This is not a union bashing post.....I have been in 27 years now. belonging to a Union has definitely paid for itself, but I am one of the lucky ones. I really laugh hard when I hear my brothers and sisters tout how "we" fought for pensions....we fought for no the layoff clause...etc. that is actually a load of crap. Most of the current beni's we have were put in effect over 50 years ago, and they were not fought for, but rather gimmies from a utility monopoly, because it was a no lose scenario since it was publically regulated with no competition. If the company needed more money, they simply raised their rates, and since there was no competition, there was 100% customer penetration. A layoff, was the furthest thing from anyone's mind (although thank god, our fore fathers were smart enough to put that language in the contract). The word "churn", was only used in reference for butter. Times have changed (for better or worse). The last time the union "won", I was a recent new hire, in 1989, when the company at that time tried to get us to pay in to our medical benefits. We walked for 4months and kept free medical (until the last contact). Since then, there has been nothing except for "give backs" for us. The only thing we have got new in the past 27 years has been the TTA program (which incidentally, was not a union proposal, but rather the company's). Belonging to a union in Today's day and age will give you one thing.....the company can not fire you out right. Don't get me wrong, this is huge and not meant to be minimized. However, I keep seeing over and over again some saying...if you join the union, you can not be laid off....this is simply not true, ask anyone of the laid off union members hired after 2003. Forming a union today, while recommended for certain job security, it is not the guarantee for a life of bliss it once was. I fear those days are long gone.
25 replies (most recent on top)
Hey 4ocl, you arrived here via your high-horse, preaching to the rest of us simpletons. Yet, you fail to recognize the irony in your statement, "Both sides point to the other and start name calling. Pretty childish."?
Confused, I'll explain. Your complaint is that there's needless name-calling afoot. You then immediately follow that up by calling the perpetrators of such misdeeds "childish". Therefore, you're now engaging in the "childish" name-calling that you had supposedly so abhorred in calling those who do it "childish". Under those circumstances, childish would be an autobiographical statement.
Why don't you stop the preaching until you have a sound thought process, you dope.
6vyu
Because it is possible by no means makes it true. It's complete BS. You know it, I know it.You are a filthy liar.
Is it your contention that all union members are on FMLA? And if so, do you think FMLA technically allows it? Is it your contention that, even though many union workers now have a maximum of ten sick days, they do not care, and will stay home unpaid for the other 50 days each year simply because it's called FMLA? Or is instead your contention that each and every single one of them is entering disability territory for twelve weeks year in year out.
BTW, FMLA counts towards your 10 allowed days.
You're a union-bashing, dishonest, conservative, lying (but I covered that when I said conservative) clown.
6cbx. check your warped facts.12 weeks is exactly the FMLA maximum, and this does not even actually touch any "sick time", so yes it is very possible for 23% to be out every day. I personally know of 7 people in my work group (out of just 15) that use their max FMLA by design every year so I know it does happen. Maybe you should stop regurgitating from the Sanders, Hillary, Obama, Koran and try thinking for yourself. It takes a little practice, but it's not that hard to do.
4eyj, you lie.
If twenty-three percent of the unionized workforce is missing due to absence EVERY SINGLE DAY, as you claim, that would mean that union members, on average, are out sick an entire week each month or, to put it another way, 12 weeks per year. That's ludicrous. Is it your habit to just make up things out of thin air to boost support for your false contentions (a la Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina)? People like you cannot be debated with because you're a dishonest individual whose word means nothing.
4ocl, you say:
"I would argue, that it was neither good or bad corporations nor strong or weak unions that have in the past resulted in a strong middle class, but rather when both sides have come together in a mutually beneficial environment without rancor, that enables the true purpose of business (which is business), to succeed." I, on the other hand, would argue that you're wrong.
A lot of funny posts here, but pretty sad. Like most issues in Today's world....there does not seem to be any real ability to intelligently debate a topic. You either have to be fully in support of, or completely against, there is no middle ground. Both sides point to the other and start name calling. Pretty childish. It seems fairly clear the OP was not against unions nor in support of the company either. Can we not agree that not all companies are purely evil and greedy, nor do they all brow beat their employees, but for those that do bully its employees, and therefore are not being a good corporate citizen, what can be done to remedy that? Why can't our leaders in Washington put orth some basic "fair play" laws, such as the last in, first out environment in a union shop. However, they should also be allowed to run their businesses in a profitable manner as well. Not every Union member is spoiled or lazy, but on the flip side, unions have had their fair share of scandals and have not always been any better than a "greedy" corporation to its members, but by and large they have been a positive force for the working masses. I would argue, that it was neither good or bad corporations nor strong or weak unions that have in the past resulted in a strong middle class, but rather when both sides have come together in a mutually beneficial environment without rancor, that enables the true purpose of business (which is business), to succeed.
