administration, and then the next, and the next generation, and then the next.

Anything that can't last forever, won't.

Manhattan Buckeye;1324530 wrote:The one grievance he had, the union was worthless. A guy who thought he was going to play linebacker at Ohio St. came to our house and more or less threatened my father to change his grade.

If a student went to your dad's home, wouldn't this be something for the local law enforcement instead of the Union?

Manhattan, he paid into his retirement system and Social Security! His pension may or may not be there in 30 yrs. You don't know. Hopefully he lives for another 30+years recieving that great retirement.Imagine what it would be if he worked in the Catholic school system. Your father and many, many other people paid into that fund to be able to retire comfortably. Thanks to their union!

Thank your father. If he didn't like unions, he wouldn't have stayed in one for so long. Hopefully he will be able to make you and your kids and grandchildrens life is a little easier. Maybe even setting up a trust fund for their education.

Thank your dad before its to late... Like you said "Anything that can't last forever, won't".

GoChiefs;1324551 wrote:If a student went to your dad's home, wouldn't this be something for the local law enforcement instead of the Union?

Not if he brings it to the principal's attention who refused to discipline the student. Then it becomes a Union issue - or in this case, a non-issue. It wasn't law enforcement scene. The guy didn't pull a gun, he didn't pull a knife, but he verbally abused my father and we took care of it at the time. No need for law enforcement, but perhaps a need for the district to discipline the guy. Didn't happen. Grievance filed. Nothing happened. Guy is on welfare most likely now.

"Manhattan, he paid into his retirement system and Social Security!"

He never paid into social security. If he lives until 93 he'll far exceed in benefits whatever he paid into the retirement funds. It is a ponzi scheme.

Anything that can't last forever, won't.

So, are you saying his retirement system is a "ponzi scheme"? A lot of people would love to be in your fathers shoes. I don't understand why he never paid into SS, but never mind that. So what if he lives to be 93. More power to him!!! I hope he lives a lot longer.

Are you jealous of your dad? Are you mad at him and taking it out on unions? I wasn't going to bring one of your statements up but this one puzzles me " I'd thank him him if my kids and grandchildren weren't paying for his retirement now and in the future".

Manhattan, Get off of your high horse!!!! Your father paid into his retirement system for as you said "almost 40 years". And he has a great retirement due to the school system and the union. You better start investing in your international bank now and hope they have a great retirement plan. But you can always count on dad to bail you out in bad times. Guess why.

^^^

Is this a joke? Of course he never paid into SS. Government employees were exempt for many years if they opted out. Yet you still don't explain who is paying for his retirement...current workers? Taxpayers? The Chinese?

An empty promise is an empty promise. He can be guaranteed his pension for 30 more years, if the money isn't there he won't be paid.

Anything that can't last forever, won't.

Is our country that fiscally stupid?

Manhattan Buckeye;1324559 wrote:Not if he brings it to the principal's attention who refused to discipline the student. Then it becomes a Union issue - or in this case, a non-issue. It wasn't law enforcement scene. The guy didn't pull a gun, he didn't pull a knife, but he verbally abused my father and we took care of it at the time. No need for law enforcement, but perhaps a need for the district to discipline the guy. Didn't happen. Grievance filed. Nothing happened. Guy is on welfare most likely now.

Sorry, but if a co-worker came to my house and verbally threatened me, I wouldn't go to my supervisor or Union president and expect something to be done for something that is done on your property. The Union is there to protect you at the workplace, not at home.

GoChiefs;1324568 wrote:Sorry, but if a co-worker came to my house and verbally threatened me, I wouldn't go to my supervisor or Union president and expect something to be done for something that is done on your property. The Union is there to protect you at the workplace, not at home.

Sorry, but who would you go to? The police? With what evidence? They can't do anything. What can happen is you go to your supervisor (i.e. the principal) and tell them what happened. If they refuse to act you go to your union for a grievance. The union is to protect the worker whether you are in the workplace or at home.

If an AFL-CIO worker had his "Obama for President '12" sign on his front yard vandalized by management, would that not be an issue for the union even if it wasn't at the workplace? If a union member was sexually harassed at "Tipsy McStagger's" bar at happy hour (and management did nothing about it) would that not be an issue for the union since it happened outside of the workplace?

Of course not. That it is a ridiculous post completely.

BTW, not that I need to respond that response further, but the request was about changing a grade that would have happened on UNION labor territory. GoChiefs, wow.

Again, if you feel threatened off the property of your employer, then yes, you go to the police if you must. What's ridiculous is for you to think the Union's job is to protect you outside of the work environment. The Union is protection at the workplace. They aren't a 24/7 personal enforcer. Hell, I guess if you're a Union member, you don't need law enforcement do you? Get robbed? Tell the Union! Murder? Tell the Union! They'll protect you.

GoChiefs;1324571 wrote:Again, if you feel threatened off the property of your employer, then yes, you go to the police if you must. What's ridiculous is for you to think the Union's job is to protect you outside of the work environment. The Union is protection at the workplace. They aren't a 24/7 personal enforcer. Hell, I guess if you're a Union member, you don't need law enforcement do you? Get robbed? Tell the Union! Murder? Tell the Union! They'll protect you.

It involved the work environment!

This wasn't a bar fight. It was a student threatening about changing a grade - ergo it involved the work environment. Do all Union grievances have to involve actions that happen physically on work location? Of course not.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Embarrassing myself? I'm not the one that thinks the Union is supposed to protect me at HOME. I don't give a rats ass if it was a student and what his purpose was. Feel threatened at HOME? Call the law, not the Union.

GoChiefs;1324573 wrote:Embarrassing myself? I'm not the one that thinks the Union is supposed to protect me at HOME. I don't give a rats ass if it was a student and what his purpose was. Feel threatened at HOME? Call the law, not the Union.

This is beyond belief. So if a kid threatens my Dad at detention hall and management does nothing it is a school (and thus Union) matter because it happens on school property, but if he does so 10 feet away from the school's parking lot (and thus outside of school property) it isn't?

Are you kidding me? Schools discipline kids for off-school actions often. If they don't and labor (i.e. teachers and staff) aren't satisfied their Union is supposed to take it up with management. HOME has nothing to do with it. The Union isn't protecting anyone, it is taking up a grievance with the inaction or action of management.

And yes, you are embarrassing yourself if you are that clueless as to grievances and claims. Does sexual harassment only matter if it happens on "management" property. Again, of course not.