Another Union Thread
 

I had an interesting conversation over Thanksgiving. I spoke to a WWII vet (distant semi-relative--will probably never see him again) who had a union, factory job after the war until his retirement 20 years ago.

Like many people, he finds the dissolving of the U.S. industrial base disturbing. The cause, according to him, is student loans.

He feels that up until the advent of student loans, only the absolute best and brightest could get into college. In his words: "The "A" students went to college, the "B" and "C" students went to the factories, and the "D" and "F" students went to prison."

The factories were getting an intelligent and capable workforce.

After the federal student loans became widespread, the "A", "B", and "C" students went to college, and the "D" and "F" students went to work at the factories. He feels that quality and work ethic both dropped because the quality of workers in factories, and unions dropped.

I thought I'd share.

Interesting observation. He may have a point.

All of our union labor is currently on strike. Fun driving through picket lines every day. I saw one of them working at Target yesterday. I don't have alot of sympathy for them...

Mike

Not sure how much this is a union issue, rather an education issue.

I agree that a "college education" --for most people--is a symbol rather than actual preparation for life in the real world. As a society I think we put too much weight on credentials and not enough on actual learning.

It's foolish to think that you can take a lackadaisical 18 year old C student and cram him into four years at East Upper Middle of Nowehere College and somehow produce a productive member of society. Put those B and C students to work for two years at least, then offer them a range of training and education options that suit their needs. Just because there's less old-school manufacturing doesn't mean that a focused, vocational education is not appropriate for many people.

Interesting. I agree that Universities are just degree factories now, it's not a distinction to have a university degree.

Of my group of friends, those who went into the trades after high school are generally much more successful than those with university degrees. They also seem much happier, probably because most of them work independantly.

It's funny though, where I work most people would sneer at plumbers & electricians. My friends that are plumbers & electricians easily make more than them (and me), have more vacation and enjoy their work A LOT more.

Re: Another Union Thread
 

Interesting theory, but it relies heavily on the assumption that uneducated people are lazy and would otherwise end up in jail.

The result of getting Ds and Fs is that you are uneducated. The cause of getting Ds and Fs is that you are lazy.

Don't you know anyone who struggled through school, but is hard working & dedicated?

I have one friend in particular who is as dumb as a sack of stones, but the guy has never, ever been without work because he is reliable, sincere and very hard working. He BARELY made it through high school, and the fact that he did graduate (with a D average) was a great source of pride for him.

Or just dumb. Dumb does not always equate to lazy.

For example, I failed calculus. Twice. Not because I'm lazy per se, but because I really suck at math. Actually, I'd have to improve to suck. The father of the girl I was living with taught one of the classes I took, I spent a couple nights a week getting tutored, and I still failed.

I have to go but I'll check back on you guys. I'm not so sure unions or student loans are the cause, but everyone knows that our movement away from a manufacturing economy toward a "service" economy is a loser's strategy.

I disagree with the original argument.

The cost of doing business is too high here. In addition to tax laws, we have environmental obligations, and people live longer. Pensions and health care adds up. 50 years ago, a company paid health care and pension for perhaps 10-15 years. Life expectancy and the price of healthcare has gone up. The retirement age hasn't moved with life expectancies.

The automakers are a prime example. How can you justify running underproducing factories, all the while subsidizing workers with $27/hour, full health care and a pension? It's a great wage, perhaps in line with factory workers in the postwar years. But the companies need the money to do it, and with the consumer haggling and complaining over every little price increase, the money isn't coming in. This is from the CEOs eyes. I don't support moving our industry overseas, from national security and economic standpoints.

When you have a viable alternative to all this (China), companies are going to move there. We all know this. I'm not pretending to give a lecture, just reiterating something from my admittedly limited viewpoint. It's sad but true.

As far as "A" students, I don't think it's a prerequisite for college. I've spoken in private with well-respected members of the board who I look up to. They classified themselves as average students. Whether "average" is in comparison to Mensa candidates, I don't know, but I've seen it comes down to work ethic, not just natural ability.

Yes. He ended up going to trade school. He's a plumber and doing very well.

My point is that it makes no sense to keep a guy like that in the classroom. He was a distracted, lazy student, skipping class and getting those poor grades. When he found his niche (actually, his observant father found it for him) he did very well.

I think we're almost seeing eye to eye. While I'm sure there are people who get crappy grades because of lazyness (like your friend) there are others who just aren't cut out for academics. That friend of mine I was talking about earlier worked a lot harder for his D than I did for my B.

