Subject: Verizon strike.

The quick synopsis is this:

The union workers' contracts have come up for renewal, and they want Verizon to continue to pay 100% of UNION workers' healthcare costs, INCLUDING co-pays.

Verizon spends over $4 billion annually on health care, or $400,000 an hour.

Verizon is wanting their unionized workers to make a “contribution” towards their health care premiums.

Non-union Verizon employees (155,000 of them) currently DO pay part of their health insurance premiums.

The union workers have been given several proposals, with as little as $100 a month being requested. They chose to strike instead.

The union representatives claim the proposed terms would cost union families $6,000 a year.

The union is holding out for Verizon to agree to continue to give pay raises regardless of performance (from the IBEW/CWA strike website).

The union's media person said, “Verizon came in with a very draconian set of proposals to cut back [working] conditions, to take it back decades, basically."

The union representative's quote (pay special attention here): “From a profitable company such as Verizon, it doesn’t make sense,” she said.

OK, here's my thoughts, feel free to flame / dispute / argue - But STAY ON TOPIC.

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.

[/rant]

OK, take your shots - make 'em good.

It sounds like the union is being a bit unreasonable.

However, it's the union's prerogative to take as much off the top as possible. Not really surprising.

Can't really make this type of thing illegal, so it shall continue. :\

AZhitman wrote:Subject: Verizon strike.

The quick synopsis is this:

The union workers' contracts have come up for renewal, and they want Verizon to continue to pay 100% of UNION workers' healthcare costs, INCLUDING co-pays.

Kind of interesting that Verizon initially agreed to it in a prior contract, but now they want to dump that plan. I look at it like this, ‘Hey Bud we really valued you as an employee in 2011 and wanted you to have a stellar plan because we recognize that a better employee makes a better company. Now in 2012, not so much.) I know this is an oversimplification of the situation, but as a worker who’s premiums and contribution percentages keep going up year to year (from 90/10, 80/20, 75/25, 70/30), this has to be the start of unloading (over time) more and more of the cost onto the workers. And I have to ask to what end? To payout higher dividends to the shareholders, to payout higher MIPs to managers for saving money, to reduce the company’s run rate to keep more employees employed or to save the company? While you and I probably don’t know to why, it is certainly something to think about.

Verizon spends over $4 billion annually on health care, or $400,000 an hour.

There is a specific cost to having a lot of employees. Verizon has about 195,000 employees. It is not like they have 4,000 employees and spend that much money. I am sure too, that the non union numbers are mixed in with the union numbers when proclaiming that $4 billion dollars are spent annually by the company. I get kind of leery when companies throw these numbers out as if to make it look like the “Union employees are getting some great windfall of benefits.”

Verizon is wanting their unionized workers to make a “contribution” towards their health care premiums.

Non-union Verizon employees (155,000 of them) currently DO pay part of their health insurance premiums.

So, 40,000 employees don’t pay their health insurance premiums or co-payments. I would be interested to see if they have to pay a percentage of the costs after their co-pay. While it seems certainly reasonable for the rest (40,000 union) of the employees to help chip into the health care plan of the company, I have to ask why this is even news worthy? When the Wisconsin Teachers Unions legislation/protest went down earlier this year I failed to see why people got all upset over what ‘someone else’ was making. We as conservatives decry the actions of Democrats when they talk in terms of ‘Rich Corporate Greed’ and millionaires not paying ‘Their Fair Share’ when attacking corporations or wealthy people. Yet we attack teachers and union employees with the same rhetoric. Maybe I should attack my brother in law that works for Club Fed (Federal Government) because he makes more than I do? Nah, I just fail to see how this is even news worthy.

The union workers have been given several proposals, with as little as $100 a month being requested. They chose to strike instead.

The union representatives claim the proposed terms would cost union families $6,000 a year.

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?

