RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons

RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sanity -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:09:15 PM)
The power of collective bargaining built Detroit, made it what it is today by gawd. quote: ORIGINAL: cjan I think you are not grasping the concept, and power of collective bargaining. That is what a union does. Sheesh.

thishereboi -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Let me see if I have this straight.....a workers right to organize and collectively bargain their wages time perhaps has come and gone.Is that about right Cold Warrior. There are a lot of people out there who bargain for their rights and don't need someone else to do it for them. Not sure why others can't do this, but it seems like they can't. They claim they need a union to hold on to their jobs. Maybe they should learn to stand up for themselves. I think you are not grasping the concept, and power of collective bargaining. That is what a union does. Sheesh. And they make a lot of money doing it...now tell my why a worker can't do his own barganing? Oh and you must have missed my question....In a previous post you said you own a business and have owned others in the past. How many of them were union?

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:25:56 PM)
A worker cannot do their own bargaining on their own because they will be fired or treated so poorly that they quite and will be blacklisted in the process. Many unions started becaused of the gross negligence and mistreatment of the workers by the business owners that led to serious injuries and deaths. "The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was the largest industrial disaster in the history of the city of New York, causing the death of 148 garment workers who either died from the fire or jumped to their deaths. It was the worst workplace disaster in New York City until September 11, 2001. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which fought for safer and better working conditions for sweatshop workers in that industry." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire Now that example was from 1911 in the U.S. The largest industrial disaster to date happened in Bhopal, India in 1984. "The Bhopal disaster or Bhopal gas tragedy was an industrial disaster that took place at a Union Carbide subsidiary pesticide plant in the city of Bhopal, India. On 3 December 1984, the plant released 42 tonnes of toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, exposing more than 500,000 people to toxic gases. The first official immediate death toll was 2,259. A more probable figure is that 8,000 died within two weeks, and it is estimated that an additional 8,000 have since died from gas-related diseases.[1][2] The death toll seems to rise beyond 15,000 with many people still suffering from the long-term effects of the exposure to the gases.[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

ElectraGlide -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:31:19 PM)
The collective bargaining on most non-union jobs boils down to, what do they have to pay to retain employees. If they make minimum wage and do not complain and stay there, thats what they get. If the turnover rate is so bad it effects the business, because the work is not getting done, they have to up the pay. In most industrial areas, they have a pay comparison chart, so they can be competitive with the other local companies. Throw a union monkey wrench in it, they will not get anymore, they will only pay so much to get the job done. They will do the old smoke and mirrors trick of give from one area and take from the other, so it will equal out in the end, with no gain. A closed union plant is no job security no matter how you want to Obama it. I never understood the Wal-Mart workers underpaid complaint, as Larry The Cable Guy said about them, get another job. I think the media complained not the workers, it must of been jealous Democrats, LMAO.

slvemike4u -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:33:46 PM)
Come now Vendaval,we all know a tragedy such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory could never ever be repeated today. Responsible business men can be counted on to make responsible decisions....allways keeping the welfare of the worker front and center.

MissIsis -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:40:22 PM)
I know for me the problem comes from unions often doing their bargaining by taking away the rights of individual workers. I am not sure unions could exist without the strong armed bullying tactics they have throughout their history employed. They work as a group. As a group, each person has to pay dues to work. If they don't, they are taken off their jobs. If they, as a group, decide to strike, one member can't just say, "Hey, I have to pay my bills, so I am going to continue to come to work every day even though you all decided to strike." They are, all forced off the job when the group decides to strike. Wages are paid, not on merit, but by seniority. Apparently, some union jobs are paid by fast finishes, but with the unions I have worked for, all anyone had to do was show up & punch in on time, follow a few simple rules & got the same paycheck everyone else gets, even if they only do enough to get by, while "Joe Fast Furious-detailed" gets his done more efficiently & better. I will admit that at one time, unions did have an important place in history, enabling workers to get living wages & safe working conditions. They did that at a cost. I think people forget the corruption that was so prevalent even in the unions of old, of people being beat up, homes burned, shot at, rocks thrown, ect. Many times, the unions also kept the wages of non-union companies competitive, as well. Maybe we are missing some of today's great union stories. But the ones I hear about are the ones who have helped bargain people right out of their jobs. Companies are not making it today & are going bankrupt & closing like wild fire. Does anyone even know how many people have been forced out of these jobs while the companies are unable to pay them anymore? I think though, that there is more to the story. People don't look at American made goods anymore as the high quality they once were. Nafta, unfortunately is part of the culture now. I never hear about young people going to work on farms anymore after the school year closes. Foreigners are coming in to take those jobs. I think they used to teach the young people job ethics. I hate to say it, but I don't think every day Americans have the same work ethics that they once did. I learned long ago to put my heart into whatever I did for work. I just don't see that very often anymore with union workers. People are struggling & willing to cut corners on things produced outside of the USA, sometimes, in order to survive. Even if they wanted too, many can't afford American goods anymore. American goods have been priced right out of the market. We just live in different times now, with different politics & a very different global atmosphere. Every time someone in politics tries to fix it, they are fighting even Americans. Look at the country of origin laws for some of your food. The spirit of the law is great in my opinion, but even the industry here has been trying to fight them. This is a tough argument for both sides. Any strides we make in fixing it, as a nation, will be in jeopardy when another new president comes into the White House.

