We just voted in a union at my company.. THANK GOD!!!!!!!!

but anyway, back to Verizon and their union, yes if times are bad than I agree 100% that unions and management should talk and agree to consessionary terms. Problem is, they are having record profits, so why should the workers get a cut? Then again, do I agree that because of a union, installers make $85K+ a year? Well, no. That's a $40-50K job at best. BUT, good for them for making that much...!!
So, I do see both sides. There has to be middle ground somewhere.

As far as breaking the union? Very doubtful.. We had flight bag stickers made up that read, "Full pay until the last day".

Trust me, if it came to that, it would have.. The company will lose money until a certain point and then run to the table at the eleventh hour..

Back to work on Tuesday.

Vin,

I do agree with you. But, abuse of the benefits is what bothers me. I ahve seen it first hand.

My niece called around 2:00 to say her husband is back instaling FIOS, thank God.

And I am PRO union, and always have been. But, the unions must also realize the tremendous costs that benefits incur a company.

A Journeyman "A" division Local 1 plumber costs me 110.55 per hour. Of that almost $60 is benefits. We union contractors are becoming less and less competitive with non union companies.

I wish all the Verizon workers good luck.

But with no contract.

The only way guys on a Verizon truck could make 85K is with a lot of time with the company. There can't be that many.

I sure would hate to be carrying a picket sign in todays economy and expect a lot of sympathy from the passers-by.

Picket lines have never been popular with the general population. I think they originated not as a form of protest and campaign, but as a line for other unions to not cross. Supposed to still be that way, but I don't think as effective.

I think you'd be surprised. I know some of the local Verizon installers. They are all in their 50's or 60's and have all been there 30-40 years. They would NEVER leave those jobs because they have it so good. I also notice that they tend to chase off any new hires pretty quickly through hazing/intimidation, especially if they work hard, and that the new hires don't have it near as good as the "old contract" guys.

Unions are a pain in the rear, but they are a necessary evil.

Lets do the math:

Corporation like Verizon- Budget for labor lawyers: $25 million per year.

Average Verizon worker- Budget for labor lawyers: perhaps $1000....

Hello? With those sorts of statistics, places like Verizon could WALK ALL OVER their employees! They could slash wages to Wal-Mart levels and get away with it if not for their union. Instead, the union, with similar financial strength...fights back. Now the employees have a fair wage. And Verizon continues to make MILLIONS of dollars.

-Those of you vehemently against unions might do good to realize that some of those Verizon workers are your clients. They patronize YOUR business only because they have these decent salaries, thus keeping YOU afloat as well.

Unions sometimes protect people who shouldn't be protected, and they are [usually] corrupt, as much a workers guild as a business. But as I said before, without them we ALL suffer. Necessary evil...

N!

I did exactly that last year during the Spirit Airlines strike in Fort Lauderdale. Despite the 90 degree heat. The reaction of passing motorists was unanimous- Thumbs up!

N

????

The average age of the outside techs here are in their 30's and 40's. Service yrs range from 7yrs( last hiring) to senoir guy in my area with 42 yrs. The average service time is probably in the mid 20's. How can anyone chase off a new hire?? In my 27 yrs I have never ever seen any kind of imtimidation or "hazing".

I have been through 4 strikes, and honestly i see the largest public support with this one. Sure there has been negative but nowhere near what the support has been.

[QUOTE=Normy;6209599]I did exactly that last year during the Spirit Airlines strike in Fort Lauderdale. Despite the 90 degree heat. The reaction of passing motorists was unanimous- Thumbs up!

N[/QUOTE

I was on a job in Des Moines last year and we were picketed for using non-union laborers. Our weldors were union and since the pickets could not be on our ROW but had to stand across the road the weldors came in and worked. When it got down in the 20's, they left. We had no real problems with them.

Did you guys ever stop to think what it takes to become a CEO at a big company like a Verizon or Ford or IBM? You don't just need a $200k+ MBA from a top-rated MBA program and perfect grades and the proper management background, you need to realize that even to be CONSIDERED for admission to one of those top tier schools (which in no way guarantees one will ever become a CEO, COO, CFO or fill any other executive slot, it only buys the required piece of paper for eventual consideration) one usually needs a fantastic undergraduate background at a top-tier school too (add another $100k or more just to buy consideration to such a program, if you've got straight A's, great recommendations and uber high GMATs. Maybe you'll get in...)

Oh but it doesn't end there. What does it take to get into an undergraduate program that might possibly eventually merit consideration to a top MBA program? Well, either your last name is Bush or your dad is a million-dollar benefactor, or you have to be a valedictorian from an elite high school program (add another few tens of thousands of dollars). And that's just to be CONSIDERED for admission to a Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc... No guarantees. Those schools turn away valedictorians every day in favor of people with political connections or who meet "diversity" quotas or whatever other criterion is in vogue that week...