Gravy Train. Kind of interesting, my father when he raised his right hand and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies… was promised by the United States Army, Champus (sp?) for life. Over the years Congress stripped him of this benefit that he was promised in the 1960’s. He took it like a man and didn’t complain when he was ultimately told that he had to go on Medicare when he retires and pay his $100/month premiums. I think this is very wrong. He was promised something up front prior to joining, in return for your commitment to sacrifice his life, his family’s convenience and his liberties to defend this country. Only to be crapped upon and to be called greedy for having this ‘benefit.’ I know this isn’t an apples to apples comparison to the Verizon negotiations, but I reject the notion that someone is greedy because they have or want to retain a benefit that was promised to them.

As you said negotiations are a two way street. Verizon can certainly change the terms of the contract during the new negotiations. The unions can agree to the terms, reject the terms or even call a strike. This is how the process works in that shop. It certainly is not the process where I work, but I respect their right to be in a union and my right not to be. And as a conservative, I get no great enjoy or vindication by attacking labor unions. Because I know that the majority of attacks on Labor Unions are political in nature, derived by the Republicans to strike at the heart of the Democrats’ power base. Instead of trying to come up with better ideas or articulate their beliefs, the Republicans engage in the same tactics that they accuse Democrats for doing. It is getting to the point where if you were to strip away each party’s platforms and examine their actions and rhetoric, there is really no difference between the two parties. And as a conservative I believe that the liberties of people to organized and negotiate in their best interest is NOT counter to this country’s ideals.

AZhitman wrote: 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.

While a premium increase of $100/month is $1,200 a year, that doesnt include co-payments (which they may have to pay now) or shared percentage costs. I suspect that the union is quoting those costs in addition to the $1200 premium increase and throwing out the total cost per employee/family, under the new plan.

Here's what'll likely ultimately happen: As automation increases, and less and less "unskilled labor" (linemen, cable guys, tower workers, etc - which comprises the bulk of the union workers) is needed, they'll simply continue to scale back positions by attrition and not replace workers as they leave.

For a so-called "brotherhood", they're certainly not keeping each others' best interests at heart.

Bud - Your father's contract was for life. The Verizon workers didn't negotiate a lifetime contract. It's over.

The same could be said of a contract employee who has a $38/hour job for a contract duration term of six years. Once the six years passes, should that employee be surprised when the company says, "OK, thanks for everything, here's your final paycheck, have a good life."? To insinuate that they're entitled to something BEYOND the terms of the contract term is simply to ignore the legal and binding terms of a legal contract. Verizon held up their end of the bargain. There's no further discussion beyond that. Certainly, they can apply for the new jobs and participate in negotiations for a new contract, but the company can also say, "Nah - we're just gonna automate a little more and you guys can go work for the power company or a logging firm or something."

I don't disparage someone for pressing for a better situation and negotiating from a position of strength. But to have two otherwise equivalent employees being treated in disparate manners, simply because one is a member of a group that another isn't a member of, smacks of wrongness to me. Should representation of your co-worker by the NAACP entitle him to more vacation days than you?

I'm no stranger to gradual increases in contributions - My contributions to the state retirement plan (mandatory) have increased every year for the past five years. Guess how many raises we've seen? Zero. Co-pays have increased, as have other mandatory withholdings. Guess what? It's not necessarily to increase some corporation's bottom line - it's because there's simply not enough money in the State's coffers. And that spreads to private industry as well.

Maybe I fail to see where the union retains any useful purpose in a modern economy. For every condition that someone throws up as an example of it being "needed", I can present an already-existing safeguard that nullifies the need for that so-called "protection".

If these guys choose to stay home and not go to work, I say keep them employed for the lawful term of the duration of their contract, then RIF them all and replace them with employees who will appreciate that $45,000 - $70,000/year job with solid benefits in a thriving company that doesn't require a college education. There's plenty of people out there looking for work.

When their initial contract was signed, they were all making a lot less money than they are now, too... but I don't hear any of them clamoring for those "good old days" of lower wages. Things change. That's progress.

