Ok, let's talk unions again

[AZhitman]

That's ok, I mis-typed earlier when I was mentioning agencies that have pre-empted the need for union intervention on behalf of employees... I should have typed NLRB. I was working on another post regarding the EPA and fell asleep at the wheel.

[C-Kwik]

1) The contract expired. It's now time to renegotiate a new one. By definition, "negotiate" means both sides give up something to come to an agreement. If you wanted a lifelong guarantee of healthcare, you shouldn't have agreed to a contract that had an expiration date. Did you think the gravy train would run forever?

2) How is the disparate treatment of workers fair? If the boss paid for your co-worker's lunch every day, wouldn't you have an issue with that? How is it that some workers pay for part of their healthcare, and some don't? The only variable is union membership. Seems like discrimination against non-unionized workers to me.

3) These workers can pay their union dues (a nonessential expense), but not part of their health care costs (an essential expense)? Really? How about getting your priorities straight.

4) How much do all of you pay for your health insurance? I have a "cushy government job" and I STILL pay upwards of $600/mo for my coverage.

5) Why is it the employer's responsibility to pay for 100% of your healthcare costs? Where does that idea even COME from? Why not pay for their mortgage too? Or their gasoline?

6) To the union spokesperson - You suck at math. $100/mo is $1200 a year, last I checked. Not $6K. Nice scare tactic to garner support from uneducated mouthbreathers. And what the hell is "draconian" about the Verizon proposal? I've read it. It looks reasonable.

7) Wow, imagine that...not getting a raise if you don't meet your job requirements...unless you are union. What kind of CRAP is that?

8) Imagine how much cheaper the healthcare costs per employee would be if the non-union workers weren't subsidizing the union workers' insurance.

9) Every person who works for Verizon that I've ever spoken to (a lot of the are posting on another board I frequent) say that Verizon pays VERY well, and has a very liberal vacation / sick leave policy. So, is there really even a need for a union? If there is, I can't find it. Maybe I'm dumb.

10) And the part that chaps my a$$ the worst: What's with the entitlement mentality of the union rep, pointing to the company's profits, as if that somehow supports their position? "Oh, you made a lot of money, you can afford to give some of it away!" Yeah - we'll get right on that. That's called the politics of envy, and it's idiotic.

This is not my quote, but it makes sense:

Funny how most of the typical workers don't mind ball players making millions...but if just one hard working executive succeeds, he did it all because he stole or is somehow raping the little man at the bottom. Those execs *are* the superstars of their field...they are the high paid athletes of the financial world.

1. Negotiation does not in any way mean one side has to give up anything. The parties can renegotiate the contract under the same terms and it would still have been a negotiation. I don't know the terms of the proposals being offered, but I'd venture a guess that Verizon is trying to negotiate it in their favor. Its plausible they would end up giving up nothing and gaining something. As for lifelong guarantees, do you really think such a demand would hold? And its likely neither side really wants to bind themselves permanently. Consider if the company did extremely well. The union would be stupid to prevent themselves from negotiating a better contract should they think its possible.

2. On the other hand, plenty of upper level employees of many companies get benefits that lower level employees do not get. Many have hourly employees with no extra benefits. While management do get benefits. And in cases where non-union employees'benefits are less than that of union, what's to stop them from unionizing to better their position?

3. Lets say they drop the union. Think the company will be as kind in providing benefits equal to what they were getting? Maybe, maybe not. But its unlikely worth the risk of not having the union at this point. Their priorities are to themselves. An d in that interest, they will do what they think is best for themselves.

4. What does that have to do with their right to negotiate? If they end up with a better position for themselves, who are you to question it? Are you saying you shouldn't be able to try and negotiate the absolute lowest price for a car you are going to buy? Or should you pay more just because someone else paid more for the same thing?

5. No one says they have to. And why might a company do such a thing? Perhaps its more valuable to keep their employees working and happy than to haggle over it. The way you state this, you might as well say no company should ever pay for any part of healthcare benefits. But they do. So there must be some value in it...

6. I don't know what the specifics of the proposal(s) are. Does the $6K per year represent only the increased healthcare costs of the proposal? Perhaps there are other aspects of the proposal they are including?

7. I agree with you in principle on this one, but consider the bigger picture here. They are not going to simply start their negotiations in the middle of their range of acceptable offers. There may be things they are willing to give up. This could be one of them. But you don't show your hand at the beginning of the game. In the end, perhaps they give up something else but keep this. In any negotiation, each side is going to work in their own best interests. Think Verizon is offering their best up front? Is there more they might be willing to give up? How do you know unless you call them on it?

8. You assume that's what the company does. Nor does the company care. They are going to look at absolutes. Ultimately, its a question of how it affects their bottom line. Put it this way. If I get a better price on a car than the next guy, does this mean he has subsidized my car?

