^ the problem with what you've explained is that those workers that walk off the job WILL lose their jobs... The whole point of union legislation is to keep the businesses from hiring replacements.

Because people are desperate when they don't have a job, and because there are a lot of people, a business could very easily exploit the working population. Even if all the employees banded together and walked off the job, they would have zero bargaining power because replacements would be hired within days.

The point is, workers don't really NEED to have that kind of bargaining power anymore.

3/7/2009 12:01:11 AM

Who? If we are talking about a mining town in WV and all 10,000 employees strike for safety improvements, where the hell is the mine owner going to find 10,000 more people willing to work in a mine which clearly is underpaid for its deficient safety problems?

If a mine owner is able to replace his entire workforce within weeks of a strike then there was no reason for the strike, but the union was being unreasonable and deserved to be punished. Afterall, when a union punishes its employer for bad behavior it is also punishing their customers which will now be forced to find coal elsewhere through no fault of their own.

That either party is technically able to walk away is what keeps both parties honest and minimizes the overall damage inflicted upon society.

[Edited on March 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/7/2009 10:10:55 AM

I worked as an EE here in Washington State, doing hospital facilities construction, designing the buildings electrical systems (this was before i moved into medical devices)

WA State law stipulates that on projects that get greater than a certain amount of funding from the state, HAVE to hire contractors that pay their employees prevailing wage. this includes most hospitals.

when it came down to hiring union vs. non-union electricians, there was absolutely no contest: we ALWAYS went with unionized electrical contractors, as they were without a doubt more professional, more safe, and more technically competent than the occasional non-union clowns that occasionally got through the system. They were also more honest and straightforward. Hiring non-union jacklegs was always a disaster, and wound up costing us more in hidden cost overruns and legalistic grabassing.

now my experience with unions are largely with the skilled trades. there are unions for non-skilled labor, which is probably what the OP dealt with in event set-up, and probably what the majority of people commenting in this thread deal with.

i cant comment on the non-skilled labor unions. the problem i suspect there is that you're dealing with non-skilled laborers more than youre dealing with unions.




[Edited on March 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM. Reason : ]

3/7/2009 10:40:12 AM

well that is interesting. I suppose it could be that the non-unionized workers didn't feel like they had much to lose.

I can see where a meritocracy isn't the best fit for non-skilled jobs like assembly lines. But white collar jobs should never be unionized, IMO.

3/7/2009 10:53:29 AM

^^Having gone from a non-union company to a union company, my experiences are the opposite. The electricians we receive from the trade union are largely lazy, unprofessional and clearly not hard workers. They also whine a lot. The non-union electricians I worked with in my last company would hustle, they weren't afraid to pick up a shovel and dig, and they wouldn't bitch about other trades encroaching on their turf.

3/7/2009 11:31:32 AM

^ This varies case to case. I mean I have worked with Union guys that were awesome and took alot of pride in the work they do. I have also worked with some fucking slugs who have no business being on any jobsite.

I deal with the "encroaching on their turf" stuff all the time. I had a Laborer Business Agent call me the other day and complain because some boilermakers were picking up some trash in their work area. His argument was that this was a laborers job and that their work was being stolen.

Quote :

"did you fire all of them?"

No we didnt fire them all. We were working under the national maintenance agreement, which states that they cannot walk off a jobsite due to the enforcement of safety regulations, and if they did there is a fine the local will have to pay. That being said they all came back the next day.

With the way some of these locals work you would think they wanta get hurt or die on a jobsite. My company is pretty stringent on safety, and we get alot of shit for it.

3/7/2009 4:05:32 PM

did your company enforce the fine for walking off the job?

and did you tell the guy complaining about workers picking up trash to never call you again?

3/7/2009 5:07:15 PM

^ No fine was handed out. That decision was handed out by people higher up in the company. Bascially they were told that if they didnt show up the next day they would proceed with all the fines and what not.

At this point i just laugh at these Business Agents, they will continue to pull the same shit over and over. One day Owners will get sick of this union BS and allow non union companies to move in. Thats my opinion atleast.

