ba1025

Unionized workers make 15% more than non union workers in the same profession. So you are welcome to bargain on your own by people in the same line of work in Unions make 15% more than you. That isn't an absoloute just an average so in your case it may not be true.

In my line of work with the benefits I recieve and hourly rate I'd say I am making about 30% more than non union CNC Operater Programers. What private company is going to pay me $32 bucks an hr w/ medical, 5 weeks paid vacation, company matched 401k and a pension that works out to about 50% of my pay. Mind you they pay me that and still have an ROI of 8% which if you added in the huge capitol outlays being made to meet huge demands for our products the next 10 years it is probably at least a point or two higher.

Do you belong to a political party...I look at so many party members like the blues and the greens in Constantinople. Do you think the dittoheads think for themselves????? My union is a collective to do something I cannot do. The idiots endorsed Bush of all people in 2004....not exactly left wing there. The company I work for is out to maximize it's profit as it should. I want it to make money so my left wing thuggery collective can bargain for a fair share. I worked in a non union job and bargained for my pay before. I know from experience I am in a better situation in my union. If I wasn't I would quit my union . It's not like you have to join by law in CT. Unions were/are a response to the "benevolent" nature of large companys in our capitolist society. They arose out of need.

I will see Shek's stats and raise um! It's nice to have a discussion where people aren't calling me Libtard. BTW I am an independent and have voted for Republicans and given to their campaigns

glyn

[quote=ba1025;481012]
Do you belong to a political party...


Absolutely not. Nor am I a member of any religion. In all matters I am independent.


It's not like you have to join by law in CT.

I should hope not. Had such a law have been in force here I would have emigrated. Fortunately no such law exists and I have been able to follow my own star. (Pity about the lack of navigation )

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

7thsfsniper

My father was a teamster through and through(still is) though he is retired now. When I was young I would visit his shop he worked at. Yellow freight was his employer and he was a shop mechanic. I noticed he was always working very hard and was always dirty. I also noticed that there a few men in the shop that were always clean and never seemed to do anything. Dad would never complain, but I would ask him how these goof offs kept thier job. He said because of the union it made it very difficult to fire them and he hated it. He was raised that a man should be rated on his merits not because of his associations. He was torn but the draw of job security and decent money won over. After he retired from Yellow, He took a job as a service writer at a non union Ford dealer. He had to quit or lose his pension. Because of noncompete clauses he can no longer earn a living in his chosen field anywhere! He draws full pension and it is not enough to provide for him a comfortable retirement. He has to work and wants to. I managed to get him hired at one of the properties I worked for as a maintenance guy. When he saw the wages people work for he couldn't believe what I was making and he was surprised at how little the job paid. He said to me "I don't know how you all made it on these wages" I said I make more all the time and work hard for it. I now make excellent wages and have worked long and hard and am a regional maint operations mgr for a large hotel chain. I did all by myself and didn't need a union to help me. And it feels damn good!

I know why unions were formed and they served a ligitimate purpose at one time. Now they only exist to make money for the union fat cats that run the racket.

I had a friend who was in a union in chicago. in the late 70s. He sold large engines that go in tub boats and large machinery. His wife started a lucrative computer services business in the 90s and they moved to missouri. He didn't have to work but he bought a bar(pub for my Brit friends) and operated it until he sold it for a profit but then the computer business began to slip a little. He took a union job driving a forklift at a supply company after years of being away from a union. He was so disappointed at how things had changed and the dues and the ridiculous equality for the unskilled slackers that were employed.

Solidarity can be a good thing to achieve a goal. Goals like making a ten thousand dollar car cost 30 thou because car manufacturers have been extorted into paying for everything its workers don't want to. Oh I could go on and on but to what point. Some people are just lazy, greedy, selfish, just don't get it or all the above. My dad found out too late, but understands now what the union is all about. He has a cousin that works for the union itself and he has it made. my dad was a union laborer and he has not. Too bad, Too late.

I've seen what the union has done to yellow freight. Squeezed it till it was damn near dead and then moved on to the next. I know a lot you pro union guys are sitting there saying no way, that's bull. Time will tell my friend, I've seen it happen and so will you. Best of luck, really!