But it doesn't end there. Want to get into one of those hoity-toity boarding schools? Better go to a comparable elementary school. Those can get spendy too. Add a few more tens of thousands for a proper background if you want to get into Philips Exeter or a comparable suitable secondary program. Maybe. If you're lucky and good.

But it doesn't end there either. Generally speaking the upper crust elementary schools select based on (among other things) parental backgrounds, income and what PRESCHOOL program a kid goes to. And don't think THOSE are inexpensive either!

Point is, all told to buy a real shot at MAYBE getting selected for an executive job requires a HUGE investment - and it presupposes great performance, grades, references, track record, etc.

Also consider how long the average CEO lasts at the top. Not long, usually. If you're good you might be there for 10 years. Runs of 3-5 years are not uncommon either. And what can a former CEO of a big company do once they're shown the door? Not a heck of a lot. Maybe some seminars or speaking tours or teaching gigs, but nothing even remotely approaching the income level needed to sustain an executive (or former executive) way of life - even greatly scaled back.

So though it's popular to bash CEO compensation and "golden parachutes", consider the investment required by these top level managers in themselves, the years and dollars required, their typically short tenures and the high stress and risk associated with getting to (and being in) that position. I'm not saying that tens of millions of dollars is at all necessary as a payout, but maybe it's reasonable to expect top executives to have SOME incentive to make those sorts of investments and take those kinds of risk. Otherwise companies will simply not get top talent and that's a loss to everyone. A few million earned bucks over the course of a CEO's tenure makes sense as an incentive when viewed in that context... Does $100M make sense? Probably not. $5M-$10M over a 5-year stint including buyout at the end? Probably does.

I dont think anyone begrudges a CEO and his compensation. Especially with a successfull and very profitable company. Just dont take it away from the little guys that actually do the work, and not take a cut yourself if you claim things are so bad.
Sure it takes work and $$ to become a big-wig, although I have way more respct for someone that worked his way up through the ranks, than someone who bought the parchment hanging on his wall. The last CEO, Ivan Siedenberg started at the lowest job in the Co. Of course he got his needed degrees, but he still walked the walk.

My buddy went back to work today - nothing settled.........Verizon says "go back to Mon and we will continue to honor the existing contract" - Now what? My friend says no question that they want to eliminate the union/workers - but they have no plan in place to substitute 45,000 line/worker bee's

He states furether that Verizon management seemed to under estimate the extent and amount of work those guys do, that upper managers and engineers were trying to fill in with 12 hour days - 6 days a week - at the end of the 2 weeks Verizon was losing it's *ss to Comcast

I don't begrudge anyone's compensation, especially when I'm not the one paying for it. But the CEO isn't the one who's refusing to show up for work and sabotaging the network and equipment. And his comp plan is based on profitibility and stock price. I just don't get the mentality of someone who refuses to show up for work and then expects anything other than to get fired. I've never had a job where I could refuse to work, let alone try to damage the company, and then expect to get rewarded for it. When I know I'm worth more money than I'm earning, I've been able to find a job that offered me more. At that point my employer either matches it or wishes me luck. The thought of refusing to work and expecting to get a raise for such behavior is totally alien to most Americans, which is why picketers get so little sympathy.

Thank you for your response.
This surprises me, and quite frankly I don't like it. If I were ever in a position to vote against something like this I would. My logic is, that if I were to open a business it should be up to me to decide who I hire, and whether I want to negotiate with a union or not. You don't like working for me? Go work somewhere else. From what you say apparently that's not legal, but that sounds like too much govt control/involvment for my tastes.

Regarding the above, a guy I know works as an electrician for his dad's company. They have maybe four permanent employees and when they get a big job they call the union up and can get 30 workers. Without knowing them, they can trust that they have a certian degree of competancy through their union training. I can see the benefit here, when it comes to training and knowing they aren't going to screw up and burn my house down.

I tend to think the above, and this is why: I pay more than that, but they're throwing a fit. When I hear thousands of people are whining and talking about striking because they don't want to pay a few bucks for their own health care, I want to b**** slap them. They're working a job that literally anybody could do, and getting wages and benefits beyond what that job merits. But they feel entitled. I sit next to a guy who worked in a grocery store for ten years and he's always talking about how employers owe the workers all sorts of stuff just because they want it. How dare the owners who fronted the money get rich from their investment? This same guy thinks he's unjustly been passed up for promotions several times, but what he doesn't understand is that the people they promote over him work harder and produce better results. He thinks he should get promoted because he's been here longer than them. That's the union mentallity, and it's a hinderance to good business. I'm not saying there's zero use for unions, but I think that describes the vast majority of their influence in this day and age. If you're being chained in a flammable warehouse at your job, maybe you should unionize. Otherwise, just stop whining.

