Unions

I...will...go...slower...so...you...can...understand...me...OK?

It's the "company's" contract that must be signed by a member of the "company" management. Please try to understand.

When a contract is negotiated both "company" and "union" representatives are involved. Did you not know this? Did you not know someone from "your company's" management signed this contract? Did they not explain all the details to you? Perhaps ask you to attend the negotiations? LOL

As I said, I hate it when clueless people come around to whine after-the-fact. Go complain to management about how they negotiated a bad contract or start negotiating your own.

Actually I think it's you who doesn't understand what's going on, but I've observed that's mostly because upper management likes to keep middle management in the dark and not because of any inate stupidity on the part of the (caught in the) middle managers.

dennis in nca

Reply to
rigger
Loading thread data ...

Please read my answer to Dave, above, concerning both his and your lack of understanding.

As far as THIS is concerned:

I'm afraid this tells it all. You make yourself sound like an uncomprimising bastard and, somehow, proud of the fact that these "kids" would suffer because you are so "MACHO.'

Actually I doubt your perceived lack of success can be blamed on unions. In fact, I'm sure it has more to do with your personal failure than the actions of others. Too bad you're "bottled-up" under pressure this way. Try enjoying life a little more.

I think I understand why.

dennis in nca

Reply to
rigger

Condescention is rarely a successful rhetorical tactic. Just so you know.

I'm not management, I'm a tech being asked to set up an assembly line. If that's "management" then my salary needs to be $30K higher.

Why should I care, LOL. My job is to get the assembly line set up with people who can do the job.

Yawn. So I'm stuck with some lazy f*ck who has been here longer than someone who can actually read a drawing and follow it. See previous re: how exactly does this benefit anyone other than said lazy f*ck.

Oh, I understand allright.

Insulting my intelligence and observation skills of reality is unlikely to bring me over to your point of view. Just so you know.

When I am forbidden from hiring qualified people in deference to people who haven't been fired yet but have been around longer, my perception of unions is likely to be negative.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Not at all. Macho is the last thing I am, and the last thing I'd hope to become. I simply refuse to be held hostage by others when they have unreasonable demands. If their children mean so little to them, so be it.

I live by my beliefs. I served six years in the guard, and didn't pick up butts. I didn't smoke 'em, and I'll be damned if I was going to pick them up. I told them they could bust me to a civilian and nothing would change. I sure as hell pulled a lot of KP for that, however, but I stood by my principles. Do you?

Failures? How so? The only failure in my life, at least as far as I'm concerned, was my not attending college, and marrying my first wife.

I was never unemployed a day in my life, once I graduated from school. I founded and ran two successful businesses, changing careers midstream, both of which were of my choosing. I retired when I was 54 years old, and have not suffered any negative consequences as a result. I have never drawn a dime of unemployment pay, nor have I ever collected a dime of welfare money------and never have received food stamps, nor needed them.

Enjoy life a little more?

I'd like that, and I fully intend to do so, just as soon as I'm finished building my retirement home. Mean time, I listen to classical music and jazz, on a stereo system that would be the envy of most folks, I drive vehicles of my choosing, which were bought with cash, as was our real-estate. My shop, which is as nice as most folks houses, is paid for. The house that is under construction is being paid in cash as we go. I haven't been in debt since the late 70's, and then only briefly on a boat that I financed for three years. I do not do drugs, I do not smoke, and I enjoy a good glass of scotch, lobster with butter, king crab, a burger or two, and have the company of a very decent woman. I answer to no one aside from the law. How can I improve my lot in life? I'm all ears.

No, you don't. Sorry for the typo, don't know how it got past me, but I'm not the writer Ed is. It's to be expected from one out of his element. I am when I write, although I do the best I can, and spend enough time to, hopefully, avoid such mistakes. Apparently I need to spend more time.

I had no employees because that was my choice. I have worked with far too many people to understand that most have a lousy work ethic, and less than enough interest in quality. Even those that don't belong to a union often have a union mentality---hoping for more pay for less effort. I'm a loner that demands nothing less than perfection from others, particularly in machining. I don't suffer fools gladly, and have no patience for posers. Working alone is the chief reason why, in my 16 years of running my machine shop, I had but 5 rejects from Litton Guidance & Control, yet I had work for them in house for the entire duration of my run. Work was typically very close tolerance, as close as .0001". I worked alone because I knew I could do the work-----and wasn't willing to gamble on others that thought they could-----but couldn't. Where I came from, small shops flourished----almost to a man, anyone that was capable of turning out good work was self employed, and all but one was successful.

