Ok, let's talk unions again

[IBCoupe]

What gave you that impression?

And you are apparently an expert on jobs and hand-outs ... and an expert on unions too?

Every post you write seems to suggest a mentality friendly to the notion that, "They should be thankful they've got a job!"

Please don't twist my words and don't jump to opposite conclusions as usual. And as you did further above too.

I did not say that they should not make demands at all. I said that they should not make demands that make it unlikely to get them taken seriously - they need to let people believe that they are indeed negotiating for fair outcomes. As it stands, I would not support them in their extreme positions.

I'm not twisting your words, Z. I put the word "the" before the word "demands," meaning "these demands in particular." Stay with me, here. Given the news coverage and the economic battle going on, it seems like they're being taken seriously.

BTW, are you in their management? Or a member of that union? So that you can enlighten us as to what they want for the "final outcome" you asked about? If not, then you are in the dark too, so please don't profess to read their minds.

I'm not purporting to read their minds, Z, I'm simply not condemning them for a snapshot of the negotiations. Now you're twisting words.

Then you have not done any serious negotiations that are relevant to the discussion.

Sure, in negotiations, you ask for more than what you are willing to settle for - then the counter-offer will set the limits and you are off to the negotiating table.

However, if a demand creates an obvious (and, in this case, instant) impasse because it is unreasonable up-front, there is no incentive for the other party to even bother making a counter-offer. Because the counter-offer may/will have to be so far in the other direction that negotiations will stale-mate. The other party can and will walk away from any possible deal.

BTW, making an over-the-top demand is often a strategy taken by a party who wants that walk-away as an outcome, but does not want to be blamed for any impasse. Now, why the union would want this, in this Verizon case, is not clear to me.

Who's speculating now about what's in their heads? And I really don't think this is an over-the-top demand. "We'd like the same deal we had for the last three years" is not over-the-top. It may be unrealistic given the current economic climate, but that doesn't make it outlandish. It simply makes it unlikely. Stop freaking out over things you don't understand.

[IBCoupe]

I'm still having difficulty understanding how an employee can score "Does Not Meet Expectations" on a performance review and still qualify for a raise that a non-union employee would NOT have gotten.

That's disparate treatment, I don't give a damn how you slice it.

It's buying yourself a Lazy Pass.

Really, Greg?

Imagine you're a shop-owner. Imagine you've got four employees. They're good people and for the most part they work hard. Sometimes there's some slackage, but you cut 'em a break because you like them and you can rely on them. But one guy's been performing pretty poorly this month, and you had it in your contract that he'd be up for consideration for a raise next month. Your write-up and analysis of his performance says he's lacking, but maybe there's some other consideration that you have in your mind (a personal issue that's soon to be resolved, or a new task that he's trying hard to adapt to, for example). If he says to you, "Look, you know I'm trying really hard, and I know I haven't been performing as well as I should have been, but if I don't get that raise next month, I might have to go seek work elsewhere," you might be inclined to give him the raise anyways. Or not. But you know what the difference between your employees and your typical union worker is? A factor of about 25-50 and the fact that they can see you and talk to you frankly just about any time they need to.

I know, I know, you're gonna reply, "A union shouldn't have to ask for mandatory raises. It defeats the purpose." Am I close? Imagine that instead, you run a factory. In that factory, you've got 150 workers, and this kid from the line shows up in your office. You recognize his face, but you don't really know him. He says, "Look, you know I'm trying really hard, and I know I haven't been performing as well as I should have been, but if I don't get that raise next month, I might have to go seek work elsewhere." You might say, "There's the door." Or, maybe it's your wife's nephew, and you're trying to get on the good side of your father-in-law. You might say, "No problem, Timmy. Work harder, okay?"

As I've written before, the reason the union wants standardized raises is to eliminate favoritism. "Merit pay" isn't always meritorious in its basis, and proving it not to be is a difficult task: ask any employment lawyer who's had to sue for wrongful termination. Seniority pay increases (and cost of living - those are the two pay raises I get every year 'til I top out on the seniority pay scale, and then it's just C.O.L.) eliminate the doubt by eliminating the opportunity.

[IBCoupe]

Alcohol is a problem in this country for many people. It transcends all barriers. You'll find people with drinking problems in every segment of life. Why do you point to one example of one small group and paint all others as the same?