The contract is over. They need to get over it.

AZhitman wrote: When their initial contract was signed, they were all making a lot less money than they are now, too... but I don't hear any of them clamoring for those "good old days" of lower wages. Things change. That's progress.

The contract is over. They need to get over it.

"The contract is over". Those are the key words to the argument that the Union is dismissing. There's nothing in the previous contract that mandates that future contracts can't be different. A grave mistake many unions also make is that they are indispensible. they are not, especially with this economy. There are many unemployed people waiting in the wings to take their jobs who are willing to copay their benefits. The union needs to wake up

AZhitman wrote:Subject: Verizon strike.

I have a "cushy government job" and I STILL pay upwards of $600/mo for my coverage.

Don't know very much about labor history in this country do you

So it is ok for taxpayers to subsidize your health insurance in your cushy government job.
You probably don't do very much work either since you spend so much time in this forum name calling those that disagree with you.
All benefits that union employees currently receive were negotiated over many many years and many contract improvements.
Middle class working people have been losing benefits and reduced wages since your great Ronald Regan and the right began destroying the middle class in this country.
Do you think the 8 hour work day or 40 hour work week, health insurance, vacation, personal time off were just handed out by managers to working employees?
No Greg, they were fought for over the past 150 years of labor history.
Some workers were beaten,and shot and killed for advocating a 8 hour work day less than 100 years ago.
Your living in a non union right to work anti union states shows us how naive and inexperienced you are in labor matters.
Perhaps you should just stick to calling me names and leave labor matters to those in the know.
Have a nice day

Telcoman

Feel free to dispute my points rather than rant.

I'm off work today, thank you very much. Care to stick your nose in my personal business and be wrong some more?

Let's see - I've lived in 8 states. Some were right to work, some were union-dominated. Does where I live really impact my grasp of labor issues? If so, I'll be glad to present evidence to show you're wrong yet again.

I don't see anything in your rant that leads me to believe you comprehend the issue in the original post. Please present a well-supported case for why those workers should continue to receive the same benefits from an expired contract. I'll wait.

None of your examples from "labor history" are applicable today. This isn't 1911. It's 2011. And there are safeguards in place to prevent the abuses you mentioned. Welcome to the 21st century.

BTW, I don't believe in an "8 hour work day" or a "40 hour work week" or any of those other perks you mentioned. Those are abstract and meaningless constructs that have their roots in ancient times (much like Daylight Savings Time) and should (and will) be relegated to the scrap heap of history.

If my employer decides to do away with paid vacation time or subsidizing my health insurance, I can go brush up my resume. It's happened before. That's the beauty of a free nation.

But you just feel free to keep playing the politics of pity. Those of us who want a better life will work for it rather than whining for it.

Bubba1 wrote:"The contract is over". Those are the key words to the argument that the Union is dismissing. There's nothing in the previous contract that mandates that future contracts can't be different. A grave mistake many unions also make is that they are indispensible. they are not, especially with this economy. There are many unemployed people waiting in the wings to take their jobs who are willing to copay their benefits. The union needs to wake up

Correct.

If that was what they wanted, they should have lobbied for it before they signed the expiring contract.

The CORE issue is this: They're just upset that their skills are no longer needed in a rapidly-advancing market.

I don't see typewriter assembly workers crying, do you? How about telephone operators? Encyclopedia salesmen? The Milkmans' Union? Or how about my Dad, who was an A&P Certified mechanic on prop planes? He came out of the military into a world full of jets. No whining there either.

It's called progress. STFU and get with the times.

AZhitman wrote:Feel free to dispute my points rather than rant.

I don't have as much free time as you and its like talking to a wall

AZhitman wrote:I'm off work today, thank you very much. Care to stick your nose in my personal business and be wrong some more?