Sorry, Dennis, you don't know me at all.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

So, instead of saying the company you work for screwed-up in agreeing to these provisions, you come around "after" the negotiations and complain. Nothing about what the union may have given-up in wages/vacation/health insurance, BECAUSE MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

All I hear is your complaining. Why don't you try to find out the truth of your particular situation? Until you do that you're only operating on predjudice and speculation, not facts. After you do that we can have a conversation.

dennis in nca

Reply to
rigger

Actually I might understand you better than you may think. Everyone likes to think of themselfs as an individual but when it comes down to discussion many people lapse into the stale old rhetoric taught them by others.

Let me ask you this: Are you aware unions and employers use a "negotiated" contract? And that each side makes concessions in order to gain the bargaining points most important to them?

If you concede this is true then how can you complain about the choices each group makes? If management decides it's better to settle for lower wages and allow seniority to rule the labor pool how is this "wrong?"

Anti-union pundits love to scream about the way the union protects their members but never give the other side of the story. The people who feel aggrieved over union choices lap this up as this validates their feel- ings, and never bother to learn more. Is this you?

dennis in nca

Reply to
rigger

Are you saying that the union would give up wages, vacation, and health benefits in order to have seniority in the contract?

That sounds like a union that does not do much for the hard working members, but does a lot for the members that just want to barely get by. I would much prefer a union that bargained for pay raises and let the company have some latitude on how the raise packet is distributed.

Say the negociated raise packet is 4% . Everyone get at least 2% but the company can give 8 % to some and 4 and 6% to others. So the average raise is 4%.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

Let's try this one more time. Who does this benefit other than the guy who has been there longest? The skilled younger guys don't get the interesting assignments, and the company doesn't get the complicated stuff done by the appropriately skilled person, if one person with more seniority wants it. It's lose-lose.

The truth is, I couldn't hire people who could read and follow drawings and procedures for an assembly job, because some guy who had more years wanted what he saw as a cushy job.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

snip--

Yes, I am. So what? Where I worked, that didn't prevent slackers from killing the job.

Surely, you're not asking me that question. I've never made it a point-----but I damned well know that the best man for a job is the guy that can do the work successfully-----not necessarily the guy that's been there the longest.

Understand this: When I was trained, I had some outstanding guidance. Some of these people went on to other jobs, including starting their own business in one case. This one individual that had years more experience than I did would ask my advice for problem areas. He knew that his years of experience in a given area were not the equal of what I knew. Based on your plan, that's the guy you'd have to do your work. Based on my plan, I'm the guy that would do the work. In some cases, you'd lose, while in others you'd win. Tell me----is work a gamble, or should it be predictable? Basing qualifications on seniority sucks ------sucks big time. Fact is, many of these bastards are nothing more than slackers that take the long ride and are reluctant to leave a job, secure in the knowledge that they can't compete. Yeah, that's the guy I want to hire. The only thing gray hair means is that the hair is gray. There's no guarantee that it has any skill or talent, ESPECIALLY if it comes from the union, where deadbeats are protected. Sorry, you're going to have to do a lot better than than.

There is nothing to lap up. I've known union workers, and have known their type-----even when not a union member, and I don't much like what I see. Virtually all of them think they're over worked and under paid. They rarely are as able as their counterparts, guys that had to earn their way with skill, talent and effort. That's not to say there aren't some damned good people in the union-------but my experience dictates they're the minority.

My opinions are based on real life experiences----and considering the very small contact I've had with the union------it flat boggles my mind. How can so much bad shit come from such a small example? If I don't like what I see on the surface, how could I possibly like what's inside? They simply represent that which I abhor.

This I know: I need not get hit by a locomotive to understand it can kill me. You can trust me when I tell you, there's absolutely nothing a union can do for me that I can't do for myself---------which I did. That includes moving to another job when I was under the supervision of a guy that was less than a machinist, and would have no part of getting better-------yet he was the shop foreman.

No------this wasn't a union job. There's assholes everywhere.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you haven't figured me out by now. No one does my thinking for me, and I'm not easily mislead by BS artists. I made my way in life without ever having a union represent me. I'm as proud of that as I am the fact that I was never unemployed, or never took a dime from unemployment.

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

So throw the decision about increases upon the tender mercy of management??? LOL No thanks, but that was really funny.

The whole idea of unions is "solidarity." Why would a member decide management would better under- stand this and how to apply it?

On the other hand "Everything is negotiable" may just work for you if you negotiate a contract. Try it.

dennis in nca

Reply to
rigger

Just more "sour grapes" Dave.

