Unions in Michigan

Pro union here. I think the UAW is a special kind of animal and not a good reference for "unions" in general. I to have to wonder the companies who complain about what union members get (ahem, GM) - what were you doing during negotiations? How does GM get a free pass to burn money in any way seen fit, then complain about posh UAW gigs while they file for bankruptsy. It's not the UAW's fault that GM acquired Hummer while gas prices skyrocketed.

I also agree that businesses can't be trusted to look out for workers. They exist primarily to make profit, and they often do things they don't want to do in an effort to remain competitive with each other. You don't see unions competing to "out lazy" each other. If businesses could be trusted to treat employees well, we wouldn't have so many illegal aliens subcontracting here for pennies and we wouldn't be outsourcing cheap foreign labor. That should be proof enough that wages will go down (as they are currently 3% lower in right to work states).

Did anyone consider the effects of non union employees who benefit from prevailing wage going away? Everyone will be working for less. As long as millionares can't be taxed one extra penny to help the country, I don't see why your average $50K/year union employee needs to work for less. Unions need overhauled, they don't need to be busted up.

P.S. Anyone who is anti "free stuff" and anti "freeloading" shouldn't support right to work terms were employees take advantage of collective bargaining from dues paying members - FOR FREE.
 
Pay and benefits should be established by the employer and not some outside organization that adds cost to the end product.
 
jerrym3 said:
Are you serious? You sound like a Human Resources manual.

Then why, when things go south, are employee cutbacks and "downsizing" the first thing on the agenda? Just about everyone I know has been downsized, some more than once.

If profits drop, or a company can get the same production with less employees (ie, automation), the employee goes, the robot stays.

Shareholders, and I am one, care about stock appreciation/dividends, and if lowering expenses can increase profits, win/win.

Now, that may be different in mom/pop organizations, but not in larger companies.

Someone posted that IT workers do well in this environment with regards to off shoring.

Not in my last company, a major Wall Street firm.

Tech centers, not brokers, were off shored quicker than you could say "supercharger", and this was before the big slowdown.

And, I hope those who think that unions are pure evil never get into a position where, as you age, you find yourself becoming too high priced. You then run the greater risk of becoming "downsized", as long as the company stays within certain guidelines.

And, before I hear all the " well, the older worker had the opportunity to move up the food chain..........."

Simple answer, company structures are a pyramid. Not everyone gets to the next level.

Yes, unions got too top heavy and greedy, and I've been both a union worker (UAW and Steelworkers) and a manager of union people before I got into IT, where I managed vendors comprised of union and non-union workers. (But, has anybody looked at the average bonus on Wall Street? It's in the hundreds of thousands. Now, my Wall Street bonus, and that of my department's co-workers, was nowhere near that, so someone else did real well, about 500K worth....each!)

But, without collective bargaining, it's a one sided ballgame, wages will continue to remain low, and the middle class necessary to get us out of this hole will not rebound.
Click to expand...

I lived through Katrina the largest disaster to ever strike the USA and one of the largest to ever strike any where in the World. There were thousands of examples of employers both large and small borrowing money not knowing if they would ever open to pay their employees who were not working full pay for months.
A company I owned a small part of borrowed money not knowing if we would ever reopen to pay 100% in full every employee who had been with us a year. Those that were less than a year were very few in a transient job due to the nature of the work. We borrowed even more money to open a location in another city and those that could at their choice, every position was filled by employees from the old closed location, worked at the new location. It was 6 months before the old location reopened. The new location was a big money loser and cost us a fortune. This was repeated by thousands of employers. Why? Because employees are a company's greatest asset!
How could this possibly be done in a disaster area with all the restrictions and requirements found in a Union Collective bargaining agreement? It was because the agreements were ignored because people as a result of losing every thing they had and also those around them losing every thing they had they wanted a return to normalcy, the biggest return to normalcy is to go back to work. I spent a significant amount of time for free helping others, employers and employees including Union employees navigate through the maze of Gov't requirements to get relief for their families. Why? If no one is working I won't be working either.
If a company is not profitable it goes out of business and everyone loses their job. Why are employees cut back first because being the greatest asset they are what costs the most.
Some Unions abuse their Members by over charging them with overhead on the pensions/benefits, paying themselves excessive salaries, putting their family members on the payroll and out right stealing the members money.
When you add in the dues, the working restrictions, the excessive benefit charges and the barring of an employer's ability to pay a bonus or give a raise many are far better off with out a union.*
*"The average UAW autoworker at the 'Big 3' makes roughly a little less than $60,000 a year and the average non-union autoworker in the U.S. makes roughly $52,000 and considering that most of the nonunion plants are in lower cost of living areas, I would say that both are quite competitive with one another. Basically no one is getting rich who is a general worker at any U.S. auto manufacturing plant." Detroit Free Press http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item...plants_as_detroit_car_companies_struggle.aspx
 
