question on unions
- Thread starter sadiehawkins
- Start date
The legal department is worse.
No. Not even close. Nothing is close to HR in terms of being not only dead, but counterproductive, weight.
They wanna make sure you ain't being used by the man! They wanna make sure you have a liveable wage to work for....They know what you as an employee are worth to your employer (your employer understands this and looks at this as unnecessary information for the employee), and will see that you get paid what you are worth.
To this day I can't stand them. Leave a bad taste in my mouth. I do like them on Cheesesteaks though. Ooh...and soup. French...with the cheese on top.
Wait...what?
Wait...what?
In my time in a union, I was never promised anything. I was informed as to what the union was negotiating for, and had an opportunity to voice my opinion on what should be targeted. The concept that the union wouldn't be able to achieve everything they asked for wasn't lost on the labor force.
Lol, Florida pay is a fvcking joke. Very little union presence down here and it shows in pay scale. I would have taken over $5 an hour loss compared to what I was making in Iowa when I moved down here had I stayed in the union. Non union? Even worse. You’re a fvcking idiot.
Yeah, I was referring to actual Union campaigns, not so much to Unions themselves. Organizers are pretty skilled at making promises of what they might do.
Show me a non-union job that pays equal to with the same benefits of a union job. Union rr to non-union rr job or non-union steelworker to union steelworker and I'm not talking about a small company. I know plenty of tradesmen that leave Iowa to work in Minnesota because iowa is a right to work which really means a right to fire.
I understand unions in some applications, but I think they’ve run their course in many others. Unions in Chicago put a more foul taste in my mouth— both public and private. I understand Chicago is often the exception due to it being so blatantly corrupt.
Auto union vs non union. Many prefer to work for the non union manufacturers.
The adversarial relationship cannot be laid 100% at the fest of the Union. Please......it is a two way street. When you had factory owners hiring paramilitary to kill striking workers, as you did back in Pennsylvania back in the day, and now you come up with this mindless tripe....give me a DAMN break! How stupid are you not to admit to the entire picture?
You're confusing the concept of "right to work" with "employment at will".
Right to work means you can't be forced to join the union in order to get a job in a union shop. It has nothing to do with job protection.
It's because of the way the laws and regulations governing unions have been constructed in this country.
And BTW, when you resort to insults to try and make a point, it shows who the stupid one is.
Very well put. The smart companies that are non-union are so because they pay and protect their employees on a daily basis. Unfortunately, a lot of businesses do not want to do this. Liveable wages and employee safety cost money...some companies believe this is worth the effort and money.
And perhaps murdering striking workers with paramilitary personnel might serve as a legit background for these laws and regulations? Employers are every bit as responsible for where we are today as unions. Pull ur head outta ur butt and smell the coffee.
Taught by a business school? Yeah...that will be unbiased and factual. I know why unions and management have gotten where they are today....smart companies that are non-union provide “union type” benefits for their employees.....many smaller operations refuse to do so.
LOL, you think colleges and universities are biased in favor of business?
LOLOLOLOLOL.
Fair enough, I don't have any experience with a campaign to bring in a union. I do have experience with corporate campaigning to push the union out, and a lot of promises were made during that clusterf@ck. Corporate brought in a Spanish speaking lead worker from another site to "talk" to the Spanish speakers at our site. He ended up talking to a loyal union member, and said employee had no problem repeating what he said. Long story short, the guy they brought in was trying to flip as many Spanish speakers to turn the vote in corporates favor, was caught and disappeared the next day. Slimy sh!t happens on both sides.
Yeah, companies are not permitted to assist in removing Unions either. Even providing a copy machine is a violation. The rules are stacked in the Union (workers) favor during campaigns but the judgement awards tend to favor the Companies.
I'm not a Union guy. I've been very fortunate to work for a Company that has been reasonably fair. I likely make as much as a Union skilled operator within our Company. Our plant is the highest paid plant within our division, and our cost of living is among the lowest.
During the most recent campaign I acted more as a referee than anything. It had been so many years since we had a campaign most of the people had no idea what to expect, including some of the supervisors. A lot of them weren't even alive during the last campaign.
It sounds like it's safe to say that each case depends on the company and local when it comes to how contentious the relationship will be.
Article is from a firm that represents management in labor disputes, so is one-sided and not really informative.
Try using sources that aren't from either side of an issue; they might be a tad bit more enlightening.
Trad cares nothing about trying to see things from another point of view on this subject.
