Unions are BAD! Because Our Employers Say So!

[sparkey600]

Help us bring back Union work and workers  and you will see collective bargaining bring back the middle class fast!. 1000 workers negotiating for a decent wage versus one person at a time? No brainer here just saying. Our Union negotiated a 3 dollar wage increase for our members starting June 1 plus 7 dollars an hour towards retirement not paid by workers but by their employers. Full health benefits too. I've been in the Union for over 30 years and as it stand now, I'll retire earning more money than I make TODAY. Trust me on this, no NON UNION EMPLOYER WANTS YOU TO KNOW THIS!!!!! Why? Because it eats away at their bottom line and lets them pay millions of dollars to their top 2% of management. My advice to everyone is to try to Unionize, let the rep's negotiate a better future for you and your family's. If not, it's you ALONE against your boss. Let me know how that goes. 

[Admiral C]

A noble idea, but one which cannot succeed. Mega-Corporations owned and run by the tiny number of Uber Billionaires will not permit it in their holdings and have unlimited power and wealth to stop it. Medium and smaller business are dying daily, unable to compete against "the giants". Unionizing them would just hasten their demise. The core root? With a global population of 7.8 billion, in order to feed, clothe, house (etc.) everyone, one of two things MUST happen. 1) The Billionaires must share their massive wealth, or 2) Everyone EXCEPT them must share and share alike, essentially eliminating the middle class by merging it with the poor to make all subsistence working poor. Seeing how it is the Billionaires who are making that choice, that's why # 2) is happening.....and make no mistake...it is happening BY DESIGN.

[Bit Banger]

You missed a few beats, Admiral.

3) That high paid union job will be shipped overseas, to the detriment of the US economy, product quality, and delivery times.

4) A $3 pay increase typically implies a $6 hit to the bottom line.  Much of that will show up as higher prices. Which decreases the buying power of that $3.

5) With the worker bees getting a pay raise, management can justify a similar increase.

There was a time when unions were needed to maintain fair and safe working conditions.  But unions convinced the government to take over those functions (OSHA, NLRB, etc.) and did themselves out of a job.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Bit Banger

[gr8owl]

10 hours ago, sparkey600 said:

Help us bring back Union work and workers  and you will see collective bargaining bring back the middle class fast!. 1000 workers negotiating for a decent wage versus one person at a time? No brainer here just saying. Our Union negotiated a 3 dollar wage increase for our members starting June 1 plus 7 dollars an hour towards retirement not paid by workers but by their employers. Full health benefits too. I've been in the Union for over 30 years and as it stand now, I'll retire earning more money than I make TODAY. Trust me on this, no NON UNION EMPLOYER WANTS YOU TO KNOW THIS!!!!! Why? Because it eats away at their bottom line and lets them pay millions of dollars to their top 2% of management. My advice to everyone is to try to Unionize, let the rep's negotiate a better future for you and your family's. If not, it's you ALONE against your boss. Let me know how that goes. 

Soooo would you support formation of a providers' union?  Just asking.

[sb1212]

Agree with BB. Unions served their purpose, but time has passed them by.  Union shops = unnecessarily  higher cost for employers = a reduced competitive position in the global marketplace = lost jobs in the US. Self defeating.....  You may not like that your customer service call goes to India or the Phillipines, but there is a reason that it does.  I am all for buying domestically created  products and services, but those companies need to be able to be competitive. 

[gr8owl]

1 hour ago, Bit Banger said:

You missed a few beats, Admiral.

3) That high paid union job will be shipped overseas, to the detriment of the US economy, product quality, and delivery times.

4) A $3 pay increase typically implies a $6 hit to the bottom line.  Much of that will show up as higher prices. Which decreases the buying power of that $3.

5) With the worker bees getting a pay raise, management can justify a similar increase.

There was a time when unions were needed to maintain fair and safe working conditions.  But unions convinced the government to take over those functions (OSHA, NLRB, etc.) and did themselves out of a job. Take a tour through a major meat processing plant as but one glaring example and you will realize this simply isn't so.  The fedeeral protections are because of unions.  If unions go away, so will the protections.

number 4 - how much of a hit do executive salaries in double and triple digit millions have on the bottom line?  Of course you must hold down costs enough to be competitive.  But the current - largely orange party - arguments against minimum wage increases and unions are ludicrously one sided.  We as a society are cranking out a bunch of million/billionaires at the top while expecting the worker bees to work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet.  Things have swung too far out of balance toward the favor what used to be called robber barons.