9. A question one might consider here is would the unionized workers get the benefits they do without the union?

10. Nothing wrong with asking for a share of the profits. Afterall, they did contribute to it.

I'll sum these points up by saying that many of these demands and arguments they make are intertwined. Each party is going to be ultimately considering the bottom line results. Verizon isn't going to care what benefits they give in to directly. They are looking at how much it will cost them. And the union employees are essentially doing the same. Its likely each party is going to give up something here. The question of what is likely to come down to how it affects their bottom line. Example, if the employees have to pay into their healthcare, a raise might offset it enough to make it worth it. And tax laws may be able to make one scenario cheaper for the company than the other. In which case, they may concede. But I guarantee that aren't offering that up as the first option if they think they can have greater impact by arguing against higher pay AND higher employee healthcare contributions.

[telcoman]

1) The contract expired. It's now time to renegotiate a new one. By definition, "negotiate" means both sides give up something to come to an agreement. If you wanted a lifelong guarantee of healthcare, you shouldn't have agreed to a contract that had an expiration date. Did you think the gravy train would run forever?

2) How is the disparate treatment of workers fair? If the boss paid for your co-worker's lunch every day, wouldn't you have an issue with that? How is it that some workers pay for part of their healthcare, and some don't? The only variable is union membership. Seems like discrimination against non-unionized workers to me.

3) These workers can pay their union dues (a nonessential expense), but not part of their health care costs (an essential expense)? Really? How about getting your priorities straight.

4) How much do all of you pay for your health insurance? I have a "cushy government job" and I STILL pay upwards of $600/mo for my coverage.

5) Why is it the employer's responsibility to pay for 100% of your healthcare costs? Where does that idea even COME from? Why not pay for their mortgage too? Or their gasoline?

6) To the union spokesperson - You suck at math. $100/mo is $1200 a year, last I checked. Not $6K. Nice scare tactic to garner support from uneducated mouthbreathers. And what the hell is "draconian" about the Verizon proposal? I've read it. It looks reasonable.

7) Wow, imagine that...not getting a raise if you don't meet your job requirements...unless you are union. What kind of CRAP is that?

8) Imagine how much cheaper the healthcare costs per employee would be if the non-union workers weren't subsidizing the union workers' insurance.

9) Every person who works for Verizon that I've ever spoken to (a lot of the are posting on another board I frequent) say that Verizon pays VERY well, and has a very liberal vacation / sick leave policy. So, is there really even a need for a union? If there is, I can't find it. Maybe I'm dumb.

10) And the part that chaps my a$$ the worst: What's with the entitlement mentality of the union rep, pointing to the company's profits, as if that somehow supports their position? "Oh, you made a lot of money, you can afford to give some of it away!" Yeah - we'll get right on that. That's called the politics of envy, and it's idiotic.

This is not my quote, but it makes sense:

Funny how most of the typical workers don't mind ball players making millions...but if just one hard working executive succeeds, he did it all because he stole or is somehow raping the little man at the bottom. Those execs *are* the superstars of their field...they are the high paid athletes of the financial world.

1. Negotiation does not in any way mean one side has to give up anything. The parties can renegotiate the contract under the same terms and it would still have been a negotiation. I don't know the terms of the proposals being offered, but I'd venture a guess that Verizon is trying to negotiate it in their favor. Its plausible they would end up giving up nothing and gaining something. As for lifelong guarantees, do you really think such a demand would hold? And its likely neither side really wants to bind themselves permanently. Consider if the company did extremely well. The union would be stupid to prevent themselves from negotiating a better contract should they think its possible.

2. On the other hand, plenty of upper level employees of many companies get benefits that lower level employees do not get. Many have hourly employees with no extra benefits. While management do get benefits. And in cases where non-union employees'benefits are less than that of union, what's to stop them from unionizing to better their position?

3. Lets say they drop the union. Think the company will be as kind in providing benefits equal to what they were getting? Maybe, maybe not. But its unlikely worth the risk of not having the union at this point. Their priorities are to themselves. An d in that interest, they will do what they think is best for themselves.

4. What does that have to do with their right to negotiate? If they end up with a better position for themselves, who are you to question it? Are you saying you shouldn't be able to try and negotiate the absolute lowest price for a car you are going to buy? Or should you pay more just because someone else paid more for the same thing?

5. No one says they have to. And why might a company do such a thing? Perhaps its more valuable to keep their employees working and happy than to haggle over it. The way you state this, you might as well say no company should ever pay for any part of healthcare benefits. But they do. So there must be some value in it...

6. I don't know what the specifics of the proposal(s) are. Does the $6K per year represent only the increased healthcare costs of the proposal? Perhaps there are other aspects of the proposal they are including?