Last edited:
Free Enterprise and good ole CAPITALISM works and UNIONS are nothing more than another GOVERNMENT (type) agency that sucks the life from our COUNTRY!!:argue:

I spent most of my working life in TEXTILES & CHEMICALS....just look what UNIONS and the DAMN EPA has done to those industries!!:mad2:
 
" But has anybody looked at the average bonus on Wall Street? It's in the hundreds of thousands." I suggest you go do their job and make the money they are making. Better yet do it better than they do and make even more than they are making.
Drew ain't doing too good at the Saints so maybe I will apply for his job!;)
 
Marauderjack said:
Free Enterprise and good ole CAPITALISM works and UNIONS are nothing more than another GOVERNMENT (type) agency that sucks the life from our COUNTRY!!:argue:

I spent most of my working life in TEXTILES & CHEMICALS....just look what UNIONS and the DAMN EPA has done to those industries!!:mad2:
Click to expand...

LOL - the EPA regulating chemical emissions is sucking the life from our country?
 
Micahdogg said:
LOL - the EPA regulating chemical emissions is sucking the life from our country?
Click to expand...

FYI - The EPA also has the right to regulate what you and every animal are exhaling.
Salazar, Sec of Interior, forged a report to shut down an entire industry.
 
News flash. There is no such thing as a lazy union construction worker in my state, at least since 08. There is the best of the best doing more now than they ever did and family employed thru family shops..

Rules? What a laughing stock. If any of you actually knew real world work vs. what you know by reading up on bylaws you would back off. I simply can't think of one rule that isn't twisted and smashed. (It's work or sit right?)

Breaks? Can't say I know of any that aren't federal LAW. Not that I take them.

Can't be fired??? WOW really? Ever hear of laying off? Besides, what shop fires anyone union or non? NONE. No risk in laying off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Marauderjack said:
Free Enterprise and good ole CAPITALISM works < yak yak yak > ! :mad2:
Click to expand...

Right - when MANAGEMENT wants to make the absolute maximum profit from their product or service, it's "good ole CAPITALISM" ! Yay ! Wave that flag !
But when LABOR wants to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING, they're UN-AMERICAN ! goll-dern COMMUNISTS ! Boo !

You can't have it both ways. The abuses of unrestrained, robber-baron capitalism CAUSED the Organized Labor Movement in this country.

Yes, Unions aren't perfect, that's for sure. But they're a lot better than what they replaced - company towns, plantation sharecropping, sweatshops, indentured servitude, child labor, prison labor . . .
. . . Like they have in China. (see below)

"Right to Work" = "Right to Work for Less Money."
Union states are going that way to try to stop hemorrhaging jobs to lower-paying Non-Union states. Lower-paying Non-Union states are trying to compete with even lower-paying countries, like China. The "global economy" is slowly, but surely, having a levelling effect on wages ; the ultimate result will be that everybody, everywhere, will eventually make what a Pakistani ****-shoveler is willing to work for. Otherwise, why shouldn't he get that job ?

my :twocents:
 
sailsmen said:
" But has anybody looked at the average bonus on Wall Street? It's in the hundreds of thousands." I suggest you go do their job and make the money they are making. Better yet do it better than they do and make even more than they are making.
Drew ain't doing too good at the Saints so maybe I will apply for his job!;)
Click to expand...