A paid day off no doubt. Don't forget to thank the taxpayers

Go sing in the shower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE6UrZMb71o

Now wait telco. Wasn't you and IB that so long ago tried to paint the picture that government sector benefits shouldnt matter, that and employer is an employer regardless of whether its public or private sector? So now you fuss about a paid vacation day? Like its an undue burden on taxpayers?



because the Picard facepalm is overdone

telcoman wrote:I don't have as much free time as you and its like talking to a wall

Does that mean you can't answer the question?

telcoman wrote:A paid day off no doubt. Don't forget to thank the taxpayers

Nope. No pay. I work a 32-hour week. So, wrong again!

But thanks for looking over my fence. So much for your liberal view of people's personal freedoms.

I love it when you can't defend your position with facts and logic.

telco, dude, take it down a notch. Government employees are just as deserving of PTO than any other industry. But you digress.

I firmly believe that unions are a good thing in certain industries and for certain job types. I would rather hire a union electrician, for example, to do work on my home, knowing that the individual is trained and experienced. I would rather see coal miners and steel workers and those who work in highly dangerous conditions be unionized, as the required skillsets are so specific that there isn't a whole lot of open market potential for those jobs and there is a history of employee safety and workers-rights abuses in those industries.

The problem is not the unions, it's the leadership. Unions have too much power and they exert that power from a perspective of greed and (to the point) of entitlement. Unions can save a company lots of money if that union agrees to self-fund training and certifications that act as a risk-management strategy for the company (who doesn't need to worry so much about lost revenue if an untrained worker hamhands a job and causes production downtime). But they have forgotten the faces of their fathers. Unions exist to prevent workers from being exploited, from being subjected to unhealthy work conditions, and from being lied to by management.

But the whole "our way or the highway" thing is rediculous. If they're being that obtuse, I say the choice is with the workers -- they can either stand up to their own union bosses' poor judgement, or eventually find themselves outsourced. Having a job where you pay for your own insurance is better than not having a job at all.

Encryptshun wrote:I would rather hire a union electrician, for example, to do work on my home, knowing that the individual is trained and experienced.

Just out of curiosity, why would you think they'd be any more trained and experienced than any other licensed, bonded, and insured electrician?

Also, and not to be argumentative... There are several already-existing agencies whose sole purpose is to prevent the very types of abuses and exploitation you mentioned. The EEOC, the OSHA, the ADA. the EPA, the list is long.... The unions certainly don't supercede those agencies' powers, so why the redundancy? They have the same safeguards as non-union employees.

I *do* agree 100% about the management. I really don't blame the workers, they're simply responding to a "call to action" and doing what they think is best for their family. Unfortunately, they're not always getting the honest scoop.

AZhitman wrote:Does that mean you can't answer the question?

But thanks for looking over my fence. So much for your liberal view of people's personal freedoms.
I love it when you can't defend your position with facts and logic.

Your entire rant/post smacks of you having an anti union anti working people outlook.
Not much different from those talking heads on Fox news.
You seem to think that just because a contract expired the union should begin all over, start over and renegotiate every hard won benefit gained over the past 60 or 70 years that the CWA has won representation of the telephone workers.

The position of Verizon refusing to compromise is similar to what is going on in Washington. Refusing to compromise, sign a pledge not to raise revenue under any circumstances so now Verizon is taking the same stance.

Working people in this country are not only getting screwed by their employers but by our political elected representives as well.

When people are not working revenue and taxes are not being collected.
Does no one care that over 45k workers are out of work

AZhitman wrote:Subject: Verizon strike.

The quick synopsis is this:

The union workers' contracts have come up for renewal, and they want Verizon to continue to pay 100% of UNION workers' healthcare costs, INCLUDING co-pays.

Why not?

AZhitman wrote:Verizon spends over $4 billion annually on health care, or $400,000 an hour.

Source?

Sounds like a bunch of BS to me?

AZhitman wrote:Verizon is wanting their unionized workers to make a “contribution” towards their health care premiums.

