I agree 100%. That's the way it should be.

Let's face it though, if he becomes family, it's just a matter of time that he will become management. Jake.

 

I've seen my Dad come home beat up and bloody from attempts to unionize. He rose to president of a steelworkers local. All Americans have the right to unionize. Obviously, business owners are against it. But a new group of "College" folk think that they are above all those ignorant blue collar folk. There are many who have benefitted from the rise in employee conditions/wages but who have returned nothing to the cause. (Scabs) Many non-union employers use the same criteria for advancement i.e. some MBA formulary of points and butt kissing or political correctness. There are still some rugged individuallist that want to forge ahead on their own. Go for it, I say. But if it wasn't for the likes of John L. Lewis, Samuel Gompers and even some Ladies who I can't remember most of us would still be owned by the "Company Store".

 

Yea, I know. I've been there. You can go as deep as you wan't. I have seen it all. Not good for anyone.

 

But, then you don't have to worry about him. He won't be doing the same job. He'll be part of the other side of the company. Then, his job will be in jeopardy if the parts quota isn't met. He'll have to answer to his superiors. He'll have all the stress. If bad decisions are made, it's his side of the fence that has to answer for it, and his butt that will be chewed. I'll contend with sitting back and shaking my head wondering why he thought he was making the right move. In my company, management is not a long term job for some bosses. If the higher-ups make a bad decision, the formans have to answer for it. Then they also have to catch the flack from the workforce.

Bluehawk

 

O.k. Time to get the stirring stick out. Most all of the talk here is dealing with production unions. There are other unions out there and I belong to one and would not have it any other way. We(my union) in our employers eyes(the city) are considered a financial burden. We do not produce any tangible goods, our equipment is expensive and training is never ending. Without the union my pay and benefits would not be anywhere near where they are now. I will not argue that maybe some unions don't hold the values and beliefs that they were founded on. But lets not stereotype that unions are either bad or good, there are bad and good unions.
A lot of it has to deal with the union officials and the employees attitudes. A union is supposed to insure fair pay and benefits, not to bully the employer into being afraid to enforce rules. That's my .02 cents. Pro union and proud, just look at my sig.

 

It all depends on the management & family. If the company that this person works for is a strong company, and this guy is married to the daughter, then end of conversation.

Part's quota met. Irrelevent
!
Superior? Dude, he will be one of the superior's.

Butt chewed, yep. Stress, show me someone in business who isn't. Making mistakes and getting the boot, yes on a normal basis but if you are married into the business, highly unlikely.
If you can find your place in a business on the management side and you are married into the family, then your place becomes irreplaceable. Jake.

 

I've been on both sides here and I will never argue that union labor will take advantage on occassion of time, slacking off, and the things that non union employees might be less likely to do. Remember it is the person not the union. But the job always gets done. I've not sure if working faster benefits anyone other than the company as you lose money as does all the supporting trades for finishing faster. I will say that if it weren't for unions in all facets that we'd be working for peanuts. Employers would never have competion as far as wages go and therefore I favor all unions.

 

First of all Im glad this discussion has stayed just that, a discussion not a fight or name calling session.
In response to Bluehawks statement I feel that if a new guy is hired at a higher rate than you then its time for you to revaluate your status with the company. If youre as good as you think you are then you should be able to negotiate a better deal. If youre a valuable asset to the company they wont let you go if you demand what youre worth. If they dont give you what you feel is fair you start looking for annother employer, there are others.
Someone mentioned being a rugged individual, i guess that fits me exactly. Im just not a joiner, id rather be my own man and make my own decisions. If something isnt fair i deal with it. Im not one vote of many, im one vote of one. I have nothing against you union guys, it just wouldnt work for me.
Last of all guys, i dont understand all the name calling between the union and non union members. Scabs, Rat------, and so on. I know it goes both ways, it seems very juvenile. Proffessionals shouldnt have to sink to name calling.

Great discussion guys

Tony Warren
Nebraska

 

Quote:

In trade work you are specializing in ONE craft.......... If someone is willing to do your job then what do they need you for.....If you get a person thats willing to do carpenters,iron workers,labors,pipefitters,and operators work then that ONE guy just knocked out five people from work.........

I'm sure to someone that anti union that makes sense....... But not to me................

This is one of my strongest DISLIKES of the union attitude. It makes NO SENSE. Why hire 5 men to do the work that one man can do? This is NOT the way to increased employment and wages, in fact the OPPOSITE is true.

Look at it this way. There is a finite amount of money to be spent on construction projects in any given year. If you maximize value for every dollar of wages, that amount of money goes further and creates more projects. If you can do a project for half the price due to efficient labour, then you can do two projects, effectively maintaining your level of employment. I'll try to give you a hypothetical scenario to make my point a little clearer.