The point was that there's b****ing about union management salaries and union benefits, but nobody is b****ing about Wall Street bonuses. Why not?

We paid for the union management salaries (if we bought the products their members made) and, if we have stocks, mutual funds, or a 401K/IRA in the market, we paid for the Wall Street bonuses also.

I guess you think it's OK that even though Wall Street bonuses were reduced, they remained ridiculously high, while other Wall Street workers from the same companies were walked out the door in droves by Security?

What's better for the USA and our economy? One guy getting a million dollar bonus, or 14 people getting a 70K+ salary? Are all those Wall Street guys job creators?

Sure, they will purchase stuff with their huge bonuses, but not as much stuff as the 14 workers would have purchased. And, there's a multiplier effect as the 14 employed people retain their jobs and spend money, that turns into wages for other workers.

And, what about those unemployed folks losing their homes because they can't make the payments? Good plan for the housing market?

As for me doing their job, thanks for the terrific, well thought out suggestion. However, I am VERY comfortably retired, thank you.
 
sailsmen said:
I lived through Katrina the largest disaster to ever strike the USA and one of the largest to ever strike any where in the World. There were thousands of examples of employers both large and small borrowing money not knowing if they would ever open to pay their employees who were not working full pay for months.
A company I owned a small part of borrowed money not knowing if we would ever reopen to pay 100% in full every employee who had been with us a year. Those that were less than a year were very few in a transient job due to the nature of the work. We borrowed even more money to open a location in another city and those that could at their choice, every position was filled by employees from the old closed location, worked at the new location. It was 6 months before the old location reopened. The new location was a big money loser and cost us a fortune. This was repeated by thousands of employers. Why? Because employees are a company's greatest asset!
How could this possibly be done in a disaster area with all the restrictions and requirements found in a Union Collective bargaining agreement? It was because the agreements were ignored because people as a result of losing every thing they had and also those around them losing every thing they had they wanted a return to normalcy, the biggest return to normalcy is to go back to work. I spent a significant amount of time for free helping others, employers and employees including Union employees navigate through the maze of Gov't requirements to get relief for their families. Why? If no one is working I won't be working either.
If a company is not profitable it goes out of business and everyone loses their job. Why are employees cut back first because being the greatest asset they are what costs the most.
Some Unions abuse their Members by over charging them with overhead on the pensions/benefits, paying themselves excessive salaries, putting their family members on the payroll and out right stealing the members money.
When you add in the dues, the working restrictions, the excessive benefit charges and the barring of an employer's ability to pay a bonus or give a raise many are far better off with out a union.*
*"The average UAW autoworker at the 'Big 3' makes roughly a little less than $60,000 a year and the average non-union autoworker in the U.S. makes roughly $52,000 and considering that most of the nonunion plants are in lower cost of living areas, I would say that both are quite competitive with one another. Basically no one is getting rich who is a general worker at any U.S. auto manufacturing plant." Detroit Free Press http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item...plants_as_detroit_car_companies_struggle.aspx
Click to expand...

Great, you post your personal ideas and experiences, including Googles, and I'll post mine.

And, FYI, I never said unions were great. They had their day, but became too power hungry.

But, in today's job market, it's tough for folks to keep up with inflation (yes, there is inflation; just ask your wife when she goes food shopping) when all an employer has to say is "take it or leave it".

Now, if workers want to opt out of union membership, great, but, they should be open to accepting less pay and benefits for doing the same work at the same company.

Seems fair to me.

(Suggestion, try spacing when you write a thesis. Easier to read.)
 