So! That is where negotiation and compromise enter the bargaining.
Perhaps an increase in a % increase in wages might solve the issue?

That is what bargaining and compromise is.

AZhitman wrote:Non-union Verizon employees (155,000 of them) currently DO pay part of their health insurance premiums.

It is easier for the company to screw over the non union and lower management workers than the union workers who are under contract.

AZhitman wrote: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.

That is why if you don't want to join the union the union still is legally required to represent you and you still pay dues.
Greg
Living in the boonie state you will never understand.

Telcoman

It's been awhile since I've posted here. Shower me with your gifts of return.

So the first thing I see is a union thread. Awesome, just what's going on at my company. The rank and file employees at several locations are talking about voting the union in. They seem to only point to two main themes for wanting to vote the union in: corporate stole from them and management sucks. The theme that corporate stole from them hit me when I read your quote Greg and it always seems to be true with a union...management is hiding money and taking it themselves. As for management sucking, may be legit, but at the local level, but that's people.

Anywhow, the topic at hand. God forbid you have to pay for your healthcare! OMG! Settle f down. Don't blame it on the company, blame it on the old farts starting to bog down the system. And, and...dare I say it, blame it on the government. Healthcare passed by Obama, although it was touted to make it more "affordable", has done just the opposite, putting more costs onto business.

And what do businesses do when they have higher costs in anything, at least for a foreseeable future? Pass it on to the receiver of the product. In this case it just happens to be the employees and not the consumer of the product that Verizon sells. So, if Verizon incurs higher cost on one of their products, are the consumers of said product supposed to "strike" and boycott that product? Sure, some of them will and will find another product. In economics it's called substitution and it occurs when one is priced out of the market. So if these employees feel that they're worth more, some will defect and substitute their work for some place else because they feel they're priced out of the labor market, and someone willing to work for Verizon on these new terms will come in and be a happy employee. We all know there are millions of people looking for a job. God, if only that could work the way the free market should. Oh wait, the union...right.

Encryptshun wrote:I firmly believe that unions are a good thing in certain industries and for certain job types. I would rather hire a union electrician, for example, to do work on my home, knowing that the individual is trained and experienced. I would rather see coal miners and steel workers and those who work in highly dangerous conditions be unionized, as the required skillsets are so specific that there isn't a whole lot of open market potential for those jobs and there is a history of employee safety and workers-rights abuses in those industries.

Greg asked you this before, but why is a non-union electrician less-trained than a unionized electrician? A certified electrician is a certified electrician. What you really want is someone who is good at their job, who knows LOTO (lock-out, tag-out), can wire neatly, and knows the difference between polarities.

Also, miners and steel workers don't have skill sets that are so specific that there isn't open-market potential for those jobs. That's very quite the contrary. I know people who work in mines, and let me tell you, the skill sets they had going in weren't terribly specific. Now, a mining or geological engineer may have a very specific skill set, but not a miner. Same can be said of steelworkers. Just about anyone can do those jobs.

However, I would argue the inverse of your argument in that those people who have performed those jobs (miners, steelworkers, etc.) develop a specific skill set that isn't very marketable to the open job market.

telcoman wrote:

AZhitman wrote:The union workers' contracts have come up for renewal, and they want Verizon to continue to pay 100% of UNION workers' healthcare costs, INCLUDING co-pays.

Why not?

For a simple reason: the world has changed. Healthcare costs have been increasingly paid by people directly rather than by companies who could afford to do so at one time. This is reality and cannot be ignored.

For example, over the past fifteen years with my present company, my health insurance costs have risen steadily - fact of life - due to increases by the insurance companies. We have done the best we could to find alternative, and yet stay competitive with similar companies in the area, but it is not possible to do more than that.

Yes, my company has absorbed some of the increases, but simply cannot absorb all of it - the expense increase would be tough for the company.

The fact is that corporations are not charities - they have to move with the times too. So, old agreements, that did things a particular way, have to be changed when they are up for renewal. When unions insist on maintaining status quo for benefits that are no longer in step with reality, this creates a problem.