thishereboi -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:41:22 PM)
All the people I know who work for non-union companies have no problem barganing for a decent salary. They don't get fired or treated poorly. Why can't the people your talking about do it also? Yes the factory fire was horrible. Thank god they have laws in place to protect people now.

Sanity -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:47:41 PM)
Unions don't write or enforce fire code, and neither do they write or enforce OSHA regulations. Neither of the industrial accidents you described had anything to do with Unions or the lack thereof. The date you had to reach to for the garment factory fire tells a tale though, which is that Unions are plodding dinosaurs, gasping their last breaths. For Obama to give federal contracts exclusively to his Union lobbyist friends, lackeys who contributed exclusively to his campaign should be criminal, and he had ought to be impeached. Well, except, that would leave us with Joe Biden as president, with Nancy Pelosi next in line... but he at least needs a sharp slap on the wrist.

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:57:11 PM)
Are you aware of the Border Economy along the US/Mexico border? Ross Perot and Al Gore were highlyly critical of NAFTA before it was passed and warned about the outsourcing of American jobs, loss of Middle Class stability and the results labor abuses and environmental impact in Mexico. Their concerns were justified. Taken from a 2001 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas - "There is no doubt maquiladoras are an important part of Mexico's international trade picture. Year in and year out, maquila plants are responsible for more than 40 percent of Mexico's exports. [1] Over the years, with or without NAFTA, the maquiladora industry has grown substantially, but a superficial examination could suggest NAFTA made a difference. During the five years prior to NAFTA, maquiladora employment grew 47 percent. But over the first five years after NAFTA, employment growth soared 86 percent (Chart 1). This growth was not simply a matter of existing plants taking on more workers but of rapid expansion in the number of plants. The 1,789 in-bond plants at the end of 1990 grew to 2,143 at the end of 1993—just before NAFTA—and to 3,703 by the end of 2000." http://www.dallasfed.org/research/border/tbe_gruben.html And in regards to the health and safety of the workers, this report comes from this organization - Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network Newsletter, May 16, 2001 Volume V, Number 2 "The Executive Summary of the 70-page NAO report concludes: "Although the U.S. NAO finds that the Government of Mexico conducted inspections and verification visits, the review raised questions regarding the efficacy of these processes. Inspection reports indicate that worker interviews are not confidential, which raises a concern as to whether a worker is likely to feel free to provide any information critical of the employer. Inspectors appear to use a checklist approach in their inspections, noting the existence of work place systems and documents, without actually testing and monitoring to assure compliance. Additionally, the procedures for certifying third party monitors, which are relied on by employers and the governmental authorities are not clear… "Workers offered credible testimony about the unwillingness of medical staff at the facilities to send workers to IMSS [social security agency which operates medical facilities] and of IMSS doctors to diagnose injuries as work-related. Certain physicians apparently work for both employers and IMSS, which creates a concern about conflicts of interest and a physician’s credibility in reporting, diagnosis, and valuation work place injuries and illnesses. An appearance of impropriety created by potential conflicts of interest impacts workers’ perception of the fairness and transparency of the process…" http://mhssn.igc.org/news15.htm

thishereboi -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 9:03:30 AM)
Where did I ever say NAFTA was a good idea?

Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 9:08:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElectraGlide The collective bargaining on most non-union jobs boils down to, what do they have to pay to retain employees. If they make minimum wage and do not complain and stay there, thats what they get. If the turnover rate is so bad it effects the business, because the work is not getting done, they have to up the pay. In most industrial areas, they have a pay comparison chart, so they can be competitive with the other local companies. Throw a union monkey wrench in it, they will not get anymore, they will only pay so much to get the job done. They will do the old smoke and mirrors trick of give from one area and take from the other, so it will equal out in the end, with no gain. A closed union plant is no job security no matter how you want to Obama it. I never understood the Wal-Mart workers underpaid complaint, as Larry The Cable Guy said about them, get another job. I think the media complained not the workers, it must of been jealous Democrats, LMAO. [sm=applause.gif]

Steponme73 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 9:13:12 AM)
Union labor drives up the price of construction. I build and use only non-union. Skilled people who make a good living, but not raping the consumer.

Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 9:17:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Come now Vendaval,we all know a tragedy such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory could never ever be repeated today. Responsible business men can be counted on to make responsible decisions....allways keeping the welfare of the worker front and center. Triangle Fire disaster of 1911. Please . 98 years ago, wow thats a stretch. lets try to stick with current affairs. lets say staying in this millennium.

cjan -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 10:20:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Come now Vendaval,we all know a tragedy such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory could never ever be repeated today. Responsible business men can be counted on to make responsible decisions....allways keeping the welfare of the worker front and center. Triangle Fire disaster of 1911. Please . 98 years ago, wow thats a stretch. lets try to stick with current affairs. lets say staying in this millennium. As opposed to this post of yours ? quote: at the turn of the century 1900's , the street sweepers in NY were about to be replaced by a more automated way of doing the job. if unions were around at that time then I am sure that today the strees of NY would be swept by hand, after all its keeps people working. There comes a time for every thing to pass on.

thishereboi -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 10:24:20 AM)
Still waiting for an answer to my question.... From the previous post - Oh and you must have missed my question....In a previous post you said you own a business and have owned others in the past. How many of them were union?

cjan -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 10:44:34 AM)
This in in response to a question thishereboi posed to me in this thread. I have owned and operated businesses that employed both union and non-union workers, not that I see how that is relevant to this topic. What may be more relevant is my experience with a demolition company that I once worked for. The company employed all union workers, from laborers to highly skilled heavy equipment operators. The demolition business is a highly competitive one. The union workers all made very good wages, due to their unions collective bargaining results. The man who owns the company decided, right fro it's inception, to give profit sharing to all employees from the bottom on up. The result was that, in a highly dangerous work environment, his employees gave 100% every day, were never late to work, very rarely called in sick and there was zero employee theft. Not only that, but there was virtually zero employee turn over and on a few occasions, that I witnessed, when a man was hurt on the job ( falls, broken bones, etc. ), after a trip to the ER, they returned to the job site and asked for a broom or some task that they could do in their condition. This business grew from a local one, started on a shoe string, into a now international one that does much more than just demolition. This experience convinced me that, if the American worker is treated with dignity, repect and economic justice he/she will respond by giving their all to the common good, i.e., in this case, making a company efficient, competitive and succesful. Granted, this is just one story, but I believe that the lesson learned can be widely applied with similar reults. What history has shown is that when employers try to build a business and/or wealth on the backs of and at the expense of workers, the results are social and economic injustice that fuel conflict in a society and, ultimately, fail. Those of you who have the luxury of working a 40 hour week for a living wage and work in a relatively safe environment should be ashamed for union bashing. It is unions who, at a great cost to those who were beaten and killed by strike breakers hired by robber barons, created this possibility for you. To say that times have changed and that collective bargaining is obsolete and counter-productive is ridiculous, especially given the fact that the middle class which enjoys the fruits of collective bargaining, is quickly disappearing. Isn't it ironic that in former communist countries, the so-called "workers paradise", THERE ARE NO UNIONS. In fact, conditions such as some of you union bashers advocate prevail there now.