3/7/2009 5:28:15 PM

As someone who works for a company that has a lot of union dealings, they are ridiculous and detrimental to the industries of the US. The place where I work has some of the laziest fucks I've ever seen who are untouchable because of the union. Anywhere else and they would be fired immediately. It's absurd and pisses me off regularly. I benefit from the union's negotiations as far as pay and benefits, but I would rather be judged off of my hard work...it's sickening to see how lazy people can be with unions.

3/8/2009 3:13:31 AM

Quote :

"the fact remains, blue collar union laborers are worthless excuses for human beings."

Ok, this comment was made days ago and I'm just now reading the thread...

But this is one of the most inconsiderate and asinine things I have ever read.

3/9/2009 9:23:29 PM

Quote :

"PinkandBlack, there is nothing bad about a voluntary union. A union that is not a union, per-se, but a hall in town that workers can meet at after work to discuss events at the business. They can peer-pressure unsafe workers, or petition the company, of if they can organize themselves to minimize the dangers being imposed by their bosses. Or if all else fails, walk off the job until management promises to fix the leaky pipes, with full understanding that management could if they chose fire every last one of you for failing to come to work that day. That is a good union with no downside. If the union becomes corrupt, most workers will ignore it and start another one. If the company is run by idiots, then union members should find work elsewhere anyway, as it is only a matter of time until that mine goes bankrupt due to its inability to retain workers and inefficient operations."

good to see you've improved your perspective from the days when you said that labor regulations were more costly than the lives lost in dangerous mines...i think.

there are shitty unions. there are good ones. i've said nothing about favoring compulsory unionization, I don't. i see no problem in unions competing to be the best at working for the benefit of their workers, like an insurance company or bank. if people want to join then i support it. if not, fine.

I am weary about unions competing over turf, however. I have a friend back up in NJ that works for SEIU in some of the hospitals. They've been pretty successful in working with all parties in recent years, which has apparently made enemies of the anti-management workers who've been recruited by another union in the area, resulting in a nasty turf war. oh well, that's Jersey for you.

i just don't buy the whole "there is no merit system based on hard work" thing, along w/ the whole 1950s mobster Jimmy Hoffa sterotype, based on my experience.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 9:40 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2009 9:36:05 PM

Quote :

"i see no problem in unions competing to be the best at working for the benefit of their workers...I am weary about unions competing over turf, however."

Turf wars are a product of the compulsory nature of many unions. If unions are voluntary, then the best way to gain members is to be a better union for your workers. But, among compulsory unions, the only way to gain members is to be a bigger dick to other unions in political battles.

Quote :

"good to see you've improved your perspective from the days when you said that labor regulations were more costly than the lives lost in dangerous mines...i think."

Employers must compete for workers among each other in many different ways. As far as markets are concerned, jobs are not much different from car dealing. You must compete on wage, yes, but also on comfort and safety. If I offer a position that is uncomfortable and dangerous, to get a worker to take it I must compensate them in other ways. Among free labor markets, in the long term, people are compensated for the risk they face. Fire fighters get paid more than civil servants with a similar education. Individuals choose among the fields of work to identify their own relative risk preferences. Some prefer the money, so fire fighter. Some prefer to see their grandchildren, civil servant. To pass a law mandating that mines be safe corrupts the demonstrated preferences for those engaged in the work. Risk adverse individuals which would have never considered mine work, will now consider it, driving down wages among miners to the base skill/compensation of the workers, which is not high. Your law has improved the options for the risk adverse, they can now become miners. But you have reduced the opportunity of the risk willing, which will flee low miner wages to drive down the wages of their kin in other still dangerous but as yet unregulated industries, which in response might become even more unsafe.

Now, this is an interesting story, but the magnitudes are missing. As it implies, it is possible for a safety regulation to cost more lives than it saves, we have examples from history where this has been the case. But it is not always true. And I hope I would have explained that when I said what you were paraphrasing.

Interesting thought: among the four ways employers compensate their workers (prestige, comfort, safety, financial) only one is taxed...

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 11:40 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/9/2009 11:36:38 PM