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

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 1:18:25 PM)
I responded to your statements in post #47 about laws being in place to protect people now. The laws along the border to protect workers are not well enforced and the abuses have been documented. (edited to add a sentence) quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Where did I ever say NAFTA was a good idea?

Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 1:23:52 PM)
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. Myth: Union-only PLA's reduce construction costs. Fact: Union-only requirements limit bidders, force construction users to pay inflated union wages and follow outmoded and inefficient union work rules. The bottom line: Union-only PLA's unnecessarily drive up costs on projects. http://www.plawatch.com/mythvsfact.htm

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 1:29:37 PM)
Wrong. Accidents like these were primary reasons unions started in the first place and unions provide education and safety training to their members. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity 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.

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 2:57:24 PM)
Just a few of the U.S. industrial accidents from the last 100 years as example are listed here: the Texas City Disaster from 1947 in Texas; Three Mile Island in Penn. 1979; and the Sago Mine Disaster, West Virginia, 2006. The Sago Mine disaster was a coal mine explosion on January 2, 2006, in the Sago Mine in Sago, West Virginia, USA near the Upshur County seat of Buckhannon. The blast and ensuing aftermath trapped 13 miners for nearly two days, Only one of them, Randal McCloy, survived. It was the worst mining disaster in the US since the Jim Walter Resources Mine Disaster in Alabama on September 23, 2001 [1] [2] killed 13 people, and the worst disaster in West Virginia since a 1968 incident that killed 78 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sago_Mine_Disaster The Three Mile Island accident of 1979 was a partial core meltdown in Unit 2 (a pressurized water reactor manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox) of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania near Harrisburg. It was the most significant accident in the history of the American commercial nuclear power generating industry, resulting in the release of an estimated 43,000 curies (1.59 PBq) of radioactive krypton,[1] but under 20 curies (740 GBq) of the particularly hazardous iodine-131.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident "The Texas City Disaster of April 16, 1947, started with the mid-morning fire and detonation of approximately 2,300 tons[1] of ammonium nitrate on board the French-registered vessel SS Grandcamp in the port at Texas City, Texas, killing at least 567 people. It also triggered the first ever class action lawsuit against the United States government, under the then-recently enacted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), on behalf of 8,485 victims." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster 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.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 3:30:57 PM)
~FR~ There is a place for a few unions, but there are many unions that exist solely to create inflated wages, and/or an illusion of employee welfare. I do not think you can lump unions into any category of good and bad. An example would be the IBEW, and the benchmark of excellence that is set. For larger electrical jobs I would want union workers, but for minor repairs and such a non-union electrician would do just fine. In 1987, I was a 49% owner in a construction company that did concrete flatwork, including driveways, sidewalks, curbs, and foundations. Our work excellence was set at current union benchmarks of that time. Within a couple of years cheaper labor came along and our jobs were underbid by an average of 40%. There was no way to stay in business as we were doing it. Unions have their place, but they can sometimes do as much damage as help. The residential construction market is a place where people wanted lower prices on homes, so more people could qualify. It was the demand of the consumer that caused many builders to start using cheaper labor, and materials. Very similar to the demand that the American people have for anything cheaper, just look at how much we buy from China and other places labor is cheap. If unions bargain for higher wages and benefits, beyond what can be sustained in the market, what will be done then? As far as safety laws not being enforced, that is an issue that needs to be directed towards the government not doing it's actual job - Enforcing laws and public safety. Why would we want a private substitute to handle the job the government should do?

Sanity -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 3:37:45 PM)
When I was a Teamster the only rep I ever saw was one great big fat guy who came to the plant driving a long white Caddy a couple of times per month, and he only made an occasional grievance meeting and took our dues. There was never money in the strike fund and they sure as hell never gave us safety training or anything, the company did that because OSHA required it. Where did all the money go? To the mobsters? The mafia? Have you ever been a part of a union? They only make it harder to fire the scuz buckets that nobody wants around - all the decent people could handle their own grievances fine on their own. That's been my experience. quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Wrong. Accidents like these were primary reasons unions started in the first place and unions provide education and safety training to their members. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity 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.

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 3:38:21 PM)
The laws and regulation concerning workers safety and buidling codes is not a one sided arrangement. Training and education and the right equipment helps prevent accidents and deaths and collapsed structures. Business owners and worker's unions and the government all need to do their part.

Sanity -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 3:46:09 PM)
There is a violent side to unions too, where goons start fires and intimidate people, even getting people killed sometimes. They're not all that you seem to think that they are. quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval The laws and regulation concerning workers safety and buidling codes is not a one sided arrangement. Training and education and the right equipment helps prevent accidents and deaths and collapsed structures. Business owners and worker's unions and the government all need to do their part.

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 3:47:16 PM)
You interpretation is incorrect. I know about the thuggery and mob connections with certain unions.

Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 6:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And all the circumstances you cite are as a result of Unions....remove them from the equation and who will protect that prevailing wage.....or the thousand other benifits workers have as a result of the good work of unions. The courts will.

corysub -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 6:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan 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. Really! Someone tell the IBEW http://www.ibewflorida.org/orgnotes/060130_miami349.htm 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. I think it's good that you know the economics in your neighborhood. We all should. However, Miami, West Palm Beach and Orlando were all in the top ten of overbuilt cities in the country so it's more than just a few local contractors buying a few houses on spec. As far a understanding "comps" tell me your joking...or do you think knowing what a neighbors house sells for is a divine revelation. And please tell me that you don't buy anything because a "real estate appraisor" says it's worth $650,000! I would hope you know better than that...and that those "pre-construction loans" are there to buy the raw materials with prices jobbed out to specs that a bank feels makes sense on cost per sq/ft. That's mostly the rule of thumb my bankers used..but hey..maybe in Florida the banks lend money on an estimated selling price not cost price...Nice loan if you can get it. 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. I thought we were comparing contractors using illegals verus those that don't. Now you want to talk about workers..an entirely different topic. Quite a passionate comment and I applaud you for your humanity. I only wish I was basing my opinon on "Classroom economics"...Please tell my banks that it was all a game and we were not playing for keeps. As far as Florida being not being

cjan -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 6:23:33 PM)
Look, Unions, of course, like anything are not perfect. Yes, there is and has been corruption and various sleezy actions by organized labor. I'm not against re-negotiating labor contracts where it's appropriate, such as tha auto industry. However, when people complain that U.S. products and manufacturers are at a disadvantage due to cheaper labor costs over seas, the best thing to do is to encourage labor to organize in those foreign countries and collectively bargain for better wages and safer work environments, NOT to stupidly reverse years of social and economic gains enjoyed in this country due to collective bargaining. That the playing field would be more level, everyone's standard of living would improve and foreign workers would have some money to spend on our products, fueling the world economy. When will U.S. sheeple wake up and stop working and voting against their own best interests ?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 6:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I saw some Youtube video last week of Robert Reich testifying before Charlie Rangel about the stimulus, the importance of rebuilding infrastructure, and that these jobs weren't for white male construction workers, but would go to the long-term unemployed, women and minorities (no shit. link here). I had issues with that which had nothing to do with the rascism. It has EVERYTHING to do with racism!!!! I saw that same vid...my brother sent it to me weeks ago...not only did Reich say it...but Congressman Rangel reiterated it....it was astounding...more so because not ONE news agency picked it up. If it had been said about black men (grab the link....listen to it)...every white man on Earth would have been excoriated. It was no less than astounding.

Sanity -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 7:27:15 PM)
There is little wonder the Democrats have begun exploring ways to shut down free speech in the form of Fox News and talk radio. CNN won't cover this shit, and the New York Times won't.

aravain -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 7:30:56 PM)
I think TheHeretic meant HIS issues with it had nothing to do about the racism involved. Not that it didn't have any racism involved

Owner59 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 7:33:24 PM)
And sexism. Riech would like women(half the population) to also benefit. Seems fair.

Sanity -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 7:40:17 PM)
I've personally seen that exact behavior, even behavior much more extreme than that. The plant I was working in at the time has all but closed down now, no business can possibly survive in that kind of environment. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 When a non union hires new younger faster more productive employee his co-workers dont say " Buddy slow down you are making us look bad" Those words are used often to the new guys at Unions ;)

Owner59 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 7:54:36 PM)
I`ve seen(on the news)white collar types sending poisoned and diseased food out for people to eat. Dose this mean all management should get a bad rap? Perhaps so.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 8:09:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 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. Myth: Union-only PLA's reduce construction costs. Fact: Union-only requirements limit bidders, force construction users to pay inflated union wages and follow outmoded and inefficient union work rules. The bottom line: Union-only PLA's unnecessarily drive up costs on projects. http://www.plawatch.com/mythvsfact.htm Ah hahahaha right. And for whom does the PLA bell toil? It toils for "Associated Builders and CONtractors is a national association representing more than 23,000 "merit shop" construction and construction-related firms in 80 chapters across the United States." No, no bias there. None at all. Just like there'd be no bias in "Myths about our kindly vegetarian lover of kids and small animals Adolf Hitler" by the NASDP. Like shooting dead fish in a teacup with an M-60.Ae than 23,000 merit shop construction and construction related firms in 80 chapters across the United States. ssociated Builders and Contractors (ABC) is a national association representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and construction related firms in 80 chapters across the United States. ssociated Builders and Contractors (ABC) is a national association representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and construction related firms in 80 chapters across the United States.

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/11/2009 8:10:42 PM)
As has been mentioned here before not all unions are the same in terms of their ethics and there are big differences in different parts of the country. What I have seen with family and friends who are in various types of unions is that they are better protected from being mistreated, harrassed and fired without cause and that they have an additional pension upon retirement. Most of the union representation in my social and family network is for civil servants, educators, truck drivers, mechanics, janitors, farm workers and others who work in agriculture. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity When I was a Teamster the only rep I ever saw was one great big fat guy who came to the plant driving a long white Caddy a couple of times per month, and he only made an occasional grievance meeting and took our dues. There was never money in the strike fund and they sure as hell never gave us safety training or anything, the company did that because OSHA required it. Where did all the money go? To the mobsters? The mafia? Have you ever been a part of a union? They only make it harder to fire the scuz buckets that nobody wants around - all the decent people could handle their own grievances fine on their own. That's been my experience. quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Wrong. Accidents like these were primary reasons unions started in the first place and unions provide education and safety training to their members. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity 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.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875