There have been examples of of unions and companies collaborating vs. the traditional antagonistic Union v. Company paradigm........ Sure a company/shareholders want to be profitable, but the most important thing to a company is a path to sustainability (of which profitability is a component)....... Communities flourish when companies embedd and employ. Companies benefit when they select good employees commit to them via opportunity for advancement, hospitable workplace envirornments, recognition programs and competitve wage/benefit packages.....

Collaboration means both entities are more vested in what goes on over the other side of the table... That fosters an enhanced reputation for the brand, a safer, more productive workplace that is respectful to employees while holding them accountable for defined performance metrics such as quality, productivity, staying on schedule and training goals.... All of this requires long term consistant investment, but at the same time it minimizes the antagonistic chatter from unions to their membership and within the ivory tower towards unions.....

It works.... Until it doesn't.... It doesn't if there is no path/plan forward... There can be no plan/investment/path, if there is no profit from the company and no wages to collect dues from by the unions (who in some cases contribute out of their dues to these partnerships efforts... I beleive Ford works with some of their Unions in this manner).

The bottom line is get Unions & businesses (over a certain size... Small businesses/sole proprietorships might be workable) out of the funding of pandering political campaigns who promise the moon in return for financial support. Its just wrong....

Just my opinion.... Not 100% flushed out, but we are not in good shape in this country, and everyone owns a peice.....
 
Last edited:
Fosters said:
True, but you can fire the non-union one; and the non-union guy won't go on strike and shut down your entire company.
Click to expand...

A union guy can be fired just like a non union member, the difference is the after the union member is fired, he can go to the hall and be in the network of other union shop and get rehired. To fire a teamster he has to be AWOL 3 times, have three letters written against him, caught stealing, or fail a drug/alcohol test twice. His driving and accident record can also be used to eliminate him. A strike is only used if unsafe or unfair work conditions exists in a company and are proven. Then it goes to arbitration and if a resolution isn't come to then a strike will be the next step.
na svt said:
Pay and benefits should be established by the employer and not some outside organization that adds cost to the end product.
Click to expand...
It's agreed upon the employer, the union don't call you up and tell you to pay out more money, a contract is issued if you agree to the terms, you sign it and continue to be a union shop, if you don't like the terms you can go non-union or go to the board and work out a agreement with all the other businesses within a local. A union can't survive unless a agreement is made and a business agrees to the terms.

justbob said:
News flash. There is no such thing as a lazy union construction worker in my state, at least since 08. There is the best of the best doing more now than they ever did and family employed thru family shops..

Rules? What a laughing stock. If any of you actually knew real world work vs. what you know by reading up on bylaws you would back off. I simply can't think of one rule that isn't twisted and smashed. (It's work or sit right?)

Breaks? Can't say I know of any that aren't federal LAW. Not that I take them.

Can't be fired??? WOW really? Ever hear of laying off? Besides, what shop fires anyone union or non? NONE. No risk in laying off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well said Bob. Too many misconceptions of how unions work that it makes it easy to bash them.
 
justbob said:
News flash. There is no such thing as a lazy union construction worker in my state, at least since 08. There is the best of the best doing more now than they ever did and family employed thru family shops..

Rules? What a laughing stock. If any of you actually knew real world work vs. what you know by reading up on bylaws you would back off. I simply can't think of one rule that isn't twisted and smashed. (It's work or sit right?)

Breaks? Can't say I know of any that aren't federal LAW. Not that I take them.

Can't be fired??? WOW really? Ever hear of laying off? Besides, what shop fires anyone union or non? NONE. No risk in laying off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As a superintendent of a major homebuilder for many years, I can still see the faces of some extremely lazy union employees of various trades, and in fact had to kick them out of my trailer for their extended "breaks" on more than a few occasions. (Some of my fellow non-union supers were total POS's.) Of course there were also many extremely hardworking union workers as well. Good and bad in any group of workers......
 