Huge problem in the legal community.

http://www.lclma.org/

[AZhitman]

The NY Post has as much credibility has Fox

Both owned my the same miscreant

Why do you keep quoting such unreliable sources?

Attacking the source instead of dealing with the issue at hand, again.

Are you saying it didn't happen?

That would be grounds for a lawsuit, wouldn't you think?

[AZhitman]

Alcohol is a problem in this country for many people. It transcends all barriers. You'll find people with drinking problems in every segment of life. Why do you point to one example of one small group and paint all others as the same?

You're breakin' my heart. Boo hoo hoo. Choose to drink, choose to suffer the consequences. Sympathy is between s*** and syphilis in the dictionary - happy hunting.

I think that this Christmas I'll get you a much needed new set of brushes. A set with some narrow brushes so you can paint much narrower lines when posting.

You assume I celebrate Christmas. How offensive.



Just kidding. Sorry, I'm not the artsy type. But thanks for thinking of me.

[AZhitman]

Really, Greg?

Yes, really.

The difference in the scenarios is two-fold:

One, as a supervisor, I'd hope that I'd do exactly as you described. I'm a big proponent of good supervisory practices, and part of that is having some discretion in how employee issues are dealt with. The other is having an open-door policy with the trust that HAS to accompany it (otherwise, it's just a door).

Two, you're right - it's not mandatory in your scenario. But that's not my concern. My concern, and I've stated it ad nauseum, is that there's no option for witholding a raise for an undeserving, underperforming employee... and that leads to disparate treatment of employees.

If you're worried about merit pay being abused, or favoritism, deal with THAT. No need to cast such a broad net.

(btw, I wouldn't make my decision on Timmy based off who his relatives are. I'd base it off the following facts: that he made the effort to come to me, in trust, asked for help, and that I've now fostered some loyalty in a young employee.... I'm a sucka$$, remember?)

[szh]

Every post you write seems to suggest a mentality friendly to the notion that, "They should be thankful they've got a job!"

Nope! Your assumption here is plain wrong. Don't jump to conclusions.

I am directly telling you that you are incorrect about the above. Please change your mis-impressions and stop assuming things about me that you do not know anything about.

BTW, are you in their management? Or a member of that union? So that you can enlighten us as to what they want for the "final outcome" you asked about? If not, then you are in the dark too, so please don't profess to read their minds.

I'm not purporting to read their minds, Z, I'm simply not condemning them for a snapshot of the negotiations. Now you're twisting words.

Not twisting words - I asked questions to which I did not get an answer from you. Without context to the original thread, since I can only include so many quotes, this now becomes a lost section of the discussion.

Regardless, as I said in other posts, the uion can do what they want, of course. Nor I am condemning them (where did you see that in my words?) for doing this. I am only pointing out that starting out where they are, with their demands, is likely (with a high degree of probability, given my experience with difficult negotiations) to cause a reaction that is going to be negative and they are likely to lose.

BTW, making an over-the-top demand is often a strategy taken by a party who wants that walk-away as an outcome, but does not want to be blamed for any impasse. Now, why the union would want this, in this Verizon case, is not clear to me.

Who's speculating now about what's in their heads?

How does what I said become speculation as to what is in their heads? I am talking about the purpose of such actions that are often used ... if you interpreted what I said to mean that this is what I think that these unions are doing, then I stand corrected. I don't know, or believe it likely even, that the union wants an impasse - which is why I said that it was not clear that they would want it.

Stop freaking out over things you don't understand.

I'd prefer you stop pontificating on things that you don't have a real-world clue about, or any experience with.

Z

[IBCoupe]

If you're worried about merit pay being abused, or favoritism, deal with THAT. No need to cast such a broad net.

Beyond scheduled raises (which can be withheld, of course - negotiate for it!), there aren't very efficient ways to avoid nepotism and favoritism.

(btw, I wouldn't make my decision on Timmy based off who his relatives are. I'd base it off the following facts: that he made the effort to come to me, in trust, asked for help, and that I've now fostered some loyalty in a young employee.... I'm a sucka$$, remember?)

I know. I love my Greg. It was just an illustrative example.

[IBCoupe]

Regardless, as I said in other posts, the uion can do what they want, of course. Nor I am condemning them (where did you see that in my words?) for doing this.