[Bit Banger]

I have long railed against exorbitant senior management compensation, just not here on TOB. Yes, their packages are out of line, but my lonely shareholder’s vote does little to address the problem.  IMHO they deserve single digit multiples of the shop floor.  Face it, corporate boards are obligated to obtain the best talent they can, and thus get held-up in the bidding wars for that talent.  
This often not the case in small, family held businesses. My dad usually took home less than several of his employees.  In recompense he held an equity stake in the company.

[sb1212]

Let the marketplace determine compensation, not the government (which, by the way, is a primary component of socialism/communism). If a business can find plenty of qualified help at $10/HR, why pay more? If there is a scarsity of skilled labor at $25 per hour then the wage goes up. If a CEO finds a company that will pay him/her 25 million per year, then that is the value.  

 

 

 

[gr8owl]

24 minutes ago, sb1212 said:

Let the marketplace determine compensation, not the government (which, by the way, is a primary component of socialism/communism). If a business can find plenty of qualified help at $10/HR, why pay more? If there is a scarsity of skilled labor at $25 per hour then the wage goes up. If a CEO finds a company that will pay him/her 25 million per year, then that is the value.  

 

 

 

Has nothing to do with socialism or communism - government ownership.  Without some regulation unbridled capitalism leads to the robber baron games of the 1800's featuring sun up to sun down 6 days a week labor for starvation wages and horrific working conditions.  Exactly what led to unions to begin with.

[Admiral C]

1 hour ago, gr8owl said:

Has nothing to do with socialism or communism - government ownership.  Without some regulation unbridled capitalism leads to the robber baron games of the 1800's featuring sun up to sun down 6 days a week labor for starvation wages and horrific working conditions.  Exactly what led to unions to begin with.

...and I dare say, exactly where we are headed back to and on a global scale

[Bit Banger]

5 hours ago, Admiral C said:

...and I dare say, exactly where we are headed back to and on a global scale

Yes.  Let our (US) unions and government regulations price us out of the marketplace.  The US once had the dominant steel and auto industries.  Perhaps the unions should organize the Chinese, Indian, and other 3rd world labor forces to equalize the market.

Talk of robber barons and their monopolies brings Big Tech and public service unions to mind. My problem with Big Tech is their stranglehold and manipulation of social media.  My problem with public service unions is the folks negotiating with them do not have any skin in the game because they promise other people’s money (taxes). 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Bit Banger

[gr8owl]

24 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Yes.  Let our (US) unions and government regulations price us out of the marketplace.  But by all means let the corporate heads do so with their totally ludicrous salaries and bonuses - while paying no fucking taxes while they are at it.  The US once had the dominant steel and auto industries.  Perhaps the unions should organize the Chinese, Indian, and other 3rd world labor forces to equalize the market.

Talk of robber barons and their monopolies brings Big Tech and public service unions to mind. Since they are not remotely the same thing, why?  My problem with Big Tech is their stranglehold and manipulation of social media.  My problem with public service unions is the folks negotiating with them do not have any skin in the game because they promise other people’s money (taxes). Other than law enforcement and fire fighters the vast majority of public service unions cannot negotiate salaries.  Even those two generally have to be by special resolution and/or contract.

blue: and I thought the what about xyz (most often Hillary before, now Hunter) was ludicrous.  Wow.

Yes, USA had leading steel, and auto largely as a result, industries PRECISELY because of one of the biggest robber barons ever.  You do know why they are called robber barons, right?

[ilovewomen]

The year was 1972.  I was 21.  I was a member of Teamsters Local 435 here in Denver.  My dad was the union shop steward where I worked and had been for many years.  I was raised in a union household.

I was making $2.35/hour.  Married to my first wife and trying to figure out how I was ever going to afford a house. barely had 1 week vacation time and terrible medical benefits.

We were negotiating a new union contract.

The employees wanted $0.50/hour raise.

The company offered $0.05/hour.

The employees wanted to strike.  The union said we could not strike and that they were going to accept the $0.05 offer on our behalf and that we should grateful for that....all the while the union was taking $20.00 a month union dues from each and every member.

I quit shortly after that, very disgusted with the union.

Fast forward to 1977.  I am working at Coors Porcelain making $4.95/hour with full medical, dental and vision benefits. 2 weeks vacation after 1 year going up to 8 weeks vacation by the time you hit 20 years with Coors plus 1 week of sick leave of every year, convertible to vacation time if you wanted.  And no union.