Yes, I truly do sympathize with the people who may be hurt by these increases - unfortunately, all of us are in the same boat.

Unions were formed to protect basic and truly onerous and unfair employment practices that existed over a century ago and they served a purpose that has indeed benefited people in the past. However, for them to insist on special treatment now, that is not at par with the non-unionized reasonable norms, is unacceptable and more likely to harm them than not.

Z

telcoman wrote:That is why if you don't want to join the union the union still is legally required to represent you and you still pay dues.

Huhn? If that is the case, I think unions are even more totally full of it then.

If I am not part of a union, I do not expect them to "represent" me, and I do not expect to pay them "dues". Frankly, this would smack of a protection scheme ... or tax!

Governments are allowed to create and collect taxes - not unions!

Z

telcoman wrote:Your entire rant/post smacks of you having an anti union anti working people outlook.
Not much different from those talking heads on Fox news.

When you're done boo-hooing, can you respond with fact and logic?

telcoman wrote:You seem to think that just because a contract expired the union should begin all over, start over and renegotiate every hard won benefit gained over the past 60 or 70 years that the CWA has won representation of the telephone workers.

Really? Where did I say that?

The contract expired. Have you ever worked as a contract employee? Show up a week after your contract expires, with an invoice for hours worked, and see if you don't get laughed out of the building.

telcoman wrote:The position of the union refusing to compromise is similar to what is going on in Washington.

Fixed that for you.

telcoman wrote:Working people in this country are not only getting screwed by their employers but by our political elected representives as well.

Funny, the non-union workers don't feel "screwed". Maybe they're just not as "enlightened" as those guys who pay union dues?

telcoman wrote:Why not?

Why should they?

telcoman wrote:Source? Sounds like a bunch of BS to me?

Just because you can't count that high, it's "BS"? I'll expect your apology, in writing, on my desk tomorrow morning:

"...non-union employees of Verizon currently pay part of their health insurance premiums, while, in total, the firm “spends more than $4 billion annually on health care, or $400,000 an hour for our employees.”

From: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ike-looms/

telcoman wrote:So! That is where negotiation and compromise enter the bargaining. Perhaps an increase in a % increase in wages might solve the issue?

Perhaps contributing $100 a month to pay for their medical care might solve the issue too.

telcoman wrote:That is what bargaining and compromise is.

Exactly right. The workers should compromise. Or do you think they've given up enough? List what they're willing to give up. I'll wait....

telcoman wrote:That is why if you don't want to join the union the union still is legally required to represent you and you still pay dues.

WTF are you babbling about?

The union won't represent non-union employees, and non-union employees don't pay union dues. You're suffering from dementia or something.

telcoman wrote:Living in the boonie state you will never understand.

Another ignorant dig from someone who thinks NJ is the center of the universe...

FYI - I spend FAR more time dealing with union reps (and personnel / HR issues) than you do. I often deal with them in personnel disputes before an Administrative Law Judge, or in front of an EEOC Investigator. I send them home with their a$$es in their hands, wishing they had done their homework, when we fire one of their members for violating statutes, codes and policies.

You must get exhausted being wrong all the time.

Next?

Encryptshun wrote:telco, dude, take it down a notch. Government employees are just as deserving of PTO than any other industry. But you digress. . .

Although your point about government employees sits well in many respects.

I'm free to vote on the Verizon contract by avoiding supporting their product by simply walking to their competitor's door. I don't have that option with government employees.

Greg.
If a private union can gain, at the employer's expense, benefits for their workers, why should we care? Perks attract and retain quality, motivated workers.

R/T Hemi wrote:

Encryptshun wrote:telco, dude, take it down a notch. Government employees are just as deserving of PTO than any other industry. But you digress. . .

I'm free to vote on the Verizon contract by avoiding supporting their product by simply walking to their competitor's door. I don't have that option with government employees.