Last edited:
GAMike said:
There have been examples of of unions and companies collaborating vs. the traditional antagonistic Union v. Company paradigm........ Sure a company/shareholders want to be profitable, but the most important thing to a company is a path to sustainability (of which profitability is a component)....... Communities flourish when companies embedd and employ. Companies benefit when they select good employees commit to them via opportunity for advancement, hospitable workplace envirornments, recognition programs and competitve wage/benefit packages.....

Collaboration means both entities are more vested in what goes on over the other side of the table... That fosters an enhanced reputation for the brand, a safer, more productive workplace that is respectful to employees while holding them accountable for defined performance metrics such as quality, productivity, staying on schedule and training goals.... All of this requires long term consistant investment, but at the same time it minimizes the antagonistic chatter from unions to their membership and within the ivory tower towards unions.....

It works.... Until it doesn't.... It doesn't if there is no path/plan forward... There can be no plan/investment/path, if there is no profit from the company and now wages to collect dues from by the unions (who in some cases contribute out of their dues to these partnerships efforts... I beleive Ford works with some of their Unions in this manner).

The bottom line is get Unions & businesses (over a certain size... Small businesses/sole proprietorships might be workable) out of the funding of pandering political campaigns who promise the moon in return for financial support. Its just wrong....

Just my opinion.... Not 100% flushed out, but we are not in good shape in this country, and everyone owns a peice.....
Click to expand...


Spot on, Mike, :up:
 
Fosters said:
I'm not sure if the laws are the same everywhere, but in Minnesota, if an employee goes on strike, you cannot fire him if he's union, you have to keep paying him, while he's not working.

And the criteria you gave for that is waaaaay too relaxed, i'm sorry. Someone has to be drunk/do drugs TWICE to be fired? Especially in a field like construction, with so much danger looming at every step?

What about the Chrysler employees that got caught numerous times drinking and smoking weed, and had to be re-hired back? Does that fall under your "a union employee can be fired" opinion as well?

http://jalopnik.com/5967123/chrysler-had-to-rehire-the-workers-caught-getting-stoned-during-lunch

I remember when my ex worked in a unionized company, her trash had not been taken out for days, and when she did it herself, she got yelled at because that was a union job and she was taking away union work by doing that... How F'ed up is that? Can't even pick up the slack after some lazy union idiot without being threatened by the union thugs...

And what on earth gives ANYONE the right to force anyone else to be a part of ANY group and pay them? Can I force someone to join the heritage foundation or some other conservative think tank, or donate to the GOP because for the past 12 years they've enjoyed tax cuts passed by a republican? That's the rhetoric you hear from the goons when asked what problems they have with Right to Work legislation... they feel like they are owed the credit and money out of people's pockets because a union umpteen years ago negotiated a 5 day work week... Give me a break!
Click to expand...

Get caught once you are suspended and sent directly to a rehab clinic but you hold your spot on the list, come back from rehab and get caught then you are off the list and out of the union. In the teamsters we have a strike fund we pay $24 a year into in case of a strike so you still have a income. That is paid BY the union NOT the employer.
Also nobody is forced to join the union. If you don't wanna join then find a non union shop. Nobody holds a gun to someone's head and forces then to join and pay dues, thats absolute nonsense. Also the fact that someone got yelled at because they took out the garbage and took away a union job sounds like total exaggerated BS.
I prefer to get get paid for all the hours I work and get overtime for holidays and weekends plus I like my medical, annuity, and pension so nothing can ever convince me to be anti-union. My family owns a union trucking outfit and we been doing quite well paying the benefits packages and salaries.
As for Chrysler, the workers were off duty at the time and on break, had Chrysler tested them when they returned to work they would have had a case and they would have been fired. The same way we can't fire someone for drinking on their day off, come to work drunk and we can send you down for suspicion of being intoxicated.
The right to work act gets rid of prevailing wages so now the employer will set the wage and because of corporate greed they will wanna pay you next to nothing with no overtime pay because labor is the biggest expense to a company and keeping that cost to a minimum increases their bottom line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top