cjan -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 10:52:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Steponme73 Union labor drives up the price of construction. I build and use only non-union. Skilled people who make a good living, but not raping the consumer. Nonsense. I know a number of contractors here in Florida who employ illegal ( mostly Mexican ) workers and pay them shit. They DO NOT pass on thier savings costs to consumers. They stuff their own pockets with the difference. Also, having lived in the Midwest for many years where construction labor is mostly union, I deplore the pittance that skilled labor such as carpenters ) are paid in the non-union south. The cost of the finished product to the home buyer in the south is , almost always, much higher than the same house would cost in the unionized labor north.

slvemike4u -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 10:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Come now Vendaval,we all know a tragedy such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory could never ever be repeated today. Responsible business men can be counted on to make responsible decisions....allways keeping the welfare of the worker front and center. Triangle Fire disaster of 1911. Please . 98 years ago, wow thats a stretch. lets try to stick with current affairs. lets say staying in this millennium. I'm getting real tired of having right-wing posters(or you could insert any number of epitaths)try to restrict where these conversations go.Daily rants and whinings plucked from any spurious source are annoying enough without beinng told how one might respond to them.

corysub -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 11:45:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan quote: ORIGINAL: Steponme73 Union labor drives up the price of construction. I build and use only non-union. Skilled people who make a good living, but not raping the consumer. Nonsense. I know a number of contractors here in Florida who employ illegal ( mostly Mexican ) workers and pay them shit. They DO NOT pass on thier savings costs to consumers. They stuff their own pockets with the difference. Also, having lived in the Midwest for many years where construction labor is mostly union, I deplore the pittance that skilled labor such as carpenters ) are paid in the non-union south. The cost of the finished product to the home buyer in the south is , almost always, much higher than the same house would cost in the unionized labor north. You are telling a story about how a "retail buyer" of a house pays the same price as a builder who uses union labor. Shocking...to some...but any businessman knows that the final sale price is based on quality, competitive pricing, and service. That "competitive" pricing in a good market is held up by supply demand and the unionized contactor "sets the price"....good news for the guy who uses cheaper labor for the same end result. I wonder how many of those "unionized" contractors are still in business in Florida? My guess is that the guy with non-union help might still be able to make a profit even in a depressed market if he could arrange financing. Have you ever built anything yourself? Paid the bills..etc. I built two stores, one with non-union, and one forced by the landlord under union pressure to be built entirely with union labor. One cost $260,000, the other $325,000..same equipment, pretty much identical floor space...maybe the second 200sq/ft bigger..ALL of that extra cost was labor! The other store construction quality was as good as the second with independent contractors doing the sub work for he Managing Contractor. Unions do provide skilled labor...but please...not everyone out there working is an illegal slipping across the RioGrande and my house was built with mostly spanish workers and the construction was terrific. Unions are in business "for unions"...not for the worker. I have enough experience with the ILGWU to know that the union rep visiting a shop always went into the back and "negotiated" with the boss. The would screw the hardworkding gals out there on the machines who sometimes were not given their prices on the garment in piece work factories until "after" the line was done.

cjan -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 12:10:57 PM)
Cory, did you read my post regarding contractors who build in Florida who use illegal, non-union labor and simply pocket the savings ? If you did, , read it again and pay attention this time. Florida has NEVER had union contsruction labor. I'd think you'd know that since you venture an opinion on it. And thanks, so much, for the lesson on economics and how products, including housing, are priced and marketed. What you seem to be ignorant of is that classroom economics rarely have any bearing on real market practices. For example, the housing bubble in my area was due, to a large extent, on contractors ( whom I know ) who took advantage in the early days by buying up, at hugely inflated prices, three homes at a time in an area in which lots were cheap and on which they wished to build. They used the "comps" ( I hope you know what those are ) made by real estate appraisers (whom I also know ) in order to obtain pre-construction loans from banks and to support their inflated asking prices for the finished product. And, yes, they used non-union, illegal alien labor to build them. THAT's how the free market often operates. quote: good news for the guy who uses cheaper labor for the same end result. But very bad news for the worker who is trying to keep a roof over his own families head, feed them and educate his kids. Btw, if the working person ( think "workin poor " , a lovely term ) can barely make ends meet, then he/she can't possibly buy consumer goods ,new clothes for the kids and other essential things , like a new car, appliances or even take them out to dinner, a ball game or go on vacation. In case you aren't aware, cory, all this consumer spending is what keeps theU.S. economy humming. But wait, what's that silence... ? Oh yeah, it's not humming because, to a large extent, working people don't have the $$ and can't afford to spend.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875