@4eyj, nice to be on an anonymous board where you can spit out totally BS numbers, isn't it? You want to tell us that just about 1/4 of the whole union workforce is out sick on any given day? Where did you get these numbers from, Rush Limbaugh or FOX News? God I hope the people are smarter than to fall for this stuff. Liar and POS.
20% of CWA members ABUSE their great bennies. Daily absence rates are now 23%!! For every 100 unionized workers 23 are out.Thats a joke. Just imagine if you lost this job and got one in the real world? " I pulled a muscle in my back, I think ill take 3 weeks off"..get to work
Hey 01B, let me try on your immature logic. There were three companies that did not have unions and eventually failed. Ergo, all companies without unions fail. Sounds pretty stupid, right? You know, your referencing of the air traffic controllers and Eastern Airlines to support your false contention that unions do not have a positive effect on the average working Joe or Josephine is a great example of your cognitive distortion. You're cerebrally lost, intellectually challenged, yet you nonetheless somehow believe you're smart. That you're a deep-thinker. It's the classic case of what might one day be called hannuttylevinlimbaughcoulter Disorder Syndrome. Like so many anti-unionists before you, you stick to a childlike literalist black and white worldview in which the free market is to be viewed as a supernatural Godlike entity that can do no wrong. When provided abundant evidence to the contrary, you will invariably resort to a semantical no-true-Scotsman defense that will convince no-one. Don't doom yourself to an intellectually and socially stunted life. Let go of your superstitious beliefs in an all-powerful, all-good free market. Let the healing begin my brother. Peace.
" it's because crooked executives lobbied politicians and changed the rules, allowing pension money to be used for other things besides pensions"
Can any of you say GTE pension fund? That's overfunded GTE pension fund. $4 billion buried in the ground and called FIOS, but only after said $4 billion was shown as profit at EOY of the takeover.
For those of you mentioning that pensions are unsustainable, please read the book Retirement Heist, by a former Wall St Journal reporter named Ellen Schultz. If pensions are unsustainable it's because crooked executives lobbied politicians and changed the rules, allowing pension money to be used for other things besides pensions. Then when the pension well runs dry, the same crooks spin the narrative into "greedy union members are bankrupting our poor company."
The union represented workforce is down to just 10% of the whole workforce but the right wingers are still in full attack mode, blaming all our problems on unions. When they get their wish of killing the unions off do you really think that the corporations will treat workers better? Are they then going to stop outsourcing American jobs, hiring H1B workers, grabbing pension fund money and paying the executives 300 times what they pay the average worker? And do you think they will lower the price of their products if the products cost them less to produce? If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you too. You are participating in your own financial demise.
Poster SzK, Pensions have, by and large, taken the form of a single buyout nowadays, rendering your "You can't continue to pay people for 40 or 50 years after they worked for you for only 30" argument lacking at best. Yes, I'm aware that the single payout takes life expectancy into consideration, with younger folks getting more than older folks with equal time, but it's negligible. I find it peculiar (and saddening) that, in this country, a lot more voice is given to arguing that the average working man's (and woman's) pensions are somehow unreasonable and unaffordable after their 30 or so years of loyal service, as opposed to multi-million dollar yearly pay, sometimes to newcomers who've built nothing, followed by equally egregious golden parachutes. And that's the American middle class who is turning a blind eye to executive compensation and Wall Street, but instead complains and pounces upon what the poor working stiff gets after a lifetime's contribution of toil, where he or she is used up at the end of that toiling. Why declare class warfare on your own class? Is it jealousy-driven? Those are the very arguments used when anyone dares challenge the income of the elite, or how the system is being abused at our collective expense, yet it's far more commonplace that today's American class warfare is both coming from internal sources - your economic peers, and has also been declared by those making the most, upon the rest of us.
The best post on this entire site concerning unions is right below this!!!
