Thread regarding Verizon Communications Inc. layoffs

So which is it union guys? "I am better off financially than all you non-union folks with my massive pension and 401k, not to mention my bike, my boat, and my beach house (because of Verizon). Or " agreeing to the proposed contract will ruin my chance to even maintain a middle class lifestyle (because of Verizon)."

Because it can't be both. When you're shouting that Verizon is trying to destroy the middle class while at the same time bragging about how much money you've banked, your credibility is shot. Pick one or the other and you might gain some support.

If you don't understand how hilariously transparent your hypocrisy is, ask one of the EWA guys and they can explain it to you.

I worked for CellularOne as a switch tech in the late 90's and it was a non-union shop. Their most seasoned tech was making 8,000 a year less than me and I was fresh off the street. He should have been making twice as much as me. I don't know where you think corporations operate on meritocracy comes from but it's a fantasy.

Non union VZ techs earn half of what the unionized techs make. All techs are held to the same productivity and efficiency standards. So why are the "best" non union employees paid the same as union represented employees? At the same time VZ's competitors pay much less and still charge their customers at rates competitive to VZ. The best techs at VZ's competitors would gladly take a union represented job at VZ. Your hypothesis doesn't work in this instance.

The OP and @fvr have both explained very well the issue from both sides.

Yes, it is true that the union by definition helps the underachievers and harms the overachievers, creating a downward pressure on overall productivity and quality. This would not be the case with a good union that self-regulates and pushes out the bad while rewarding the good. Of course I have never seen such a union. Why? Because that would lower union dues payments. After all, we all know the union is a profit center when it all comes down.

On the other hand, it is true that the negotiation power of the many is greater than that of the individual. So anyone can see that a union yields some degree of power to the individual, albeit at the expense of some exercise of individuality. Plus there is the financial factor. It costs money to be part of the union. In theory you get more out of it than you put into it.

So there is a rationale for either school of thought. Pro and Cons. The rub is for those who are forced to participate in a union in order to work (i.e., a closed shop) when they don't want to. Are 97% of union employees hard working? Not even close in my experience. Are 97% of management employees hard working? Not even close in my experience. The main difference is that a low-performing management employee eventually will be shown the door. But the low-performing union employee gets to stay and suck more life out of the company and his/her co-workers.

The OP supports a race to the bottom on wages and benefits that most corporations are engaging in currently, even for skilled labor. He must want to live in a country where most jobs are outsourced and the remaining jobs pay starvation wages with no benefits just to pad the corporate bottom line.

Op, unfortunately your bias toward a union-disparaging outcome in your argument shows through. The proper approach is to compare the closed v. Open / non-union shop respective to worker reward. Workers in Non-union shops have comparatively minimal influence over wages and benefits, especially in a soft job market. The individual can ask for more, or leave, but the power sits with the Company. Irrespective of individual contribution and efforts to self-differentiate, the Company acts / ignores in accordance with its own interests.

In a union shop however, workers acting as a unified block hold significantly more influence. It's the difference between the impact of 1/175000th of a labor input versus the impact of 1/5 of the labor input. The union workforce holds legitimate power, especially given skilled workers, as the Company cannot replace a resource of that size for several reasons nor does management possess the skills currency to perform the roles themselves. Unionized labor definitely, without question, drives better worker reward than the non-union shop, except where there's an extreme labor shortage ( where market or skill driven).

Redistribution of wealth has gone from middle class to the rich. Is that the redistribution you're talking about? Bank bailout, ever hear of it. Most wealth going to the top, that's good for the county. We have slackers that get protected everywhere, managers and union,managers kiss assunion pays dues.

Who would be more important to a company? A stable union employee who has years of training and experience under his/her belt who stays in the company because of good wages and benefits......and yes there is accountability........or a revolving door of disposable workers who constantly need training and never reach any level of productivity because their repressed wages and benefits have them jumping ship when the next better opportunity comes along. Bottom line thinkers are the real enemy of a companies success.

I don't understand this

looks like rbu, is on of the union morons.

no, 97% are not hard working, and in the union, much less then that.

The level is set high, because so many union members are lazy, and if they are not, they get bugged by other union members to slow down.