7. I agree with you in principle on this one, but consider the bigger picture here. They are not going to simply start their negotiations in the middle of their range of acceptable offers. There may be things they are willing to give up. This could be one of them. But you don't show your hand at the beginning of the game. In the end, perhaps they give up something else but keep this. In any negotiation, each side is going to work in their own best interests. Think Verizon is offering their best up front? Is there more they might be willing to give up? How do you know unless you call them on it?

8. You assume that's what the company does. Nor does the company care. They are going to look at absolutes. Ultimately, its a question of how it affects their bottom line. Put it this way. If I get a better price on a car than the next guy, does this mean he has subsidized my car?

9. A question one might consider here is would the unionized workers get the benefits they do without the union?

10. Nothing wrong with asking for a share of the profits. Afterall, they did contribute to it.

I'll sum these points up by saying that many of these demands and arguments they make are intertwined. Each party is going to be ultimately considering the bottom line results. Verizon isn't going to care what benefits they give in to directly. They are looking at how much it will cost them. And the union employees are essentially doing the same. Its likely each party is going to give up something here. The question of what is likely to come down to how it affects their bottom line. Example, if the employees have to pay into their healthcare, a raise might offset it enough to make it worth it. And tax laws may be able to make one scenario cheaper for the company than the other. In which case, they may concede. But I guarantee that aren't offering that up as the first option if they think they can have greater impact by arguing against higher pay AND higher employee healthcare contributions.

I always enjoy reading a post that makes sense vs those that some post here (I won't mention names, we all know who they are) that are total BS from listening and quoting Fox or The Washington Times which just cater to wack jobs on the right.

Telcoman

[szh]

I can say the same for all the people here who blindly are lead by the nose, no independent thinking allowed, serve with the masses, by the N.Y. Times.

Z

[telcoman]

I can say the same for all the people here who blindly are lead by the nose, no independent thinking allowed, serve with the masses, by the N.Y. Times.
Z

The New York Times is a very well regarded and respected United States newspaper read around the world by most leaders of many countries.

I'ts OP ED pages publish those with first hand knowledge on both sides of important issues including many in congress and even some of our enemies.

Letters to the editor come from readers around the world.

The NY Times is not a mouthpiece for any political party like Fox ( which quite ofter refers to it) and just publishes all the news thats fit to print with very in depth articles many times longer than I sometimes have time for.

[AZhitman]

I always enjoy reading a post that makes sense vs those that some post here (I won't mention names, we all know who they are) that are total BS from listening and quoting Fox or The Washington Times which just cater to wack jobs on the right.

Take notes. Maybe you should try it some time.

"When you've got no argument, attack the source."

I just got home from a camping trip, I'll get to Chano's post later.

[heliochrome85]

I always enjoy reading a post that makes sense vs those that some post here (I won't mention names, we all know who they are) that are total BS from listening and quoting Fox or The Washington Times which just cater to wack jobs on the right.

Take notes. Maybe you should try it some time.

"When you've got no argument, attack the source."

I just got home from a camping trip, I'll get to Chano's post later.

did you meet any REAL AMERICANS™ there?

[AZhitman]

Yep. Most of them spoke Spanish and had names ending in Z.

[IBCoupe]

...from a legitimate news source...

If you take nothing else from my comment, I'd like you to take away this: The Washington Times is not a legitimate news source. It is a propaganda rag, wholly owned by a religious cult that praises some random Korean as the most recent coming of Christ. Their spin is not to be trusted.

Lest you think I'm attacking the source in lieu of an argument, I'll continue:

1) The contract expired. It's now time to renegotiate a new one. By definition, "negotiate" means both sides give up something to come to an agreement. If you wanted a lifelong guarantee of healthcare, you shouldn't have agreed to a contract that had an expiration date. Did you think the gravy train would run forever?

I expect that much of what I write might echo C-Kwik's comments, as they were very well put, and I can't help but agree with him. I guarantee you, Greg, that the last contract forms abases for the new one. Verizon demands higher employee contributions to healthcare, and then offers what, exactly? Are you really siding with the employer when they're saying, "We're going to pay you less, now. That is all?" Are you really going to complain that the union isn't negotiating?

2) How is the disparate treatment of workers fair? If the boss paid for your co-worker's lunch every day, wouldn't you have an issue with that? How is it that some workers pay for part of their healthcare, and some don't? The only variable is union membership. Seems like discrimination against non-unionized workers to me.

You're right the only variable is union membership. That's part of why one organizes. That's the point. It's a pretty useless union that gets you a deal identical to the average Joe that has no control whatsoever over the terms of his employment contract. If the other worker wants a better deal, and the only variable is union membership, it seems quite clear what he should do: fight for the privileges the union fought for.

3) These workers can pay their union dues (a nonessential expense), but not part of their health care costs (an essential expense)? Really? How about getting your priorities straight.

My union dues come out automatically from my paycheck. It's a half-hour's pay every week. Luckily, I'm young and in fairly decent health. Still, my vision costs are much higher than my union dues at the instant they're incurred. And I happily pay my dues because it pays me back more. And that's the point.