How about something from the LA Times?
When Los Angeles City Council members voted two years ago to give hotel workers a raise, Bill Martinez was the type of worker they said they wanted to help.
Martinez, a 53-year-old bellhop, has hauled tourists' luggage across the flagstone plaza of the Sheraton Universal in Studio City for two decades. He said he was excited after the council's vote to raise the minimum hourly wage at large hotels to $15.37, which he expected to boost his paycheck by 71%.
He soon found out he wouldn't be getting a raise after all. Under an obscure provision of the city's wage hike, unionized hotels were granted an exemption allowing them to pay their employees less. The result is that Martinez, who pays $56.50 every month for membership in the hotel workers union Unite Here, now makes less than those doing the same job in non-union workplaces.
"That's what really makes me mad," Martinez said. "I just wanted to be treated equal. Don't exempt us, because we're the ones paying union dues."
Few progressive causes have enjoyed as much recent success as the campaign to raise pay for the working poor. Most large cities in California have raised their minimum wage over the last several years, culminating in Gov. Jerry Brown's signing the nation's first statewide $15 minimum wage last week. On the same day, New York enacted a less-comprehensive wage increase that activists also greeted as a victory.
Less celebrated, and often unnoticed, has been a series of loopholes that cut union workers out of the very pay increases their leaders have championed. Such clauses have emerged as one of the labor movement's most divisive issues, clouding an otherwise triumphant political moment for the unions that have backed new wage mandates.
Counterintuitive at first glance — organized labor's historic goal has been to obtain more for workers, not less — union exemptions are absent from state and federal pay standards. Yet they have been written into the fine print of wage ordinances in a dozen California cities at labor leaders' urging.
San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland and Santa Monica have all adopted union waivers in their most recent minimum wage laws. L.A. city officials are expected to indicate whether they will include such an exemption in their own $15 minimum wage at a hearing next week.
Critics see such provisions as a cynical collusion between politicians and big-city labor interests. By making unions the "low-cost option" for businesses seeking to avoid paying better wages, they assert, the exemptions are designed to drive up union membership — and revenue from dues — at the expense of workers.
https://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-union-minimum-wage-20160410-story.html
Why use a story that includes one of the weakest unions in the entire county?? Do you really think the HERE union in Southern California is strong??
Gee....knowing a little of unionism and the Americanism in the workplace, I wonder why unions worked the political system to give them an up or two? Hmmmmmm.....I wonder why?
Wife has been in teachers union for around 18 years now, $45 per month, not really seeing the benefit but when she started she said they, new teachers, were pressed hard to join so kind of felt forced into it.
But she has probably earned some cost of living adjustments of about 1% (maybe) per year...hooray!
She has won “Public Education Position of the year” voted on by her peers for the state she works. Holds many leadership positions in her department and district and goes out of the way to work above and beyond what is required. IMO she is one of the examples of people who are held back on the pay scale bc of unionization.
But she has probably earned some cost of living adjustments of about 1% (maybe) per year...hooray!
She has won “Public Education Position of the year” voted on by her peers for the state she works. Holds many leadership positions in her department and district and goes out of the way to work above and beyond what is required. IMO she is one of the examples of people who are held back on the pay scale bc of unionization.
Strong enough to convince municipal leaders to exclude collectively-bargained contracts from local minimum wage ordinances.
I would suggest you read that story again, especially the last few sentences.
I read it.. but the HERE union isn’t that strong, would also love to see the contract.. there might be a reason they where exempt in the contract, maybe if you have your health paid for your employer can reduce under minimum wage.. or maybe the cost of the healthcare is part of the total package of that minimum wage..
Or maybe union leaders only care about member headcounts and revenue from union dues, and don't give a crap about the welfare of said members.
Well that is a dumb statement.. the last thing you want to do is piss off the union members and watch them leave, if there is no members are there still dues coming in??
Like the CEO of a major Corp gives two shits about the janitor? Give it a rest.
Critics see such provisions as a cynical collusion between politicians and big-city labor interests. By making unions the "low-cost option" for businesses seeking to avoid paying better wages, they assert, the exemptions are designed to drive up union membership — and revenue from dues — at the expense of workers.
And because California isn't a "right to work" state, those workers are captive, dues-paying members.
No they aren’t they can leave the union and go non-union they have that right also..
I think we can agree that nobody, CEOs or Union Bosses, GAF about janitors except for when the toilet is acting up.
Similar threads