I find that the modern day union is nothing more than a means for people to live the give-me lifestyle. When unions were formed it was the only way to recieve a fair wage and to increase safty in the work force. Todays unions are nothing more than a way to make products overpriced.
The person who works for GM installing lugnuts makes 60-80k a year with benifits. I'm sorry but I concider this to be unskilled entry level labor. And the price of the vehicles reflects the waste of money going into unskilled workers.
The Food lion stores in my neck of the woods will only hire union baggers and clerks, Once again IMO unskilled entry level positions for highschool kids.
I work as a wrench and when I started I made less money than I did when I worked as a plumber. I took the hit and looked at the big picture now many years later I make more money than alot of my friends who went to college (I dropped out for finacial reasons).
I do get alot of people who look down thier nose at me because I "work on cars" but guess what most of those people need me more than I need them. I guess what I'm trying to get at is you have to put in the time and look at the end game. Unions and useless degrees are just a way to shortcut the big picture. In the end it all comes out in the wash.
End rant

Rich "C" student goes to Ivy League school and becomes President, film at 11.

I've butchered Yellowline's quote a little just wanted to capture the essence. I would point out that these obscene, ridiculous, unwarranted, extortion wages and benefits that unions have gone to bat to preserve.......are in fact NOT equivalent to postwar earnings. In those days, a breadwinner could raise a family of children with the help of his stay-at-home wife, they could take vacations and have two cars. The kids could be in sports and whatever activities. Television sets and kitchen gadgets galore. They might even send kids off to college. The entire middle class was set up this way.

Who, besides consulting actuaries, can afford this today?

Now try and tell me that unions have destroyed America by raising wages? Hogwash!

So, Superman, wages should be set to guarantee a certain OUTCOME? That a union is justified in pumping up wages to maintain some sort of outdated Beaver Cleaver standard of living?
Precisely! All workers are affected--why should union members be exempt?

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

But--as always with union discussions--this is all semantics and theory. The corruption throughout the unions twists the present manifestation of any possible good that they did in the past.

Ah bullcrap...when union wages go up....so do non-represented wages....

The problem, IMHO, is that our society has somehow devalued the trade occupations. I will tell you right now that I personally have more respect for a guy who can take apart a car (especially a Porsche) and put it back together again than I do for a mid-level executive who pushes paper all day.

Germany has it right, their students take a mandatory aptitude test after their primary schooling (somewhere equivalent to 9th grade I think). Based on that test they either go to Gymnasium (high school and college all rolled up) or to a trade school based on their aptitudes and interests.

We need to recognize and support our trade professions and allow those students who show talent in these areas to explore those options instead of trying to funnel everyone into a 4 year college program.

When union wages go up the only other wages that increase are the people aligned with them. When the trash, auto, food lion baggers get an increase that doesn't do a thing for me except to make my buck worth less. The more money floating around the less it is worth. My wife and I have busted our humps to get where we are today and it just burns my shorts to see people getting a better deal with out putting in the time and recorses to do it themselves! Sink or swim, the thinning of the herd,etc. If it isn't earned it shouldn't be handed out unless it is accross the board. If the unions were in the business of helping it's members, truly, the people n charge would hold the posts for free.
JMO I hate having to suport handouts.

Never was my argument. I mentioned that with tax burdens, the EPA, OSHA, and other bodies which companies need to comply with (and all the extra $ involved). Then I asked how companies can afford union wages on top of that. The union wages, while in themselves not necessarily bad, are the straw that breaks the camel's back and drives companies to manufacture elsewhere. That was my point.


Though I'm not a child of the 50's, I'm willing to try and examine this more closely. First, what kinds of cars did most people have? Maybe Pontiacs or Oldsmobiles or Mercuries, right? No middle-class people tried to buy a Cadillac right off the bat...it was something to work for. Why do some buy BMWs and Hummers at a relatively young age today?

Next, where did people vacation? They didn't take expensive trips to resorts, I don't think. I have the picture that the car was loaded up and driven somewhere, with everyone staying at motels along the way.

I'd think there were fewer gadgets then than there are now. We have Xboxes, computers, cell phones, and all the monthly bills that go with them. TV was free then, and my parents tell me a TV set wasn't disposable.

Look at all our monthly bills and services. Cell phone, OnStar, caller ID, cable Internet, etc. The 50s never had that. They had basic land phone, possibly a water bill, electricity, heat, mortgage, and maybe car payments. With fewer services chipping away at monthly income, they do look wealthier. I bet a lot of people could replicate that financial standing that came with the 50s...if we gave up $50 a month cable and $1500/month mortgages on McMansions.

I'd really like to see an average income of today and of 50 years ago broken down. Without all the extra toys and associated debt, I'd bet we actually have the potential to duplicate the 50s, for the most part.

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. ;)

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

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... :rolleyes:

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.