__________________
The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten

glyn

[quote=7thsfsniper;481165]I know why unions were formed and they served a ligitimate purpose at one time. Now they only exist to make money for the union fat cats that run the racket.

When Unions were needed in the early days of the Industrial Revolution they had little power. Legislation passed by parliament (quite independently of the unions) was responsible for many (most) improvements for the working class. Needless to say the unions (spit!) claimed the credit. Oh what a surprise! As to 7thsfsnipers last sentence that I extracted from his post, well! who is unable to see how similar the aims are to organised religion? Extracting money from everyone to pay for the fat cats indeed.

ba1025

.If workers believed their was not a need for unions their wouldnt be unions

What's changed since unions were "needed" do corporations and businesses now pay based on the value you add to something or based on how much they have to pay you to keep you in their employ. W/O unions there would be a downward wage spiral. If you don't think Unions raise the pay of non union workers in the same field you need to pause a second. Do you think employers large enough to have a union dont in part base their pay on how much they have to pay someone to avoid a successful Union organization drive.

As to the goof offs. This really is valid in some regards. Here is where it isn't. The main obstacle in discharging goof offs isnt the union it's lower management's laziness. If you build a case the discharge of people who do foreable offenses sticks. Where I work there is a BUM. He is drunk every night. No management has tried to document it they roll their eyes and get pissed when confronted. No one wants him arouund including his co-workers. Often where I work when they do build a case and someone is fired they return. The reason someone gets back if they do get back is one of two things. The Union /Management do a trade off where a Salaried employee who disabused an hourly bargaining Unit employee in a manner that required termination is allowed to return or keep their job as well. The second is someone who is "connected"( yes nepotism/favortism still thrive) was given a pass for the same offense so the company is forced to treat the non connected employee in the same fashion. I see the second as just and the first as a management betrayal of shareholders because of personal job security concerns.

Managemnt has tools to get rid of goof offs. It does require more than someone just "saying" he isnt working out like a non union shop. Is that really horrible that one employee of a corporation has to show cause to dismiss another?

I don't understand how someone can retire with a teamsters pension and not have enough unless they had the bad fortune to miscalculate and take early retirement Non competition clauses are the purvue of companies not unions. I'm sorry the members of the union approved a contract with a non competition clause they should of gone on strike if they disapproved. I've nev er heard of that before. Did your Dad sign one to to get an early retirement package from who he worked for? I'd be interested in the language of ir. If it's a teamster thing his local has a website and you can get it there or give me the name of his local. I looked an found nothing... I am from Missouri

The formula is a bit complicated but:
A mid salary participant in the national plan gets about $2400.00 a month(20 plus yrs of service) plus medical plus $1400 a month in Social security if they are retiring today at 65 I think $42000 a year plus medical plus any savings is enough to retire on today isnt it? IT'S ABOVE(40K) THE AVERAGE TOTAL COMPENSATION OF FULLTIME WORKERS NATION WIDE IN 2003. IN FACT IF YOU CONSIDER MEDICAL INSURANCE TO BE SAY $6000 A YEAR THE AVERAGE TEAMSTER RETIREE GETS $48000 A YEAR

glyn

[quote=ba1025;481464].If workers believed their was not a need for unions their wouldnt be unions

Which is like saying if criminals couldn't profit from crime they would all be law-abiding citizens.

What's changed since unions were "needed" do corporations and businesses now pay based on the value you add to something or based on how much they have to pay you to keep you in their employ.

The very role of the unions has been negated by governmental legislation and such things as the Health & Safety act.



As to the goof offs. This really is valid in some regards. Here is where it isn't. The main obstacle in discharging goof offs isnt the union it's lower management's laziness.

Well clearly you are unable to even consider union involvement as being harmful. Of course you are going to blame management - while at the same time doing everything to stop them managing the company affairs. You like to have it both ways, don't you?

7thsfsniper

Lots of people want something for nothing, no argument there. Lots of people don't understand the larger picture and the consequences of thier actions.