You have a large construction project, funded by YOU the TAXPAYER. Total labour cost is estimated at $500,000. So for ease let's say there's 10,000 employees making $50,000. Well, why not have a non-specialized workforce of 5000 making $60,000 for a labour cost of $300,000. They finish the project ahead of schedule and under budget, (something far to rare today) and save the company an additional $100,000. You've now cut the cost of that project by $300,000.

What about the 5000 guys outta work? Well guess what, with that extra $300,000 the company now has money to proceed on another project that otherwise would not have been possible. Those 5000 guys are working on a new, separate project that otherwise wouldn't have existed, getting paid $60,000.

It's called the free market system. I know that I for one, as a taxpayer, would like my money spent in the most efficient manner. If I can get two projects done for what would otherwise be the price of one, I'm all for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for high levels of employment too, working people make the economy tick, I would just like my hard earned dollars to be spent in the most cost efficient manner, as would, IMHO, most people.

Waxy

 

Shouldn't his job be in jeopardy if the parts quota isn't met?
Shouldn't YOUR JOB be in jeopardy if the parts quota isn't met?

Who's ultimately responsible if the company is unable to make a profit or attain (reasonable) goals? Who'll eventually lose their jobs. Answer - everyone.

Shouldn't he have to answer to his superiors?
Shouldn't YOU have to answer to your superiors?

You're responsible for your actions, it's part of life. I don't understand what your point is here, is the union not accountable to management? Are you not accountable to the union?.

Stress comes with repsonsibility and accountability. If you don't care about the company's (or the unions for that matter)performance, and aren't accountable, then I guess you have no stress.

Quote:

I'll contend with sitting back and shaking my head wondering why he thought he was making the right move

It's odd, but you just kinda summed up my point. Unions foster this attitude (complacency) that the common employee is almost beyond reproach. Why bother to work any harder or do any more, it's not my problem and there's no real benefit. I'll just sit back and do my thing because I can't get fired. (That outta stir the pot)

Waxy

 

A ha, looks like a watched pot does boil! Lol.

We did the math on a large project approx. 5 years ago. It would have cost DOUBLE using union labor. No BS. I would not consider that the norm but on this particular project, that's how it would have panned out.

The union has helped a lot of people that I know. There are also a lot of fringes on all ends that go with it. Nice.
I have also seen it protect un-qualified people and deadbeats. That's a problem.
It can also become a problem in time of crisis.

 

....................................WAXY.......... .......................................
No matter what you say is going to change my mind ... and no matter what I say is going to change yours...

with that said...........You are whats wrong with this companies these days.........why pay a varitey of skilled craftsmen do a job..when you could pay one guy to halfa$$ it...........

thats why around here kids just out of school are real happy to get a job paying 7 bucks an hour...........that you can't live on,I might add.........

when you have one guy doing 5 peoples work it doesn't make jobs for others...............It takes work from others.........

Now I know you will have something to say.......and I know you won't see it my way..........I'm just glad others do.......

 

We are big boys. I don't mind some name calling e.g. Scabs....at least I know how to spell "Professional". These workplace senarios have just as many examples of bad management as bad workers. Come on, you upward managers, get you MBA book out. Most managers can't do much of anything except go to meetings. They can't hire, fire, set policies, enforce anything or make decisions that amount to much. Actually, I feel kinda sorry for them. They get a lot of onus without much of the bonus.

 

Seen a bit of discussion here about non-union vs. union labor . Well , do a search around Vancouver BC Canada for "leaky condos" . In the past 8 or 9 years , there was a boom in the Condo market here and now a lot of those projects are seeping water in from the outside jacket . To the tune of millions and millions of dollars damage . I`m heavily involved in the Union here and our own Governments investigation has found everyone of those leaky projects was done with non-union labor . The contractors hired the cheapest labor they could find and got what they paid for . The contracting companies no longer do business here and the Condo owners are left paying the tab to have the jackets of the buildings re-done . There are a good number of units that were more costly to be built (with Union labor), but they are not having to re-surface the outer shell of those . You get what you pay for !


Jeff I.U.O.E

 

well.. i own a small business and a few years back my staff was unionized. It was really painful because I had very strict restrictions on what I was allowed to say to the people i work with and i was not allowed to answer questions that were asked of me.
The union organizers , on the other hand were allowed to tell them anything, promise things they couldn't deliver.
They held a meeting, and when they had enough people there to get a majority vote, they locked the doors (literally!) and would not let them leave until they had enough union cards signed to certify a bargaining unit. They finally succeeded at 2 am in the morning.
After signing the first agreement, the raises bargained for were actually less than the union dues that they were charged, and much less than they had been recieving in the past.
In fact, a beginning part time student would actually make less than minimum wage when the union dues were factored in.
Now when a union meeting is held, no minutes are taken and no provisions are made to inform absent members of the proceedings, there are no provisions for proxy voting (i mean, you can send a proxy to stand in at your wedding for you here if you want!) and no financial reporting or accountability to its members.

I don't know if this is true of all unions, but it really isn't my idea of a democratic organization.