These are the contract terms your management negotiated.

If you have problems understanding them, ask your manager why the contract was written this way. He/she may not know, and I'm not advocating you get yourself in hot water by asking too many questions, but the person in your company, who negotiated the contract, will know the details.

As I said before, until you can tell me why your contract was written with these clauses, I don't feel we have anything to discuss.

dennis in nca

Reply to
rigger

As long as you use your own "special" definition of "OWN" I'm sure this is true. On my side of the fence the IRS "owns" a piece of me, as do other taxing organizations. & etc.

In your life have you ever written or signed a contract?? Don't you understand what this means? Did you ever negotiate a contract?

Do you have a brother or sister? If you do would you fire your brother or sister (or child) because someone could do the job better?? (I'd like to hear about the ass-kicking from your wife when you did so. LOL) Or maybe you'd fire your Dad or Mom??? LOL

Union members call other union members "brothers" and "sisters" because thats how we treat them and how we want to be treated ourselfs. If you can't understand (and some people apparently, can not) this simple idea then I'm sorry for you. For some, it isn't the "instant money" you gain now but the overall health of the organization and its members which leads to a better life for all.

Sorry you haven't had any good experiences.

dennis in nca

Reply to
rigger

Ed Huntress wrote in article ...

Sorry!

I missed that part in the newsgroup rules that states it is okay for YOU to make fun of the 'net name a person chooses to use, but it is NOT okay for others to make fun of yours.

Mea Culpa! for not understanding the double standard.

Reply to
*

You can make fun of my name if you want, Puck. All the 6th graders used to do it. Join in.

I think of yours as a particularly direct symbolism, like a Chinese pictograph.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Not funny at all to sane people. After all whose money is it? Certainly not the unions. I don't know for sure, but I think this is how the engineers union works at BOEING. The union and BOEING negotiate the total size of the pay raise packet, and the company gets to reward the engineers that do good work.

Because the whole ideas of unions is not necessarily " solidarity ". The idea of unions is to join together in order to have a stronger position in bargaining with the company. Solidarity is just a slogan.

Not a chance. I am not about to go back to work. Not worth while unless I can negotiate with the Federal Government a deal for lower taxes.

Reply to
dcaster

No, it's the central point. Ability isn't valued, length of service is. That's just fundamentally wrong.

Are you seriously pretending that "the guy with seniority gets the first shot at a job" is somehow unique to this specific contract?

Yeah, I've made my point pretty clearly. I got stuck with the lazy old guy instead of someone who would have done it better but wasn't there as long. And, you're apparently not only not seeing why that's a problem, but are criticizing _me_ for the terms of _their_ contract. I think that sums up the problem pretty well. It certainly helped me to get a better insight into the mentality of the people like that, and has reinforced my previous impressions.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

The most probable reason it was negotiated that way, was the union was not interested in getting the best deal for the members, the union was interested in getting the best deal for the union.

If it goes by seniority, the company has to employ more people because some of them have retired on the job. Therefore the union has more members and the leaders of the union get a higher salary.

So the union negotiated away higher wages and better benefits in order to obtain seniority rights. The members lose and the union bosses gain.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

****************************** Hi Dennis: The Union that I belong to.....( This Union is over 100 years old ) believes in 8 hours pay for 8 hours work. If you do no follow these rules. Your Union Brothers will get on your case! You have to make a profit for your employer and they understand fully that if the owner goes out of business They do not have a JOB! If you fail to perform,you will not be there for long. Those Union Brothers know the owner has the right to send you down the road. Millwright Ron
formatting link
Reply to
Millwright Ron

OK-----let me rephrase that. My butt is owned by the government----but I have never signed it over to any other agency. :-)

Indeed I have, but that has nothing to do with my conversation.

Yes, and I don't like either one of them. Reason? Each has an "it's all about me" attitude. No thanks.

.If you do would you fire

From this, I conclude that if one of your family members was guilty of murdering a few people, that you'd stand by them, helping them avoid capture, defending them at all costs? You wouldn't encourage them to turn themselve in to authorities? Perhaps you'd understand if I didn't want you living in my neighborhood-----or city-----or state, not with that kind of attitude.

This isn't all about you and yours------it's about doing the right thing -------the one that benefits society, where we all live.

I get your point, but that's not what we're talking about, is it! What we're talking about is hiring someone, regardless of affiliation or relationship, to perform a given task-----at least that's what Dave was talking about. I gather you'd hire your brother-in-law to perform brain surgery on your child because he's family------never mind he has no clue what to do, or how to do it. That makes no sense, and never will.