Your argument is so specious I want to puke. You (and the rest of your union goon friends) keep equating workers with unions. The vast majority of actual workers in this country do not belong to a union, do not want to join a union and many union members wish they could opt out of their union- but sadly don't have that simple choice in a number of states. Union members are in no way responsible for the health of the middle class and make up only a tiny fraction of that class.

Union membership has been declining for many years for very good reasons- good management means happy workers and the vast majority of business owners know this. Unions have ruined education in this country, they are in large part responsible for two out of three of our major automakers demise, and they have driven countless other businesses out of business or off shore.

The only place they are increasing their numbers is government- because they strike the faustian bargain of electing representatives (by and large Democratic) who support their extravagent demands. But cities, towns and states all across the country are broke, the public is waking up and union power is on the wane.

Thank goodness. Break 'em all I say. On Wisconsin. This Winter, at least in that state, we'll see how many union members actually pay their dues once the unions have to go directly to their members to collect.

Head416, thank you for your well-considered and respectful observations. Yes, as we move into a more international marketplace to compete against foreign companies whose labor costs are miniscule compared to ours, American companies are increasingly hard pressed to control costs. America is, as a point of fact, affluent. Our incomes are out of line with those of many foreign companies. And the handwriting is somewhat on the wall. I personally hope we can maintain much of our lifestyles despite this international wage equilibrium pressure. If we were to attempt to protect our international competitiveness entirely through wage concessions, we would be electing to trash our American lifestyles and affluence. Our labor costs can be equivalent to those of Mexico. If America wants Mexican-level incomes.

Yes, I accept that unions will need to flex a bit on issues like benefit costs. Politically, this is tough for them. The union local Business Manager in place during substantial concessions.......can expect to be defeated at his or her next election. Almost certainly. By a challenger who promises to win back those concessions. Regardless of the emptiness of that promise. And so.....concessions are not made willy-nilly.

Significantly, we are not alone. Germany, one of the very most unionized countries on the planet (virtually every workers in Germany is covered under a collectively bargained labor agreement.....unions sit on German corporate boards) is hardly on the ropes. Those workers have excellent wages, benefits and other provisions.

I digress. The thing I really want to say here, in response to your well-articulated perceptions, is that the principle of limiting management's ability to decline unionization, determines whether or not workers do......or do not...... have a right to collectively bargain. Yes, it would be nice if management could decide whether or not to tolerate a union. But the view from the balcony is that if this were up to management, workers' right to collectively bargain were be subject to management veto. Workers would not have this right. Management prefers to bargain with workers individually. The single underlying theory behind legislation like the National Labor Relations Act is that workers who must bargain individually will have essentially no clout. Management will be holding all the cards. When workers are permitted to bargain collectively, their collective clout begins to approach that of management. It becomes a fair fight.

Supe your whole attitude is so 1930 it's unbelievable. In today's world management works with their employees to ensure that everyone is happy. Your use of the word "workers" says it all- and the attempt to make it synonmyous with union members is pathetic. Management doesn't decline unions- employees in more and more states have the right to choose whether to organize or not. And when given a choice, employees have overwhelmingly told unions to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Of course, these days, in certain professions, say if you want to become a teacher, dockworker or a pilot or whatever, you still have no alternative but to join a union- that's your idea of choice and freedom. You get to bargain with the union individually- which is to say you do what they tell you or you don't work- and that's your idea of a fair fight.

Your money is taken from you by the employer and given directly to a union. You can't stop that. You have no say in how the union spends it and what they spend it for. And that's a fair fight in your eyes.

You even think the unions should be able to tell an employer where they can or can't build a factory because in your eyes- people who are union members are more important than people who want jobs in another state. That's a fair fight too, isn't it?

As for German unions you might note German companies are building a lot more things here- in right to work states and in other countries. And the employees at those factories, like those at nearly every factory in a right to work state, have, as noted above, overwhelmingly rejected unions- despite their repeated attempts to organize.

Wonder why that is....

.....it wouldn't be because they have a choice, would it? Naw. You've never even stopped to ask why a german company would prefer giving jobs to Americans (and to citizens of other countries) instead of providing them to Germans, have you?

It's a global economy- and you and your unions still act as if it's 1930. No wonder union membership is evaporating.