The brewery on the other hand had a union.  The average wage was around $8.00/hour with the same benefits.  The brewery union convinced the brewery workers to go on strike for more money.  Mind you that $8.00/hour was amongst the top hourly wages in the Denver area at that time and the benefits were second to none, but they went out on strike.

Within 2 weeks of striking and having the opportunity to look at the Denver job market (wages and benefits), over 50% of the employees returned to the job.  Within 4 weeks, 95% of the employees were back on the job.

For all the union supporters on here I will concede this:

1. Unions were very necessary once upon a time.

2. Unions can help you in disputes with management...even today.

As for me, I feel that unions have outlived their usefulness for the most part....especially in small companies.  If you treat the employees right, pay them a good wage, there won't be a need for unions.

I know there are several people who will disagree with me and that's okay.  We all have our opinions. I respect each and every opinion.  I'm not saying get rid of all the unions. But if employers would pay fair wages, benefits and treat the employees right, there would be less need for a union.

[gr8owl]

5 hours ago, ilovewomen said:

 

As for me, I feel that unions have outlived their usefulness for the most part....especially in small companies.  

. But if employers would pay fair wages, benefits and treat the employees right, there would be less need for a union.

Completely true, but therein lies the rub.  The vast majority of large employers will do no such thing unless forced to by government regulation or union or both.  Even then many try to find every way around it.  Like hiring illegal aliens by the millions because under threat of deportation they won't complain about having their wages shorted or stolen/withheld, much longer work weeks than 40 hours frequently not even minimum wage let alone time and a half, third world worthy living conditions etc.  The instant federal regulation were to be relaxed most large employers would snap back to the 1800's without hesitation.  Perhaps a jaded opinion, but hundreds of years of data support it.  It works like the oft quoted pendulum.  In the early 1900's formation of unions was a matter of life and death - the number of serious injury, disfigurement and death industrial "accidents" was insane.  The old song about the company store was no joke, it was very real.  Then swing the other way and by the 1960's unions were so wide spread and had so much power and influence that wages were high beyond any fair level, working conditions were becoming regulated by the feds and the unions were left to "fight' for ridiculous things - only certain employees allowed to do some jobs, railroads especially required to carry employees on payroll that no longer worked, and plain pain in the ass largely meaningless crap.  Lots of those industries went down in part, only part, due to the costs unions caused and so did the unions without the jobs.  The pendulum has been swinging away from unions for some time with the number and size of unions declining every year.  The democrat party boys have been trying to figure out how to force anyone that contracts with gov or accepts any gov funding would have to be unionized.  Saw it first hand in last job before the bliss of retirement hehe.  The boiler plate proposals and rules to accomplish this are appalling and would significantly increase costs and probably decrease quality.  Bit long winded (who me?) but the bottom line in my opinion we absolutely need to have unions but they should ideally not be nearly as powerful as they once were, and (and this one will cause screaming and gnashing of teeth) they should be banned from endorsing or financing ANY political party or side of any election.  But first kill the PAC's except that is another argument.

[Bit Banger]

3 hours ago, gr8owl said:

..  unions ... should be banned from endorsing or financing ANY political party or side of any election.  But first kill the PAC's except that is another argument.

This gets into 1st Amendment territory. We have to tread lightly.

 I’d say the first step is to equate Union political activity to PACs, then limit PACs to issues instead of candidates.  Based on Citizens United, allow corporations to contribute to PACs as well.  In both cases we need to figure out how to shine a spotlight on ‘dark money’.  Hopefully the days of lobbyists being able to sweeten a politician’s salary are over (GOOD!). Nor should they be able to fill campaign coffers.

[Bit Banger]

3 hours ago, gr8owl said:

...  The democrat party boys have been trying to figure out how to force anyone that contracts with gov or accepts any gov funding would have to be unionized.  Saw it first hand in last job before the bliss of retirement hehe.  The boiler plate proposals and rules to accomplish this are appalling and would significantly increase costs and probably decrease quality.  ...

This started under JFK.
 In the 60s my dad ran a small machine shop, about 25 employees.  In addition to his own manufacturing he did sub-contract work for various local companies making mechanical parts for bleacher and cable(wire rope) industries.  Despite the employees being treated like family he had to unionize in order to bid some of these contracts.

In the 80s Dad & I ran a small (5 employees) CNC job shop.  We had to decide if we would do government work or not.  If we did government work we would need to hire one or two more for inspections and to manage the paperwork required.  These employees would raise our overhead, making us non-competitive in the private marketplace. Choices?