For one, "instant money" is against my principles. That's union magic bullshit, not reality. AND-----I don't want to be a part of any organization like that-----no more than I'd choose to be a member of a church. That wonderful organization is working hard to make my cost of living go up---and continue the decline of the power of the dollar. I can't get interested in that, not for any reason. You appear to have a "this is good for me/us" attitude, even at the cost of being bad for the nation. Sorry-----my head doesn't work that way.

The only people that benefit from union coercion is the union and worker, often at great expense to the worker. You tell me, in terms I can understand, how picketing meat workers at my local store, demanding an unreasonable raise in pay, is going to benefit me? He (they) are trying to move their class of living up the scale at the expense of moving mine down. You know, and I know, that if a store pays more in wages, they'll make an offset in prices for compensation. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me------and as I've said previously-----I'm a man of my word-----I'll drive far out of my way to insure that I cross the picket line of anyone picketing an organization, and laugh in the faces of the dumb bastards that have been out of work for months, depriving their families of a comfortable life that otherwise may have been.

You want more pay in life? Get qualified to earn more-----don't pick up your gun and mask and demand more from me.

You have to understand that I see through these dodges-----I have a different mindset-----I expect people to work for their money, and I expect that they'll be paid what they earn. Not what they think they earn-----but what they earn. That, of course, doesn't seem to be in the thinking of union people-----who are constantly finding themselves the victim of their employers-----and demanding unearned pay and benefits.

As I said before, nothing would put this in focus for you quicker than owning your own business. When the buck stops at your desk, it doesn't take very long to figure out that they aren't handed out because you're cute and clever--------they're handed out because you earn them. I earned mine. I expect you, and others, to do the same.

Ah! But I have! Many, in fact, including laughing in the faces of those stupid union bastards that shit in their own nest when Eimco closed the doors on the crawler tractor division. To a man, they knew why it went south-------they just couldn't believe it would come down to that. Their union had convinced them that they were indispensable. Looks to me like the union was wrong.

I can site a second example, again, in Utah. Kennecott Copper was being destroyed by the union. It was common knowledge that workers generally held two jobs, using Kennecott for getting sleep. A person I knew quite well was one of them, and he joked about sleeping no less than 4 hours every night. They closed the doors, when it employed roughly 8,000 people, and modernized the entire operation. When they started up again, about 18 months later, they did so with only about 2,500 workers, and were then producing more copper than they were prior to the shut down. The unions were busted in the process, so new hires knew they had to work instead of stand around. I wonder------does the union teach the members to like the taste of crow? :-) Kennecott was powerless to control the workers prior to the shutdown.

You're OK, Dennis-----just very misguided. The day will come, hopefully, when you realize which entity signs your checks. That's what it's really all about. The union doesn't pay your wages, and is, in fact, the enemy. They are the entity that is now encouraging remaining businesses to leave US turf. Could your job be hanging in the balance as a result?

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

If a thief comes into your home, and takes your belongings at the point of a gun, they do not own you.

I have, and fulfilled all of them to the satisfaction of all parties involved. I have also walked away from unfavorable contracts. I have never attempted to force the party on the other side of the deal to agree to my terms.

When I was a construction contractor, I hired my wife to do some cleanup on a job site when I was getting close to my contract deadline.

I fired her ass because she wouldn't work fast enough and claimed her wrist hurt- she still married me. If she'd have held my firing her against me, I wouldn't have asked her to be my wife. I also fired my little brother for similar reasons. I wouldn't hesitate to do the same to any other family members or friends- neither blood nor affection is a valid reason to sacrifice the skilled to the unskilled.

My brother is a drug user and welfare recipient, and doesn't take care of his (illegitimate) kids. I treat him precisely as I would want to be treated if I were him- with contempt. The last thing anyone should recieve is undeserved respect or esteem. To pretend that he is doing nothing wrong, and his acceptance of the charity that is forcably taken from me by our government to suppliment his lack of ability and desire to improve himself would be to spit in the face of justice.

Without justice, we all die starving in the dark. With perfect justice, only those who seek to do nothing, and therefore deserve nothing are the recipients of that fate.

I can tell you with some certainty, without ever having met Harold, that he has had experiences that you will never equal. He stands for freedom and the unmitigated joy of accomplishment- you stand for percieved safety and brother-love. The two never meet. The former is a rare and perfect gem, while the latter is dirty rock from the backyard- common and devoid of value. A flawless diamond does not require the approval of it's peers to be set into a magnificent ring- but for a piece of shale to achieve that same end requires a great deal of omission and force.

Reply to
Prometheus

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.