Whats changed is people have gotten greedier and lazier. I have worked for two separate companies. I asked the owner of each of those "what would be the chance of union organization here"? None. "why are you so confident"? Both times, same answer. (I'm paraphrasing here) "As a company we pay you the maximum that the market can support. We also like to reserve the right to keep only the top workers in our employ. If a union was to actually organize I would fire everyone and put the property on the market. I am already wealthy and didn't have to start this business. I wanted to. I also refuse to be dictated to on how I run it. If you don't like it here feel free to further your career elsewhere." I understand that and respect it, therefore my employer and I get along wonderfully. As for wages dropping, perhaps in the beginning. but I think it would inspire workers to compete and before long those companies would have the best workers available. If that co didn't pay enough then they would seek one that does. Thats just free market competition in action. A company is only as good and successful as its workers.

Sounds just like politics to me! also sounds like it bugs you?


IJoplin local, I don't recall the #, 30 years of service, Yellow Frieght, Baxter springs, KS. When yellow closed the Baxter terminal He had to finish his last year and a half in Memphis. I thought Baxter was bad. I couldn't believe what I saw there! Alot of guys lost jobs or had to go other places to keep from it. Why don't you get to the bottom of why Yellow cut back in Baxter. I know why and so does everyone else here. You wouln't believe me if I told you. As far as retirement planning. Oh, the union had a wonderfully loyal union guy to help out those poor dumb laborers figure how to get the most out of thier retirement. my dad was so into the union he would never imagined someone from the union that didn't have his best interest in mind. Why go anywhere else, we're teamsters by golly! A Brotherhood! BULL S**T.

7thsfsniper

[quote=glyn;481470]
Glyn, You are so much more eloquent and to the point than I! I just love your one-liners!

ba1025

My ceo makes 40 million a year and you complain an unskilled laborer makes a living wage? It cuts both ways

Is it a coincidence that the slide of total compensation that started around 1970 also coincided with the decline in Union Membership.

It's easy to say we dont need unions but....the rise in wages in the USA coincided with a rise in Union membership. The decline in total compensation coincided with the decline in Union membership. You can postulate all the reasons you want but...the GNP of this country has risen during the decline in wages. If you have to continually call these trends coincidence maybe they aren't

yeah...lets blame the Unions for companies underfunding their pensions. I saw no extortion happen. The companies agreed to give future benefits in previous contracts in lieu if wages and now wish to default on those obligations or pass the bill on to taxpayers. I do believe in capitolism and I believe a poorly run company should be allowed to fold or be bought up. It's a shame but that's capitolism. Badly run companies fold.

How many of the companies crying wolf today took cash out of "overfunded" pensions in teh last 20 years to inflate earnings?



How come the teamsters pension isnt underfunded....mmm cuz the union ran it? Geez even crooks didnt rob peoples retirments

7thsfsniper

Shek

Real wages and benefits (total compensation) have both increased despite the decline in union membership.



Your conflating terminology/statistics as you are presumably quoting labor's share of compensation.

A quick question follows:

Statistics
Union membership was approximately 28% in 1964 (vs. 24% in 1970 and 12% in 2006). Labor's share of compensation was 68.2% in 1964 (an expansion year) vs. 72.4% in 1970 (a recession year). So between 1964 and 1970, union membership declined by 4 percentage points, and yet labor's share increased by 4 percentage points. Furthermore, labor's share was higher in 1974 (a recession year), 1979-80 (1980 was a recession year) and 2001 (a recession year). Throughout this entire time period, labor declined at a steady rate (approximately 0.3 percentage points a year).

Question
If the decline in the rate of union membership supposedly causes a decline in labor's share of total compensation, then why do we see four years with a higher labor share of national income (with three of those years being recession years)? How do you explain that?

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

7thsfsniper

Good info Shek. They tried to warn him about you and stats. I kew what the answer was but didn't want to take the time to look it up. thanks.

gunnut

UAW rejects American Axle mediator plea

Unions wouldn't be so bad if they are subject to anti-trust laws. Right now they are the only monopolies protected by law.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Shek

Major League Baseball is protected as well.

I personally don't see an issue with the ability to form a union. What I am against is the ability for unions to force people to join them in order to get a job.

gunnut

Are you talking about players union?

I agree with your view. Unions monopolizes the market by rule of law. If you work a job that's unionized, you can't go in as a non-union and compete with the union members (underbid them). In fact the employer is forbidden from hiring non-union.