[Alex Majors]

I have only one question to ask about unions. Why don't they own their own companies? They wouldn't have to strike.  I mean there are electical contractors, mechanical contractors, trucking companies, plumbing companies, etc. etc.  A lot of the big ones are union. If  unions owned their own companies, they wouldn't have to force companies to come up with all these raises and benefits.  I always thought the the guys that run the unions should only be paid what the contract union workers get. I am sure if they ran their own companies, the ones at the top would be no better than the other billionaires. 

[sparkey600]

On 6/1/2021 at 8:01 AM, Admiral C said:

A noble idea, but one which cannot succeed. Mega-Corporations owned and run by the tiny number of Uber Billionaires will not permit it in their holdings and have unlimited power and wealth to stop it. Medium and smaller business are dying daily, unable to compete against "the giants". Unionizing them would just hasten their demise. The core root? With a global population of 7.8 billion, in order to feed, clothe, house (etc.) everyone, one of two things MUST happen. 1) The Billionaires must share their massive wealth, or 2) Everyone EXCEPT them must share and share alike, essentially eliminating the middle class by merging it with the poor to make all subsistence working poor. Seeing how it is the Billionaires who are making that choice, that's why # 2) is happening.....and make no mistake...it is happening BY DESIGN.

And how do you think the billionaires might share their massive wealth? By tying up their cheap labor. UNION LABOR NOW.....

Jesus, it's so simple. The billionaires you talk about don't give two shits about their workers unless they have some leverage. 

 

[sparkey600]

On 6/1/2021 at 8:48 AM, Bit Banger said:

You missed a few beats, Admiral.

3) That high paid union job will be shipped overseas, to the detriment of the US economy, product quality, and delivery times.

4) A $3 pay increase typically implies a $6 hit to the bottom line.  Much of that will show up as higher prices. Which decreases the buying power of that $3.

5) With the worker bees getting a pay raise, management can justify a similar increase.

There was a time when unions were needed to maintain fair and safe working conditions.  But unions convinced the government to take over those functions (OSHA, NLRB, etc.) and did themselves out of a job.

I'd disagree with you on the scope of the NRLB, although some members would agree given the current market.

Thanks for your comment!

[sparkey600]

On 6/2/2021 at 7:55 PM, Alex Majors said:

I have only one question to ask about unions. Why don't they own their own companies? They wouldn't have to strike.  I mean there are electical contractors, mechanical contractors, trucking companies, plumbing companies, etc. etc.  A lot of the big ones are union. If  unions owned their own companies, they wouldn't have to force companies to come up with all these raises and benefits.  I always thought the the guys that run the unions should only be paid what the contract union workers get. I am sure if they ran their own companies, the ones at the top would be no better than the other billionaires. 

My local hasn't had to "strike" for over 20 years and when we did go on strike it was very divided. A strike is a very sensitive thing in most cases. The Union wants their members to keep working first and foremost, but not at the risk of the employer to pay less wages than was negotiated during the wage and benefit package negotiations. It RARELY happens. I've had to strike once in 30 years. All the other years it's been smooth sailing. 

Bottom line you have a competent negotiator in your corner not just "you and the boss"

[sparkey600]

On 6/1/2021 at 10:18 AM, gr8owl said:

Soooo would you support formation of a providers' union?  Just asking.

100%

Why would you ask this?

Do you think providers all should charge different prices for the same service?

Tips is the obvious answer to this! 

 

 

[sparkey600]

On 6/1/2021 at 2:04 PM, sb1212 said:

Let the marketplace determine compensation, not the government (which, by the way, is a primary component of socialism/communism). If a business can find plenty of qualified help at $10/HR, why pay more? If there is a scarsity of skilled labor at $25 per hour then the wage goes up. If a CEO finds a company that will pay him/her 25 million per year, then that is the value.  

 

 

 

Unions have little to do with government. Although they do contribute to the Democrat Party. 

Just saying...They negotiate their member's wages. They look out for working class people in all class of life so that they don't have to ask "Brig Brother" for a raise.

How is this bad for a regular worker? Oh.......Your employer tells you it's bad and you BELIVE HIM! Please, go on and take the 50 cent an hour your current employer offers you as rent goes up 40% per year. I'm sure you will be doing well. Blesses to you and your family. I wish for you to be doing MUCH better.....

  

[ilovewomen]

8 hours ago, sparkey600 said:

Just saying...They negotiate their member's wages. They look out for working class people in all class of life so that they don't have to ask "Brig Brother" for a raise.

 

  

I'm glad the union is looking out for you.  That is what unions are supposed to do.

