Fire 'Em All

[Superman]

http://economics.csusb.edu/faculty/nilsson/personal/Professional/Nonnested.pdf

Here is an academic paper (economics) discussing union decertification and providing data. A graph in this paper shows the striking rise in union decertifications since about 1970. According to this paper, less than four union certifications occur for every decertification, over the past few years. I found whole how-to books on decertifying unions. Apparently it is a growth industry.

[cashflyer]

Supe's right about the decertification being possible, but I don't see it in the aviation industry.

And I don't know about this kinder version of the NLRB that is mentioned. The aviation industry seems to be getting slapped around with ULP threats and actions all the time.

What people seem to not realize is that you can't keep putting an employer on the losing end of the battle and keep tying their hands at every turn with regulations. There is only so much burden a camel can bear before you kill it under the load.


The good news today is this:

State Justice Theodore Jones leveled a $1 million-a-day fine against the Transport Workers Union for violating a state law that bars public employees from going on strike. The heavy penalty could force the union off the picket lines and back on the job. Under the law, the union's 33,000 members will also lose two days pay for every day they are on strike, and they could also be thrown in jail.

Pretty light handed, IMO, since they estimate this is costing the NY economy around $400 mill / day.


Edited because of Supe's academic paper.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Unions in our current day are one of many things that look good on paper, and horribly in execution. What benefit is a union to it's members when their employer collapses under the weight of their demands? Then they have NO job, somehow I think a pay cut would be preferable. I have trouble finding sympathy for these people, when they make on average more than my wife who has a college degree.

[CamB]

What's with Transit workers and such high pay (there were big strikes in the UK too, and they were paid heaps)?

Totally opposite side of the coin... here in NZ, the bus drivers striked over something like a 5% pay rise (they were offered 3%). Public support was very high - they are very poorly paid given the bad working conditions (basically a combined 6-8 hours of stressful work at low wages at either end of the day and - for most of them - four hours sitting around waiting in the middle of the day at about 1/2 low wages).

Looking at the NY workers, I don't agree with "fire 'em all", mostly because it wouldn't work. I also don't think they need or deserve what they're asking for...

[lendaddy]

Transit workers are highly paid for the same reason longshoremen are overpaid......leverage, in the current system they have the city by the nuts and they exploit it.

[Rick V]

Once again the union has proven what I have been screeming for years. There is no place for this type of narrowminded thinking. Unions DON"T work anymore and are responsible for nothing more that the contuing degragation of our economy. I am suposed to talk my kids into going to college and get an education and here come these slobs telling them they can make all this money just by joining! Someone bring the rope I'll bring the tree. I plan to retire at 50 and am on track to do that No union help here just hard work. These clowns tick me off, Wanting it all without the work.

[RSlater]

Originally posted by cashflyer


What people seem to not realize is that you can't keep putting an employer on the losing end of the battle and keep tying their hands at every turn with regulations.

Sure you can look at Boeing. They just keep off loading the work to other companies/countries.
Now all Boeing does is assembles parts.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Funny story Ross, related to your comment about Boeing. When Boeing sold their Wichita plant to Canadian investment firm ONEX, they had to re-negotiate the contracts with all the Boeing labor unions. The machinist's union, which I believe is the largest one, was offered a contract in which they take a 3% initial pay cut, but earn it back within five years, with most benefits staying the same. However, part of the package was a minimum pay of $25 an hour. Minimum! The union of course rejected this offer, because they don't do anything if there's not a raise involved. So, ONEX fired everybody. They then sent out a smaller amount of job offers, with set take it or leave it terms. So, thanks to the union's greed, far more people lost their jobs than would have otherwise. Needless to say, when the union in the Boeing plant in Oklahoma was offered the same deal, they accepted it.

I have trouble feeling pity for machine operators that are being paid a minimum of $25 an hour. In the real world you are offered a wage for a job, and you either take it or find another job. It's like supply and demand, and it works.

[RSlater]

Its not just machine operators making a min of $25.00, say can you push a broom or clean a toilet.

[Drago]

Originally posted by RSlater
Its not just machine operators making a min of $25.00, say can you push a broom or clean a toilet.

I get paid a little more than that to surf here all day.

Kidding. I don't make that much.

[Aurel]

Hehe, the New-Yorkers got a little taste of french life...I tend to agree with the firem`all doctrine. If they get away with that, you can be assured that every year for X-mas there will be a new strike, and they will ask for more every time. The beauty of the US is that workers can`t get away with that schit yet...That`s a good thing. If one wants a better paying job, there are plenty of opportunities, precisely because one can get fired as easy as hired. When jobs become protected (and not only based on performance), gettting into those jobs become very difficult. You don`t want that, beleive me...