4) How much do all of you pay for your health insurance? I have a "cushy government job" and I STILL pay upwards of $600/mo for my coverage.

I don't believe your job is cushy, Greg, but maybe you should seek better terms. If you're not unionized, seems like that might be difficult. I pay $40/week for my health insurance, and I'm thankful to my union for that.

5) Why is it the employer's responsibility to pay for 100% of your healthcare costs? Where does that idea even COME from? Why not pay for their mortgage too? Or their gasoline?

Because that's part of the contract. If it's not part of the contract, then it's not a responsibility. But I'm not about to cry crocodile tears for Verizon when the union negotiates hard for them. They're not being bullied around by anyone.

not getting a raise if you don't meet your job requirements...unless you are union. What kind of CRAP is that?

The kind of crap you fight for to ensure that your employer doesn't give pay raises for inappropriate reasons. Were it not for the union, I'd likely be able to earn more than the rest of my coworkers. I don't, though, and I'm okay with it.

8) Imagine how much cheaper the healthcare costs per employee would be if the non-union workers weren't subsidizing the union workers' insurance.

That doesn't make much sense. Sounds like they'd be exactly the same unless you think union members get sick more. Maybe higher, because it might be easier for Verizon to pass on more of the costs to everybody.

9) Every person who works for Verizon that I've ever spoken to (a lot of the are posting on another board I frequent) say that Verizon pays VERY well, and has a very liberal vacation / sick leave policy. So, is there really even a need for a union? If there is, I can't find it. Maybe I'm dumb.

Mind your own business. Think that those wages and benefits would remain if there were no union? Nobody's voting to get rid of the union, and they have a right to. What does that tell you?

10) And the part that chaps my a$$ the worst: What's with the entitlement mentality of the union rep, pointing to the company's profits, as if that somehow supports their position? "Oh, you made a lot of money, you can afford to give some of it away!" Yeah - we'll get right on that. That's called the politics of envy, and it's idiotic.

The proper translation from Unionese is: "If you want to save money, I know someplace else you can go before trying to hit up my buddy Fred." That's not entitlement, Greg, that's simply defusing the Company's argument as to why union members need to be paid less.

[AZhitman]

I expect that much of what I write might echo C-Kwik's comments, as they were very well put, and I can't help but agree with him. I guarantee you, Greg, that the last contract forms abases for the new one. Verizon demands higher employee contributions to healthcare, and then offers what, exactly? Are you really siding with the employer when they're saying, "We're going to pay you less, now. That is all?" Are you really going to complain that the union isn't negotiating?

What is the company offering? Perhaps keeping people employed who are no longer needed? If you'd caught the details, a lot of these guy are working in a function that's diminishing rapidly. No, I'm not saying they should be kissing the feet of the employer, but they ARE remaining employed. I've heard nothing of layoffs, despite the fact that the job they perform is in less and less demand due to technological advances.

I don't believe your job is cushy, Greg, but maybe you should seek better terms. If you're not unionized, seems like that might be difficult. I pay $40/week for my health insurance, and I'm thankful to my union for that.

To my knowledge, union workers in my agency pay the same as I do. So the only recourse I have is to make myself "irreplaceable" (which I've done, at least as much as anyone can be "irreplaceable") remind my employer that other opportunities exist. (NOTE: My situation is a little different - I'm not interested in a promotion, and I get a lot of schedule flexibility in lieu of financial compensation, which, at this point in my life, is worth more than the extra pay.)

Because that's part of the contract. If it's not part of the contract, then it's not a responsibility. But I'm not about to cry crocodile tears for Verizon when the union negotiates hard for them. They're not being bullied around by anyone.

It's expired.

The kind of crap you fight for to ensure that your employer doesn't give pay raises for inappropriate reasons.

Not meeting performance standards seems like a pretty inappropriate reason to get a raise. Where's the company's "stick" when it comes to dealing with an employee who can't cut the mustard? They still get the carrot.

That doesn't make much sense. Sounds like they'd be exactly the same unless you think union members get sick more. Maybe higher, because it might be easier for Verizon to pass on more of the costs to everybody.

Sure it does. If you have 20% of your employees NOT paying for their healthcare costs, and 80% do, there's 20% of your work force NOT contributing to the company's total healthcare bill. The 80% have to cover it. And even if you say, "Well, the company absorbs it, not the other 80% of workers", I'd posit that if that extra money was left out there, the company could hire more workers or pay everyone more. Even if it was simply making the company more profitable, that still benefits everyone - Rising tides lift all ships.

Think that those wages and benefits would remain if there were no union?

Sure they would. I'm not about to credit the union for the paycheck a non-union worker receives. Look at a company like Chipotle. They CHOOSE to pay more than other fast-food joints, and their performance requirements are more stringent for employees. No union intervention needed.

Good stuff, brotha. Welcome back.