Bottom line: Asking for more than what is reasonable in this day and time - given the constraints that all companies do have (and Verizon is not the Evil Empire!) - is simply the wrong thing for the unions to insist on.

Were you talking about some other union, maybe?

I am only pointing out that starting out where they are, with their demands, is likely (with a high degree of probability, given my experience with difficult negotiations) to cause a reaction that is going to be negative and they are likely to lose.

1. Of course the response was negative. That's to be expected with most every demand the union's going to make.
2. I'd love to hear what experience you have that says the union is going to "lose."

I'd prefer you stop pontificating on things that you don't have a real-world clue about, or any experience with.

Looks like neither one of us is going to get their wish. By the way, there probably wasn't an "impasse," in the technical sense. The way I know you have no experience with collective bargaining is because you're throwing that word around a lot. If there was an impasse, I'm sure Verizon would be giddy: on any mandatory subject of bargaining, Verizon could unilaterally set the terms to be its last best offer.

So, go on: tell me about your experience, O World Weary One.

[AZhitman]

Beyond scheduled raises, there aren't very efficient ways to avoid nepotism and favoritism.

I don't agree. In fact, I don't even see a useful connection between the two.

Nepotism is simple to deal with - it's as easy as asking, at hire, if there's anyone related (even by marriage, and in some REAL restrictive cases, a personal, non-work-related relationship suffices) working in the agency. If so, there are policies that prevent conflicts of interest with relation to supervision and oversight.

The alternative has created conditions where one group effectively purchases an "insurance policy" to guard against potential loss as a result of a failure to meet performance standards. And that's just not acceptable.

[IBCoupe]

No, that doesnt avoid the problem of nepotism. It's okay to hire, promote and pay extra to your nephew. The problem is when he doesn't, in actuality, deserve it. The seniority pay eliminates the question as to whether there was anything fishy going on. If the employer's discretion is taken away, then the risks associated disappear.

Yes, that creates a risk that people who don't deserve a raise will get one, and that's why the contract is a product of negotiation.

[AZhitman]

No, that doesnt avoid the problem of nepotism. If the employer's discretion is taken away, then the risks associated disappear.

Yes, it does. It's disallowed in many agencies.

And if the employer's discretion is taken away, then your insightful examples (Timmy, above) would go away as well.

Yes, that creates a risk that people who don't deserve a raise will get one, and that's why the contract is a product of negotiation.

Yet the people who choose not to be under contract have no say in those negotiations.

Now, you can say, "it's none of their business", but is that really gonna be the kind of business you run? Good luck with any kind of teamwork there - looks like a good way to foster division and dissent.

Lots of effort, drama and collateral damage JUST to protect employees from the big bad corporation.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, it does. It's disallowed in many agencies.

And if the employer's discretion is taken away, then your insightful examples (Timmy, above) would go away as well.

That it's disallowed does not mean the issue is resolved. Proving that there wasn't merit to an employer's decision is a very difficult task. Again, see any employment lawyer, and they'll give you examples.

And, yes, the leniency would go away, too.

Yet the people who choose not to be under contract have no say in those negotiations.

Now, you can say, "it's none of their business", but is that really gonna be the kind of business you run? Good luck with any kind of teamwork there - looks like a good way to foster division and dissent.

Lots of effort, drama and collateral damage JUST to protect employees from the big bad corporation.

They're free to negotiate for better terms, too. The contract an employer signs with one employee (or bargaining unit) doesn't preclude him from signing a different one with other employees. And if the employer is concerned about disparate treatment, he's free to treat nonunion employees equally. Nothing says he can't.

[szh]

Regardless, as I said in other posts, the uion can do what they want, of course. Nor I am condemning them (where did you see that in my words?) for doing this.

Bottom line: Asking for more than what is reasonable in this day and time - given the constraints that all companies do have (and Verizon is not the Evil Empire!) - is simply the wrong thing for the unions to insist on.

Were you talking about some other union, maybe?

Where did I condemn them? I said it was the wrong thing for them to insist on - my opinion, my words and I still believe that is true - from the perspective of reaching an outcome. I was not "condemning" their actions. Sorry if I was not clear enough.

I am only pointing out that starting out where they are, with their demands, is likely (with a high degree of probability, given my experience with difficult negotiations) to cause a reaction that is going to be negative and they are likely to lose.