So are you saying they shouldn't get PTO? You lost me.

Back on topic...

R/T Hemi wrote:If a private union can gain, at the employer's expense, benefits for their workers, why should we care? Perks attract and retain quality, motivated workers.

But what these members seem to fail to recognize is that they are dependent on that employer for their wages. I'm all for trying to increase your earnings/benefits, but if you take it to the extent that it hurts the company paying your wages it will come back to you in the long run. If everyone just stepped back and realized that the company benefits greatly from having a strong workforce and the employees benefit from working for a profitable company they might all be better off. Either side trying to grab too much at the expense of the other will end in failure, regardless of what side is grabbing for power/control/money/benefits/whatever.

smockers83 wrote:

Encryptshun wrote:I firmly believe that unions are a good thing in certain industries and for certain job types. I would rather hire a union electrician, for example, to do work on my home, knowing that the individual is trained and experienced. I would rather see coal miners and steel workers and those who work in highly dangerous conditions be unionized, as the required skillsets are so specific that there isn't a whole lot of open market potential for those jobs and there is a history of employee safety and workers-rights abuses in those industries.

Greg asked you this before, but why is a non-union electrician less-trained than a unionized electrician? A certified electrician is a certified electrician. What you really want is someone who is good at their job, who knows LOTO (lock-out, tag-out), can wire neatly, and knows the difference between polarities.

Also, miners and steel workers don't have skill sets that are so specific that there isn't open-market potential for those jobs. That's very quite the contrary. I know people who work in mines, and let me tell you, the skill sets they had going in weren't terribly specific. Now, a mining or geological engineer may have a very specific skill set, but not a miner. Same can be said of steelworkers. Just about anyone can do those jobs.

However, I would argue the inverse of your argument in that those people who have performed those jobs (miners, steelworkers, etc.) develop a specific skill set that isn't very marketable to the open job market.

AZhitman wrote:

Encryptshun wrote:I would rather hire a union electrician, for example, to do work on my home, knowing that the individual is trained and experienced.

Just out of curiosity, why would you think they'd be any more trained and experienced than any other licensed, bonded, and insured electrician?

Also, and not to be argumentative... There are several already-existing agencies whose sole purpose is to prevent the very types of abuses and exploitation you mentioned. The EEOC, the OSHA, the ADA. the EPA, the list is long.... The unions certainly don't supercede those agencies' powers, so why the redundancy? They have the same safeguards as non-union employees.

I *do* agree 100% about the management. I really don't blame the workers, they're simply responding to a "call to action" and doing what they think is best for their family. Unfortunately, they're not always getting the honest scoop.

Sorry, but I'll respond to both of you at the same time to save post-length. And by all means, be argumentative -- that's why we're here after all. However, you won't get anything other than rational discourse out of me.

After thinking about it a bit more, I concede my generalization about union versus non-union tradesmen being more skilled/experienced because I can only talk from my own personal experience. My experience with union tradesmen is that they tend to be more reliable than non-union in terms of quality of workmanship and standing behind their work. Especially during the housing boom, we saw a lot of trade-school graduates going straight into electrician jobs without any practical experience (and in lots of cases work done by laborers with no training of any kind). They were certified in some cases, sure, but they hadn't done any apprenticeship and they really weren't able to estimate a job with quite the degree of accuracy and they were more likely to take shortcuts. But I live in a very urban area so maybe that's just unique to where I live. Ditto my experience with plumbers and finish carpenters. On the plus side, the non-union tradesmen are cheaper until you have to go back and fix their mistakes. Case in point, half the outlets in my house were wired backwards after a non-union electrician had done some work for the previous owner before I took posession. A non-union plumber had installed a sump pump in my ejector pit instead of a sewage pump and then left the pit unsealed and unvented. A different non-union plumber had installed a tankless water heater in my utility closet (interior of the house) that should have only been installed on an exterior wall with its own dedicated flue, and the flue instead had been teed together with the furnace flue and had a 6" to 4" reducer put in at the join, restricting the exhaust from the water heater and causing soot to build up on the flame sensor (which makes the water heater not work). I had to have these things fixed after I bought the house, and in all cases I contacted the person who did the work originally and they were unwilling to come back to fix the problem unless I paid them. There are more examples of this, including an electrician who ran wiring in my above-garage attic for the garage door openers, but I'll save the rest of the stories for when we can all get together over a beer.


