Another Union Thread - Page 2

RallyJon · 11-28-2005, 01:25 PM

You might want to exclude cars from your cost-of-living comparison. Hardly seems fair to burden those hardworking fellas with the part of car price inflation caused by the huge costs of their exhorbitant health, pension and layoff benefits, not to mention their overtime.

NICKG · 07:01 AM

well, i will chime in hear. To all you people who think that a college degree is worthless...you haven't a clue..seriously. I will elaborate. I am an ASE certified master tech with 17 years of combined repair, parts sales and most any other type of automotive related business experience. Real experience not BS i made it up stuff. I have done tech line to design and fitments of European parts/accessories for some of the biggest places going. I have done marketing for manufacturers on an outsourced regional level, national retail/wholesale sale and customer service...hell I have even trained these guys at the manufacturer. I got into parts so I could have a less physical environment, and truthfully it is, no busted knuckles or bad knees anymore. Anyway I have a technical degree for a prestigious Automotive school here in the north east and even was in a manufacturer specialized step program. but all this is worthless.
I have found that in trying to get into one of the manufacturer's for the last 8 years, it is nearly impossible with out a bachelors degree..experience means nothing... I am being interviewed consistently by all the big guns in the Euro car hq's in NJ and they always go with that 23 year old with the degree...every time. I have even asked them why, answer? corporate policy dictates that they take degrees over experience, bottom line. So I am 34 and back in school now to get my degree because I see the big picture, and it ain't pretty here in the north East. with out a degree, you work at walmart, with it you shop at walmart...for now i am just the new accounts manager at Bosal USA...tier 2 is closer than a dealer and i network with as many of the OEM's as I can...2 more years
as for unions, let me tell you about the uaw...we have to put up with their crap and demands all the tiome. they just sealed their own deal with our factory in Ontario, they wanted huge concessions in a diminishing market, they have our plant so locked down as to be a prison. the union adds so much redtape to anything that it makes production very difficult. Ironically they said that they would close us down if we did not do what they wanted...they succeeded, we are closing the plant and moving it to Mexico now because they were so impossible to deal with...Canada lost 500+ jobs and mexico get 750 out of it..hope the uaw was proud of that one...better for me, the Mexican stuff is cheaper and MUCH nicer than the junk the Canadians were making

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Who remembers the Strike in Socal in 2003. The Check out clerks at the grocery stores, making $18/hr were pissed that they would have to pay a $10 co-pay...

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by red-beard
Who remembers the Strike in Socal in 2003. The Check out clerks at the grocery stores, making $18/hr were pissed that they would have to pay a $10 co-pay...

Yes, I'm sure that was the only issue on the table...

NICKG · 11-28-2005, 06:35 PM

oh...UAW guys with long tenure are making over 65 an hour..hows that one for you! I know because I have to job cost these guys at work...

Superman · 11-29-2005, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RallyJon
The issue isn't standard of living, it's that the unions apply pressure artificially shifting resources (supposedly) for the benefit of their members.

Lots of interesting remarks on Page 1. Some folks apparently hate unions at quite a distance. For example, somebody wondered why labor reps don't work for free. Frankly, many many many of them do. It is like a church, and if you think they're in it for the money (the guys at the low end of the union totem pole that is), then you really shouldn't comment on labor representatives since you are apparently without any direct experience.

Nathans_Dad made some surprisingly accurate remarks but I chose the one above to quote because of its complete lack of sense. RallyJon.......I'm curious. What is artificial about workers' interest in receiving good pay for their work? What the heck are you talking about? You stuck on some sort of "liberal redistribution of resources" complaint? Here are the basics:

If workers are required to bargain individually with an employer, they lose. The employer has the clout. But if workers are allowed to pool their clout, then it is a fair fight between labor and management. That's the basis for the labor movement. And I'm tired of folks who think they understand economics, but who think it's about companies and profits. Think what you want. I think it's about PEOPLE. I know it's crazy but that's what I believe. Thoroughly believe.

RallyJon · 11-29-2005, 07:13 AM

Superman, it always comes back to the same "fair fight" theoretical nonsense. The problem with that approach is that often workers--either as individuals or groups--have priorities that work directly against productivity, flexibility and competitiveness. Giving them MORE power is like asking a child his opinion: it's a cute exercise but when it's time to go to school or do his homework or his chores you really don't much care what he thinks.