1. Of course the response was negative. That's to be expected with most every demand the union's going to make.
2. I'd love to hear what experience you have that says the union is going to "lose."

How do you interpret my saying "likely to lose" as saying "going to lose"?

Looks like neither one of us is going to get their wish. By the way, there probably wasn't an "impasse," in the technical sense. The way I know you have no experience with collective bargaining is because you're throwing that word around a lot. If there was an impasse, I'm sure Verizon would be giddy: on any mandatory subject of bargaining, Verizon could unilaterally set the terms to be its last best offer.

So, go on: tell me about your experience, O World Weary One.

I don't have to prove anything to you, thanks. Don't need to waste my time trying to find anywhere near a middle ground with you.

Z

[R/T Hemi]

You're breakin' my heart. Boo hoo hoo. Choose to drink, choose to suffer the consequences. Sympathy is between s*** and syphilis in the dictionary - happy hunting.

What heart? But let me see if I have your point here. It is somehow the unions fault they are drinking, (or alcohoics) ? I'll bet there are a few in your office with a little vodka in their thermos who hide it well and perform as they should. It's a problem in this country and has nothing to do with unions or union workers. As such, your cite was grossly misleading.

You assume I celebrate Christmas. How offensive.



Just kidding. Sorry, I'm not the artsy type. But thanks for thinking of me.

Okay, how about Secretary appreciation day?

[IBCoupe]

I was not "condemning" their actions.

You say tomato...

How do you interpret my saying "likely to lose" as saying "going to lose"?

What difference does that make? Have you experience or haven't you?

I don't have to prove anything to you, thanks. Don't need to waste my time trying to find anywhere near a middle ground with you.

Cool beans! So all I have to do from now on to get you to quit is to not let your claim of "experience" go unchallenged? Good to know.

[szh]

I don't have to prove anything to you, thanks. Don't need to waste my time trying to find anywhere near a middle ground with you.

Cool beans! So all I have to do from now on to get you to quit is to not let your claim of "experience" go unchallenged? Good to know.

You can indeed believe whatever you want.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Well, I'm glad that you've gone from nit-picky non-sequiturs to cryptic non-responses, whatever the reason.

[AZhitman]

Yes, it does. It's disallowed in many agencies.

That it's disallowed does not mean the issue is resolved.

Proving that there wasn't merit to an employer's decision is a very difficult task. Again, see any employment lawyer, and they'll give you examples.

Sure it is. If it's disallowed, then no one can complain of nepotism. if we find later that someone was untruthful, that's grounds for termination.

Not sure I follow you on the second part. I'm intimately familiar with this issue, as my main function is to represent the employer in these cases. Are you saying the employer could abuse their authority by falsely claiming (and sanctioning someone for) nepotism?

[IBCoupe]

Like I said, Greg, it's a hard thing to show, as is most everything in employment law. I'm saying the employer could be nepotistic and nobody would be any the wiser.

[AZhitman]

And if that's the case, what's the harm?

There's not an offense until there's an aggrieved, amirite?

[IBCoupe]

There's still an offense, it's just not something that you can get recovery for because you can't show it. Similarly, there's all this hype still going on about the NLRB's decision re: Boeing and South Carolina. The fact of the matter is that if Boeing's executives hadn't been monumentally stupid, the union wouldn't have had a case to bring. Though the actual motive for what Boeing did was illegal, there wouldn't have been any evidence for its illegality had they not said anything about it. Similarly, nepotism can be violative of the contract and still occur, because it's the kind of thing that, unless it's blatant, will have adequate cover.

[AZhitman]

I don't disagree, esp re: the Boeing case.

I'm just not convinced, once we get down to it, that it's sufficient justification for all the hassles it causes.

Things have a way of working themselves out. This would certainly be one of those cases.

[R/T Hemi]

There's not an offense until there's an aggrieved, amirite?

LOL. Try renting a woman for the night.

[Encryptshun]

There's not an offense until there's an aggrieved, amirite?

LOL. Try renting a woman for the night.

Have a lot of experience at that, do you?

[AZhitman]

There's not an offense until there's an aggrieved, amirite?

LOL. Try renting a woman for the night.

Not my style.

[AppleBonker]

Try renting a man for the night?