Regarding the statement about miners and steel-workers, maybe I said that wrong. My point was that people in those jobs have a skillset that's not marketable outside that industry. Maybe anyone could be a miner after they learned how, but if you are a miner that doesn't mean you have skills outside the world of mining. You couldn't, for example, go be a mason or fix cell towers without a large amount of retraining. A steelworker could potentially work in another type of foundry, but outside the smelting industry it's pretty difficult to find another job that requires those same skills. Hopefully that makes more sense.

And Greg, that's an excellent point about the governmental watchdog agencies. However, I think those issues aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not sure how the EPA would be lumped in, as they would be fixated on the actions of the industries independent from its impact on the workforce (meaning workforce effects are incidental), but for worker-safety agencies I see them as playing a role in ensuring that, regardless of the site being unionized or not, certain minimums are met. OSHA can fine a company, sure. They can, in extreme circumstances, even shut them down. But they can't be everywhere at once and they can't react to changing conditions as quickly as the direct labor force can. Unions need guidance on what they shouldn't negotiate away and they offer a more immediate and crippling reaction to management decisions which compromise worker safety than a governmental agency can.

/2cents

AppleBonker wrote:
So are you saying they shouldn't get PTO? You lost me.

Back on topic...

I think this has all been on topic. Greg ranted about unions, Telcoman set him straight.

I'm not against any union negotiating for worker benefits. As telcoman pointed out, unions are why we have many of the perks we have today. If it ever gets to the point that I don't approve, I can vote by going to a competitor of the business in question. If Verizon wants to give their employees new cars, free tripe to Hawaii and lap dances, I'm suppose to care? Good for them. The worst thing that will happen is they will attract and retain quality employees.

But when a non-Union employee demands free trips to Hawaii and lap dances as perks, the company can tell that employee to go pack sand. If the Union does the same, then the company should be free to tell the Union to go pack sand.

And every one of the 300,000 employees nneds a front door curbside parking space too, walking in from the car farm is too taxing. Just sayin'

R/T Hemi wrote:Telcoman set him straight.

Where'd that happen again? I missed it.

I'm not sure, and I was even looking out for it.

I think conservatives would have a lot more respect for us Libbies if we were just better at debating. It's not our ideas that are bad, it's our ability/willingness to articulate them. That's opposed to the conservatives, who have terrible ideas but are rock-SOLID at argumentation.

j/k j/k

AZhitman wrote:
When you're done boo-hooing, can you respond with fact and logic?

Here you go sunshine.

Some information for the labor relations challenged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

telcoman wrote:That is why if you don't want to join the union the union still is legally required to represent you and you still pay dues.

AZhitman wrote: WTF are you babbling about?

I'm not babbling.

I was only trying to point out your inexperience in union and labor relations matters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

AZhitman wrote:
From: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ike-looms/

And you rag and badmouth a real newspaper such as The New York Times
Why do you get your information from such rag papers?
Oh I know, they are cheap and suit your twisted mentality.

AZhitman wrote:
You must get exhausted being wrong all the time.

I get exhausted trying to point out how wrong and uninformed you are.
I just assume it is the inferior education that one gets living in states that don't pay teachers very well.
Of course non union teachers are paid less and those jobs attract the less qualified that can't get hired in states like New Jersey. Those that wind up in the bottom half of college classes wind up in states like booney where you live

Telcoman

Ah, yes, because when I think of "New Jersey", my mind immediately jumps to "education".