Aurel

[VINMAN]

One of the things that bugged me most when I was a Union Steward, was having to defend a guy that deep down in my heart I knew really deserved to be fired.

[jyl]

Originally posted by Superman
So, the wages, benefits and conditions for the bulk of American working men and women is circling the drain, and unions should just get out of the way and let them get flushed?

The union's job is to fight to get their members the best deal possible. However, sometimes its smarter to end the fight and make the deal, because the alternative is losing. An illegal strike, right before Christmas, that's not supported by the parent union, terrible public relations - doesn't seem too promising.

Also, the best deal should mean the best deal for all the members in the long run. The union might force the city into paying them more in the short run, but that might make the city even more determined to automate away jobs in the long run. And what's with the two-tier contracts, where existing union members bargain away the pay and benefits of those hired after them?

[Superman]

A reasoned response. Balanced.

The union may run out of steam (support). In which case they'll have their answer.

There is some downward, or restrictive pressure on wages and benefits these days. In my industry, the cost of benefits is the killer. Wages have been fairly constant for 10-15 years. A little growth but nothing flashy. Benefits have eaten earnings. Medical insurance particularly. Smart unions work with that. But it's a political killer. If you tell your membership that their raises are nonexistent for the last couple of years because of the rising cost of health care....your opponent will crucify you at the next election.

And yeah, I believe two-tier systems suck. And modifying retirees' packages.

[Superman]

Originally posted by VINMAN
One of the things that bugged me most when I was a Union Steward, was having to defend a guy that deep down in my heart I knew really deserved to be fired.

In my world, this gets worked out. It's hard for me to accept the stories I read here because the labor representatives in my arena just sit down with management and figure it out. It's more up to management than labor. Maybe it's partly the facilitated discussion we have (I'm the consultant, remember?), but the parties always come to resolution. Sometimes very quickly. Workers sometimes file, shall we say, unsupported grievances. Heck, we're considering banning cell phones because of the pictures they can take. Think about that for a moment.

So yeah, I continue to think that unions give management at least someone they can strike a deal with. And if both parties bargain in good faith, that's the best way to get these matters (wages, benefits, working conditions) decided.

[Superman]

Good night.

[VINMAN]

Unions are still a necessary evil. Sure,some demands are ridiculous, but that works on both sides. Without unions, companies would run rampant over their workers. Believe me, I have no sympathy for these Transit workers. They have one of the best paying jobs in NYC. With the best benefits you can get.
Like i said in a previous post , my father worked for them for 26 yrs and I have many friends that work for them too,so i know the deal. Ive been a member of 4 different unions, and recently a steward in my present local. What they are doing is bull***** and illegal. Id have no problem locking them out.

[onewhippedpuppy]

What I don't understand is the entire "companies running rampant" thing. I worked construction for 6 years before going back to college, and I was never part of any union. I always worked for about the going rate for my skills and experience, and when I felt a company wasn't treating me fairly I would find another job. Simple. There will always be competition for skilled, quality employees, no matter what the field, which helps keep wages high. You don't like your job, find another, but this union walkout stuff is BS. Of course, we all know why the transit workers don't look elsewhere, their wages are so inflated they know that they would be lucky to make half as much elsewhere.

[red-beard]

The issue here is not whether unions are good, bad or otherwise. These are people covered by a law to protect the public safety. They are allowed to unionizes. They are allowed to collectively bargain. They are not allowed to strike and endanger the public. These are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. They are fighting the STATE OF NEW YORK. Not exactly your regular fight.

They already make more than the average wage in NYC and they want a 30% raise over 3 years. They want retirement benefits equal to police and firefighters (retire after 25, if you survive!). They do not want to contribute to their health care. I personally think the demands are not reasonable.

Now, the strike violates the law. The Union is being fined (and not enough in my opinion) because it encouraged the strike. This is similar to the air traffic controller strike and I believe the best thing to do is to give the strikers an ultimatum. Return to work TODAY or we will consider it a resignation.

Why isn't this clear to Everyone?

[Rick Lee]

I'm waiting to see Eliot Spitzer (NY Atty. Gen.) get into this. He's a megalomaniac and rivals Chuck Schumer when it comes to running to get in front of tv cameras. He's running hard for governor of NY and I can't wait to see him twist with this one.