[IBCoupe]

What is the company offering? Perhaps keeping people employed who are no longer needed? If you'd caught the details, a lot of these guy are working in a function that's diminishing rapidly. No, I'm not saying they should be kissing the feet of the employer, but they ARE remaining employed. I've heard nothing of layoffs, despite the fact that the job they perform is in less and less demand due to technological advances.

I'd argue that's what layoffs are for, and cuts through attrition. There's no need to stick it to current employees because your line of business is dwindling. If Verizon wants to operate with fewer workers in that field, it can, but simply saying "We'll give you jobs in exchange for concessions" likely isn't going to get as far against someone with leverage. For its other employees sure, but that's what you pay your union dues for.

To my knowledge, union workers in my agency pay the same as I do. So the only recourse I have is to make myself "irreplaceable" (which I've done, at least as much as anyone can be "irreplaceable") remind my employer that other opportunities exist. (NOTE: My situation is a little different - I'm not interested in a promotion, and I get a lot of schedule flexibility in lieu of financial compensation, which, at this point in my life, is worth more than the extra pay.)

I feel like we've been over this before. It's great that your working conditions are perfectly satisfactory to you, and I would fully support your "no" vote if someone tried to organize. But I wouldn't begrudge others that disagree with you.

It's expired.

I know it is. My point was: it's the employer's responsibility if they agree it is. If they want to say it isn't, then they need to sign a contract to that extent, and be prepared for a fight. There's no reason the union should roll over for the convenience of management. That's not whose interests they serve.

Not meeting performance standards seems like a pretty inappropriate reason to get a raise. Where's the company's "stick" when it comes to dealing with an employee who can't cut the mustard? They still get the carrot.

The "stick" is hiding in the definition of the phrase "for cause." Decoupling pay increases from "performance" makes it less subjective, reducing the opportunity for workplace corruption.

Sure it does. If you have 20% of your employees NOT paying for their healthcare costs, and 80% do, there's 20% of your work force NOT contributing to the company's total healthcare bill. The 80% have to cover it. And even if you say, "Well, the company absorbs it, not the other 80% of workers", I'd posit that if that extra money was left out there, the company could hire more workers or pay everyone more. Even if it was simply making the company more profitable, that still benefits everyone - Rising tides lift all ships.

The costs are coming out of everybody's wages, and potentially coming out of profits. If the company takes it out only on the nonunionized guys, and then later equalizes it, mathematics says that the cost-per-employee should be the same. it's the same dollar amount across the same number of employees, just spread differently.

Sure they would. I'm not about to credit the union for the paycheck a non-union worker receives. Look at a company like Chipotle. They CHOOSE to pay more than other fast-food joints, and their performance requirements are more stringent for employees. No union intervention needed.

Because it's cheaper for Chipotle to offer better wages than risk the need to stave off organization. A rising tide and all that. Chipotle needs a workforce, and if a union job is markedly better than a nonunion job, what's a prospective employee going to choose?

Raising wages makes the risks and costs of organizing less attractive, because the gains are much smaller. What are you fighting for if not a living wage? If you already get that, there's no need to fight for anything else; it's not worth it.

I can't prove this by any means, but absent the threat of unionization, employers would have little reason to treat their employees well, especially in this economic situation.

Good stuff, brotha. Welcome back

Good to be back.

[Encryptshun]

I'd posit that if that extra money was left out there, the company could hire more workers or pay everyone more. Even if it was simply making the company more profitable, that still benefits everyone - Rising tides lift all ships.

I'm just jumping in to cherry-pick at this one comment (sorry, Greg).

I think 30 or 40 years ago, this would have been a valid assumption. Heck, even in the last 20 years (though only during boom times). But not today. Huge public companies like Verizon generally do not value their employees anymore beyond what it takes to look good to public opinion. There is a ton of statistical data on employee engagement, human capital strategies, and compensation best-practice out there to back that up, sadly.

The reason the stock market is up while employment is down is greed, pure and simple. And the market LOVES the greed, because it translates into share price. But now if a company like Verizon raises margin by 2%, they don't generally do anything in the way of merit increases or profitsharing for the average employee (beyond a token), so the economics on a per-employee basis don't work.

Example: Let's just say Verizon reduced their contribution to employee healthcare by 20%, raising the average employee benefit cost by $400/month for a family. And let's say that change resulted in a change net expenses of $20 million. If the business unit was underperforming and that $20 million doesn't offest the loss, no one would get anything, but the employees would effectively see a take-home-pay decrease of $400/month commensurate with the extra benefit cost. But let's be more rosey -- let's say the $20 million in savings put them over the top in attaining their financial goals for the year, so employee bonuses get paid out that otherwise wouldn't have been. So usually bonuses get paid only to people of manager level or above, so if you are under that you don't get anything (80% of the workforce). Managers would get maybe 50% bonus payout directly tied to corporate performance, and bonuses are generally 10% of annual salary. So let's say your average starting manager makes $85k/year. 100% bonus payout would be $8500. 50% of $8500 would be $4250 (which gets taxed at 37.5%), so they take home a lump-sum of $2656.25. But their benefits have increased by $4800. So they actually see a net LOSS on the deal of $2143.25.