Further, if you look at the choices made by organized labor supposedly on behalf of the workers, it often is short sighted and harmful to their well-being in the long term. Remember the thread about losing defined benefit pensions?

So organized labor is good where? In circumstances where workers are exploited and treated badly. Curiously, you rarely see the unions helping the truly abused workers of the world. Guess there's not a lot of money in it.

Superman · 11-29-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RallyJon
Superman, it always comes back to the same "fair fight" theoretical nonsense. The problem with that approach is that often workers--either as individuals or groups--have priorities that work directly against productivity, flexibility and competitiveness. Giving them MORE power is like asking a child his opinion: it's a cute exercise but when it's time to go to school or do his homework or his chores you really don't much care what he thinks.

Further, if you look at the choices made by organized labor supposedly on behalf of the workers, it often is short sighted and harmful to their well-being in the long term. Remember the thread about losing defined benefit pensions?

So organized labor is good where? In circumstances where workers are exploited and treated badly. Curiously, you rarely see the unions helping the truly abused workers of the world. Guess there's not a lot of money in it.

Jon, I accept that labor leaders act badly sometimes.

When you make remarks that seem to suggest labor reps do not have their hearts in the right place, it is conclusive proof that you have not personally dealt with that portion of the labor community that is on the ground floor. I you had, you would know that it is not so much a vocation as it is a mission. Actually, much more like a religion. I could go on, but I'd be wasting my time.

Your analogy is telling. You characterize the management/labor relationship as similar to a parent/child. I fully reject that pedantic vision and work hard each and every day to get it away from my work sites. It is not productive for either party.

RallyJon · 11-29-2005, 12:53 PM

I admit my perspective is narrow, but isn't everyone's?

It sounds like you work in an industry that has good productive labor relations. In your industry, a union card might actually mean a well trained worker who will get the job done right, on time and for a fair wage.

But, try putting up a trade show booth in Chicago. Ask my friend who was quoted mid four figures for a couple of hours of work by the NJ electricians union, ("And I better not find out youse did the work yourself, if youse know what I mean!")

Everyone I know who has their own business has horror stories.

So if you had to guess, what percentage of unions are focused on maintaining top level skills and the esprit de corps of a skill/trade, vs those soaking employers for as much as possible, all the time?

yellowline · 11-29-2005, 02:07 PM

Supe, if anything, the union boss-union worker relationship is parent-child.

I am part of a union household and I read the monthly journals. What a waste of dues...it's just a way to subsidize union printers. A quarterly report would honestly suffice. The 6-figure bosses have also got to go.

BTW, my dad is proud IBEW, consistently improves himself, with respect to courses, exams, certifications, etc., and has a skill set such that he's working on a job that normally requires an electrical engineering degree. That's what a union's all about, representing the workers so they can have time and motivation to improve themselves while making a fair wage.

I agree with you Supe, the working class needs to be able to organize. It's truly admirable that you seek to help people like my father. But what point is too much? I really see opportunistic businessmen at the top now, feeding a line to the workers to encourage an us-versus-them mafia, guaranteeing high-paying jobs for all.

Superman · 11-30-2005, 10:23 AM

Good comments. Good dialogue. Thank you both for your tolerance of my directness.

Yes, I am blessed with a labor relations job where the labor community is terrific. Seattle is a fairly strong labor town, but we simply do not have the bull**** going on that you have in places like Chicago. I have a colleague in Las Vegas and those guys get along even worse. Again, I am blessed with a terribly cooperative and synergistic labor/management community. Here, if the contractor will partner with Labor, Labor will pave the path to profits with gold bricks.

Still, there is a good deal of misbehavior in the labor movement, and in any other organization. You have probably heard lately that there is a rift between some of the members of the National Building Trades, as well as within the AFL-CIO. Indeed there is. And it boils down to whether the old-hat way of doing things will survive, or whether the younger (union) leadership will come into power with their more innovative ideas. Stay tuned. Those national organizations are turning parallel with the commercial flow, and I am hopeful that after the painful shakeout there will be a more productive direction.

I don't think we disagree on anything really, gentlemen. I see labor/management relations work EXTREMELY well, and I see them work EXTREMELY poorly. Mercifully, in my market that choice is the employer's.