People living longer is not the sole reason pensions are in trouble. In fact, it contributes little. As for your contention that working for 30 years and than being retired drawing benefits for the next 40, 50 years is the problem - that happens rarely. The real culprit in the pension debacle are raided pension funds. Also, sure, you can be laid off even if you have a union, but it will be fought tooth and nail, and there's no arbitrariness to it that would leave one wondering why they were targeted. The system, without a union, is very subjective - they don't like you, you're out. You don't brown nose - your out. You're older -you're out. You're paid too much, or have too much vacation - you're out. You slipped up once, after years of good reviews, you're out. It's a fundamentally unfair system as opposed to the last in, first out one adhered to by unions. There are no games of playing favorites. Being the bosses lapdog and sucking up doesn't increase your longevity. You don't get pushed out because you're a stand up guy/gal, or make to much. You put in your time, you have your advocate during the journey and, when you're ready to leave and your pension seems reasonable, you leave of your own accord. Would you go to court without a lawyer? Why go to work without one? Corporations have their's. It's human nature to band together for mutual benefit. That's why towns and cities form. For mutual exponential gain. That's why nations form. That's why alliances form. That's why monopolies form. It's mirrored throughout the animal kingdom as well because banding together gives far more benefit than sticking it out alone never could. It tilts the scale more in your favor, especially when the other side who can oppress you has far deeper pockets and political pull. Only a masochist wishes harm upon oneself. Don't ever go it alone, if given the choice. Why do you think there's such adamant opposition from companies at the first rumor of a union-forming drive? Think about it.
The same rule applies for competition. Pre-1960....almost everything was manufactured in US....no global competition, most major corporations were the only game in town.... MaBell, US steel, standard oil, IBM (albeit that was not a union shop, but they had all the same benefits). Not to mention, with most of the fore mention corporations, you could get a good paying job at them right out of high school. So to attract qualified workers was in a company's best interest and the benefits were cost efficient. Now, you need a BA just for an entry level job. The unions definitely had their place in helping with good paying jobs at the time, but I think it is a far stretch to give them all the credit for the good 'ol days. For if you do, then you must also then place the full blame on them for the state of today's workforce troubles. Which we can all agree, Can not be totally laid at the unions feet.
Its a fact. Economics prove it. When unions are strong wages are strong. Your off on a tangent. You prove my point what happens when unions lose strength. Look at a time frame before the 1960's . The unions have been losing power since the 1970's. Wages and the standard of living has been losing . Corporate America has made sure of that , the American worker has contributed to it. Taking care of number one ( themselves) and not seeing the bigger picture until it was to late.
Great post OP, and spot on. Refreshing to see something like this written by a union member. Fellow "class" of 88 here.
I hope VZW people will try cant hurt...
Not a correct fact. This "fact" has more to do with competition (or lack thereof) than unions. The auto industry always had strong unions (still does), but completion from foreign cars caused massive layoffs none the less. Same with the airlines....ask those that were working at Eastern Airlines (remember them) how good the unions helped them. Oh yeah...remember the strong air traffic controllers Union...they were really strong too, but that didn't help them much did it.
There's no guarantees for union and non union. History indicates when unions were strong wages and the standard of living were good. When unions are weak wages and the standard of living go down. That's not an opinion its fact.
OP here...
I stated in my post, that the one benefit to being in the union is the company can not indesciminitly lay you off or fire you, but that does not mean it can never happen, especially for those unlucky enough to have joined the union after 2003. So anyone subject to the current or future RIFs would not be saved by joining now.
Yes we did just start paying for our medical last contract...we have had no wins in the past 25 years, only give backs...medical, job security for new hires, pensions for new hires, movement of work....and the list goes on and on.
Its easy for us to wag our fingers at those that are not in a union and say, you stupid people...but it is not by our smarts, but rather fantastic luck, to have landed the jobs we did, when we did. My main point is don't join a union thinking you will have the same benifits s we do, because you won't. No new company/Union will create a pension...not because of greed, but because it is not economically viable. You can't continue to pay people for 40 or 50 years after they worked for you for only 30. Even back when pensions were started, most workers died within 10 years of retirement. It's morbid, but a fact. We are all seeing the same situation with social security....people are living much longer (collecting the benefit) than originally intended, and there is no longer the same ratio of workers to reiteriees. A pension is no different.
Again, I am not bash97ing the union. You want to join/form one...great. I'll always honor your picket lines and support you, but do it because it is right for you and your fellow workers, not because you were sold a bill of goods. Let's not forget the "bad" things about unions...and I am not talking about the POSs that wouldn't be able to be hired by McDonalds in the real world, but you have an MBA and would be a perfect fit for that new promotion...too bad it goes to the person with the highest seniority....no more merit base pay...you are paid the same as everyone else in your job title...which include any EOY bonus.
Just saying
@pEP Just wait until you file your 2017 taxes. You think that you contribute to your healthcare now? LMAO Bend over buddy, the person your union endorsed for POTUS will have his hand out, clenched in a fist.
We just started paying for benefits last contract
Better then nothing I'm sure the recent RIF'd would like some of the union, especially people with 25+