So the company hits their numbers, and compensates their employees which COSTS the employees $2200 YEAR ONE.

Year, two corporate guidance is offset to reflect the new baseline, so that decrease in healthcare burden is NOT CALCULATED. Benefit is one-time only. So there is no benefit to employees. But there IS a $4800 per year ongoing loss for each employee.

That's assuming an entry-level manager. But as you go up the chain, look at the difference. Say you are a CPO (Chief People Officer) and your compensation is directly tied to corporate performance as impacted by changed to benefits and compensation. You just contributed $20 million toward your target. Let's say your salary is $1.5 million a year (about average for a Fortune 500 company) and your bonus is 20% of annual salary (again, about average) with 50% tied to corporate performance and 50% tied to your departmental performance. Now that healthcare cost deal just let you hit 100% of your bonus for the year, which is $300K ($187,500 after taxes). And you yourself will see a decrease in your take-home pay of $4800/year. You just made a decision which benefited you (and your peers/superiors/board of directors)far more than it benefited the employees, who will really have a hard time finding work right now due to the economy. So they pretty much have no choice but to take it and smile.

And the company will take this new money (if it does indeed contribute to overall profitability) and they will keep it in the form of cash. It won't go to shareholders. It won't go to the employees. It won't go to extra innovation. It won't go to padding budgets to go into new markets. It will just sit there, padding the balance sheet.

So I do think it's dangerous to assume that companies financially remunerate or otherwise invest the extra money they'd get from increasing worker productivity and/or decreasing wages/benefits. It isn't happening and it won't start happening again until there's some downside for the company. So long as unemployment remains high and the markets have no clear direction, corporations will sit and do nothing but what they need to survive, while looking inward to increase their profits.

[AZhitman]

What are you fighting for if not a living wage? If you already get that, there's no need to fight for anything else; it's not worth it.

Apply that to the Verizon situation. We're talking about guys with a GED earning $37 an hour, and free healthcare.

Now, you'll never catch me relying on that line of attack, because I don't believe in determining what's "enough" for someone, but it seems to me they're pretty damn well-compensated for the actual function they perform.

Yes, specialized skills and all that. Still in all, it's a nice gig given the educational investment and level of effort.

[IBCoupe]

What are you fighting for if not a living wage? If you already get that, there's no need to fight for anything else; it's not worth it.

Apply that to the Verizon situation. We're talking about guys with a GED earning $37 an hour, and free healthcare.

Now, you'll never catch me relying on that line of attack, because I don't believe in determining what's "enough" for someone, but it seems to me they're pretty damn well-compensated for the actual function they perform.

Yes, specialized skills and all that. Still in all, it's a nice gig given the educational investment and level of effort.

Well, sure. Once you have a union, you don't care about the costsanf risks of getting one. Now there's no reason to get rid of it.

[AZhitman]

...corporations will sit and do nothing but what they need to survive, while looking inward to increase their profits.

With the alternative being layoffs, fiscal insolvency and potential takeovers from other companies (which hurts workers far more than asking them to kick in their fair share of paying for their healthcare coverage).

Someone far smarter than me posted up this simplified analysis (sorry, it's long, but an easy read):

If you and I form a company to make wooden toy boats, and we hire the 2 best craftsmen to do the work, and ask them what they want to be paid, and we say OK. We build an air conditioned shop, add all the latest equipment, set up a personnel system for sick days, vacation, merit pay for hard work and job performance that exceeds the basic task. The workers are happy.

We fix our price on the boats, shop around for a vendor for the wood, and we're in the boat business. The boats are good, and we travel far and wide to sell them. We create a network of distribution points for our boats, and begin to sell them in stores world wide. After a while, we hire more boat crafstmen...a lot more. 100's.

Pretty soon we are cranking out boats like crazy because you and I have set up a wonderful marketing plan, designed the most popular boats and can sell them anywhere.

Now, the boat craftsmen see we are getting rich from our hard work. Pretty soon, their shabby little workshop doesn't look as nice as our finely appointed office where we discuss boat deals with our customers and their attorneys. They see us driving nice cars, buying things with the money we've made from selling so many boats.

So they get together and stop work. They want more money. They won't work on any more boats unless we pay them more. They get their friends to stop work too. Pretty soon, all the boat craftsmen aren't making boats, they are sitting.

They want to set up a different system. They give us a whole set of rules and regulations of how they are to be paid, how they are to be promoted, and how they will taken care of even when they are no longer making boats for us. They demand their "rights" and their "fair share" of our company.