[IBCoupe]

Goat.

Don't ask me how I know.

[smockers83]

In a union environment, there are contractual rules and regulations towards having to let someone go. Putting in regulations inherently isn't a free market. For example, if a Teamster is caught on video violating policy (and maybe even law), he cannot be fired because in the contract it says that Teamsters can only be fired if directly observed. Yeah, that's a free market labor force.

You asked how the labor market was free. Not the labor force. The labor market is still free, and further: NEGOTIATE A BETTER CONTRACT, IF IT BOTHERS YOU. If you're not a party to the negotiations, BUTT OUT. It's that simple. You want a free market? Let the parties contract.

I'm sorry, did I hit a nerve? Sorry, I don't work in a union environment. I'm too smart for that, I'm what they call a white shirt.

Again, you failed. Follow me here. Remember when I first posed the question about a free labor market? I said that the essence of a free market is that resources are free to move around, in this case capital and labor. If a company cannot manage it's own workforce as it deems necessary, such as getting rid of a Brother for legitimate reasons that any other company in its right mind would get rid of a person for, it's capital is tied up in that worker, thus the market is not a free one.

Of course the labor force is free, it lives in America.

Now, if a company decides to screw its workforce, its workforce will be unhappy and they will leave. But those that will leave bring the market back to equilibrium because the amount the company is willing to pay the ones who stuck around felt it wasn't worth it to move. Sure, they may be upset, but they're also making an economic decision. If a company keeps screwing its employees with wages and what not, eventually it can't stay staffed for the amount of work required to generate profits due to too many people leaving. Two things can happen, the company keeps hurting itself by thinking it needs to cut costs, screwing more employees or it comes to its senses and recognizes the true problem. But if they're making the wrong decisions and continue to screw people over, it is better that the company goes down because they're not making good economic decisions. The capital and labor of the company can be better applied within the economy.

When you get a union involved, most of them put the labor market out of equilibrium by demanding higher wages and other compensation than what the free market would normally produce for that level of skill and talent.

Which isn't bad. A "free market" has slavery and indentured servitude. Why is it that unions are a bridge too far in limiting what the market can do to those producing its labor?

You have the thinking from the late 1800s/early 1900s. A free market does not mean no $$$ silly. C'mon, you're just being childish. There are labor laws, there is minimum wage. If a company wants to pay minimum wage for a position, they can, however if the labor force demands a higher wage for said position, the qualified labor will take a pass and the company will get what it pays for...under-qualified individuals. But lets say the big mean company realizes it's not attracting the higher skills it needs for that position, it realizes it needs to pay more for it. It's a novel concept called price discovery. A big bad company will find a wage in which it can attract the right skill set over time.

A union on the other hand, with it's demanded, strong-armed higher wages relative to the free market equilibrium, is no doubt, a better deal for those individuals as they are now getting more money and puts them in a better financial position. But that capital could be better allocated due to the market being out of equilibrium and/or the labor could also be better allocated to where it's needed.

Also, just for clarification, in case you need it, when I say labor, I mean the labor force.

Now, at the same time, employers can compete with each other for labor in that they bid up their wages relative to other employers in order to steal labor. If an employer is expecting production to increase and the labor market is relatively tapped out, thus meaning labor supply is low, it can raise it's wages to broaden it's labor supply by extracting labor from another employer that doesn't pay as much. That is all of one example of free market labor.

Are you under the impression that employers can't offer more pay? That a union somehow prevents wage competition? Huh?

Absolutely not. I think I made that perfectly clear in that example that an employer can offer more pay, but only if it sees the benefit of increased capital allocation towards labor. And yes, unions can prevent wage competition. Going back to the Brotherhood, they have a national contract. YRC Worldwide's labor voted in wage concessions which has caused ABF to sue the Brotherhood because they haven't gotten the same concessions. The same thing happens at the Big 3 with the UAW. If one company gets concessions, the others usually follow, or vice versa (union gets more, the other companies usually end up following suit). This is clearly not wage competition. In fact, it's exactly the opposite of my example that you are questioning, for some unknown reason.

[AppleBonker]

A free market does not mean no $$$ silly. C'mon, you're just being childish. There are labor laws, there is minimum wage

Both of those examples don't exist in a free market, actually. I think that was the point of the above comment.