[Admiral C]

11 hours ago, sparkey600 said:

And how do you think the billionaires might share their massive wealth? By tying up their cheap labor. UNION LABOR NOW.....

Jesus, it's so simple. The billionaires you talk about don't give two shits about their workers unless they have some leverage. 

 

I think maybe you misunderstood my meaning. Those billionaires don't give two shits about ANYBODY except themselves and their fellow billionaires. Nothing would make them happier than if 90% of the world population dropped dead this second. My point was, that they now have so much money, so much power, all the politicians, and simply will not allow anything to happen that they don't want. Especially more Unions.

[BadBoy]

7 hours ago, Admiral C said:

I think maybe you misunderstood my meaning. Those billionaires don't give two shits about ANYBODY except themselves and their fellow billionaires. Nothing would make them happier than if 90% of the world population dropped dead this second.

I think you might be wrong on this - they need the 90% as consumers, wealth producers (for them), and most of all - cannon fodder.

[sparkey600]

I get what you are saying and I agree with you. Big American companies hate Unions. Union workers cost more, demand better benefits and better working conditions as they should, because they are protected by a labor Union. 

The only way us wretches can stand up for ourselves is by belonging to a union, employers could give a shit about us our families.

All I'm saying is this, If you have a vote or a chance to join a union, take it, you won't be sorry. You'll get better health care, better wages, and no one demanding you have to work overtime no matter what your kids might need.  

"They don't want more Unions" I couldn't agree with you more. Point is do "we" want more Unions to level the playing field with those fat heartless bastards more? 

[sparkey600]

17 hours ago, ilovewomen said:

I'm glad the union is looking out for you.  That is what unions are supposed to do.

And they do a good job indeed!

just got a nice raise on my salary and my pension too!

[sparkey600]

On 6/2/2021 at 7:55 PM, Alex Majors said:

I have only one question to ask about unions. Why don't they own their own companies? They wouldn't have to strike.  I mean there are electical contractors, mechanical contractors, trucking companies, plumbing companies, etc. etc.  A lot of the big ones are union. If  unions owned their own companies, they wouldn't have to force companies to come up with all these raises and benefits.  I always thought the the guys that run the unions should only be paid what the contract union workers get. I am sure if they ran their own companies, the ones at the top would be no better than the other billionaires. 

Um, because Unions represent the workers of all the companies you listed here. They represent the WORKERS of companies and negotiate their wage and health benefits, vacation time and the such. Unions are there to make sure that the employers you listed are treating their workers in a fair and right manner as they both agree upon. Unions negotiated what's called an "Agreement" which lists all of the hourly wages, all of the retirement and health benefits that all of the member's get....It is signed by all of the agreeing  parties (workers and employers) An Agreement, is as usual,  is negotiated for 3 years, that's 3 years of raises for Union members and their families.   Unlike Non Union employers that have no "rules" and do what they like. As for your "strike" comment...Unions and their affiliates agree to the terms of what's called an "agreement" and in it it lists all of the the things the Union and the Employer "agrees" to abide  to...If the Employer decides to cut wages or benefits outside of "said" employment agreement, that's where the "strike" might start, but ONLYY with the majority of the Union members at the "strike meeting"

In my experience, it has been few and far between, usually, a strike vote  equals better pay.

I've in my 35+ years in the Union have NEVER had to strike , it's just another scare tactic employers like to stick it to their employees. 

Hope this helps, have a good evening...

[sparkey600]

On 6/1/2021 at 10:18 AM, gr8owl said:

Soooo would you support formation of a providers' union?  Just asking.

Nice trap.

I will answer "Hell YES!" 

Providers need representation like the rest of us wretches.  If the form a labor Union I'll pay their negotiated rate. I hope the do! It'd make a lot of things easier actually!

[Bit Banger]

5 hours ago, sparkey600 said:

... Unions negotiated what's called an "Agreement" which lists all of the hourly wages, all of the retirement and health benefits that all of the member's get....It is signed by all of the agreeing  parties (workers and employers) ...

And therein is one of my major points against unions.  “One size fits all” with no room for merit.  If you’re running machine A and have been on the job X years, you get paid $N, regardless of where you are in the production (widgets/hr) curve.

There is also the problem of seniority gets the new machine.  The guy who had been standing at the turret or engine lathe for 20 years often had trouble adapting to a new CNC machine, while the new hire did fine. (It took years for unions to reclassify CNC machines.)

Edited June 5, 2021 by Bit Banger