You and I sit down and try to make some concessions. Perhaps we can pay them more. But when we open our check book, we see that even if we gave up all the money we earned, and added it to the payroll, it would only amount to about 1/4 of what they were asking for. Even if we kept but $1/hr, it still wouldn't be more than a few dollars more to each of them. So we try to explain that we deserve the money we earn because afterall, we created this business. We put in the hours traveling, selling. We designed the system they work in. We hired them. We are entitled to our income and pay, because without the sytem we made, there would be no jobs.

Their response is - without us doing the job, there would be no company...pay up.

With much thought, we conclude there are only a few options:
-Give them all the money, in which case there is little incentive for you and me to keep running the business
-Hire new workers and hope they can build boats
-Sell the company and take our money and run.
-Automate the boat making process with CNC machines and eliminate the craftsmen at a lower cost to the company and no threat of a strike.
-Outsource the work to another factory and lessen our profit margin, but still keep going.

Eventually we concede, give back a little of the profit, enhance the factory, add a few CNC machines to help with pre production and add a pension plan to ease the minds of the workers.

One day, another toy wooden boat factory opens up down the street.

It has all new machines, all computer controlled CNC cutters, and a dynamite deal with a wood supplier.

Pretty soon not only is the company in business, but it's eating away at our market share. For every 5 boats we sell, they sell 4. Then the day we dread comes. They are outselling us 2 to one. We can't keep up with them, because since they have lower overhead, they can sell the boats they make cheaper with the same if not higher quality.

We ask the union to make some cuts, give back a little of the package we agreed to. Let us install more CNC machines to lower costs and let go some of the workers, who by now, although are still doing the same task, are earning much more per hour than a few years back. Even those who aren't doing so well are still getting raises, and their production is slipping.

The union senses we are out for their jobs, so they tell us they want more of our money...give up our salaries. Figure a way to be more competitive by giving up our benefits. We sit down and look at our compensation. As a whole, we make less than 10% of what the company profits, and the payroll of the workers is more than 60%. Cutting our money would do little to add to the equations, so we defer our bonuses, and buy a few more machines.

Pretty soon the union workers are mad because we aren't hiring any more of their union brothers, and they need jobs. Families are poor. They want more money.

This goes back and forth for months, until eventually, due to strikes and work slow downs, our sales have slipped to only 30% of the market share. We've got to make more boats and sell them cheaper.

We outsource some of our pre-production to another company overseas. They ship the boats back to us and we finish them. We've hired new workers with a little less talent, but at least they won't strike. Eventually they do their jobs well working with the new pre-production boats.

We slowly begin to catch up, and our profits soar. We are now making more per boat than we had before, but we still don't have anywhere near the market we did. That other company is now tooling up and has added two more factories. In a matter of months, we lose our market share again, and are right back where we were. We aren't making any money, but still have to pay all the wages. Wall Street doesn't like how we're managing the company...our stock falls, and its difficult to get lenders to loan us money to buy new equipment, build new buildings and buy wood.

The union threatens to strike again, and this time they walk out of the factory leaving us with orders needing to be filled. The non-union workers want the jobs. They fill in on the machinery and work without complaining. No threat of strike. They are happy to be working, and are happy to be able to support their families with the money they are making. They learn new skills. Pretty soon they are increasing productivity with new ideas. They are given bonuses for those ideas, and we set up programs to give incentive to them to make better boats.

We are profitable again. The union workers come back to work. Not long in, they begin to see the company profit, the top bosses make more money for running the company efficiently and the process starts all over again.

Sound silly? This was Nynex and AT&T (which became Verizon) from 1986 to 2009.

[Encryptshun]

The above is an example of unions abusing their power. I agree that when they do that, it's a bad thing.

[IBCoupe]

Not to mention the story is obviously written by someone with little understanding of the pertinent law.

[R/T Hemi]

. . .
Now, the boat craftsmen see we are getting rich from our hard work. Pretty soon, their shabby little workshop doesn't look as nice as our finely appointed office where we discuss boat deals with our customers and their attorneys. They see us driving nice cars, buying things with the money we've made from selling so many boats. . .

Moral: Trickle down economics doesn't. It never gets to the guys with the blisters on their hands from working so hard in the unheated shop with poor lighting and no ventilation and no medical insurance to pay for back surgery they need due to the excessive lifting requirements placed on them by their overseers. But the boss sure drives a nice car.

[AZhitman]

The guys in the example don't work under those conditions, and neither do the Verizon workers, and you know it... so save your boo-hooing for someone with more sympathy.

The politics of envy is ugly and doesn't look good on you (an otherwise intelligent and cultured individual).

Want the boss's nice car? Be the boss. Get better grades, study harder, work more hours, invest in your future, forego the movies and beer and cigarettes and toys and good times on credit, build a business and reap the Infiniti (or Challenger R/T).

You think Isaac is gonna have blisters on his hands and a bad back from his job?

Sometimes, when people make poor choices, the consequences follow them their entire life.

Where would those workers be without the boat company? Jobless.

[R/T Hemi]

Hey dude. You're the one ranting about unions and union workers getting their fair share of the pie. I suppose I could buy into the fairy tail you posted, but I'm too much of a realist.

[szh]

I can say the same for all the people here who blindly are lead by the nose, no independent thinking allowed, serve with the masses, by the N.Y. Times.
Z

The New York Times is a very well regarded and respected United States newspaper read around the world by most leaders of many countries.

So is the WSJ.

Before I came to this country, I read the WSJ and London Financial Times far more than the N.Y. Times, by the way.

The NY Times is not a mouthpiece for any political party like Fox ( which quite ofter refers to it) and just publishes all the news thats fit to print with very in depth articles many times longer than I sometimes have time for.

The N.Y. Times is far more liberal-biased than you seem to realize - that is because you happen to agree with it. So that is natural, I suppose!

Same is true for most of the American television media - both sides. I find the reporting from the BBC, and even Al-Jazeera(!), to be far better balanced.

Z

[heliochrome85]

you cite and have cited, the blaze, which is a sham news organization founded by glen beck, so im sorry of i have little value to your criticisms of the US Media complex.

towing the standard GOP line of "liberal media" is pretty sad for an intellectual individual.

[szh]

Good that I don't give a damn about your personal approval or disapproval, isn't it? FWIW, you selectively read what you wanted to read from my post.

In any case, at my age, I am quite capable of forming my own opinions - incorrect or otherwise ... by your logic. And, by the way, also knowing when I don't know enough to spout "I am an expert on this topic" nonsense - I usually try to state accurately what degree of knowledge I have, and disclaim appropriately if I remember to do so.

For me, after personally seeing what stupid crap and lies our liberal media has a tendency to throw out, and yes, the stupid crap and lies is also done by the ultra-conservative media too, I don't trust any of them much actually. To me, much of what is sent out as "news" here in the US should probably be labeled "entertainment" perhaps!

For me, as a geeky engineer, facts are what matter the most - so, I try (do not always have the time, unfortunately) to do that if I can. I also know that Google searches cannot turn people into perfect experts - something others need to learn too.

Z

[heliochrome85]

im glad you cleared that up for me.

[szh]

im glad you cleared that up for me.

Oh, good!

Now, explain it to me, please! I am getting senile in my old age.

Z

[AZhitman]

The New York Times is a very well regarded and respected United States newspaper read around the world by most leaders of many countries.

I'ts OP ED pages publish those with first hand knowledge on both sides of important issues including many in congress and even some of our enemies.

Letters to the editor come from readers around the world.

The NY Times is not a mouthpiece for any political party like Fox ( which quite ofter refers to it) and just publishes all the news thats fit to print with very in depth articles many times longer than I sometimes have time for.

Your opinion as to what is a reliable news source, and what isn't, is irrelevant.

EXHIBIT A: You quote the DailyKoz.

I rest my case.

[AZhitman]

I suppose I could buy into the fairy tail you posted, but I'm too much of a realist.

You can buy all the tail from a fairy you want. I don't roll that way.

Now, instead of trying to be glib, and failing, how about responding to the content? Or is it easier just to dismiss a first-hand account from an insider as "fairy tales"?

That's what I thought.

[IBCoupe]

I also know that Google searches cannot turn people into perfect experts - something others need to learn too.

If your arguments are such that a Google search disarms them, it might be time to reevaluate your expertise.

[R/T Hemi]

I suppose I could buy into the fairy tail you posted, but I'm too much of a realist.

You can buy all the tail from a fairy you want. I don't roll that way.

Now, instead of trying to be glib, and failing, how about responding to the content? Or is it easier just to dismiss a first-hand account from an insider as "fairy tales"?

That's what I thought.

If that's all you got out of my comment, then I think I see part of the problem here my friend. I post logical observations about your OP, that is, WHO cares what unions negotiate for their members. You respond little verbal jabs, looking more like an octogenarian bowling with a WII than a fighter.

You need to get off this "income must geometrically follow education" trip you're on Greg. Not everyone has the ability to sit through years of school, yet they can paint a car, trim a bush, cook a steak, fix a circuit or change a spark plug better than a PhD can.

Ironically, your income follows education was common in Russia and other communist countries. Capitalistic countries favor letting your beloved free market set the wages. Can't have it both ways big guy. (do you lean a little towards communism?)

[szh]

I also know that Google searches cannot turn people into perfect experts - something others need to learn too.

If your arguments are such that a Google search disarms them, it might be time to reevaluate your expertise.

Depends on the "disarm" success.

More often than not, there is not a clear black and white answer. Which is probably why I am an engineer and technologist - I like my answers to be more clear-cut.

Z