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

rulemylife -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 9:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 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. Complete nonsense. Nearly every state follows the employment-at-will doctrine. Which basically means that an employer can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason, barring certain exceptions such as anti-discrimination laws. Without a union contract requiring just cause for termination, and the subsequent ability to take a matter before the National Labor Relations Board, an employee has no legal recourse. Likewise with benefits and wages, the employer can cut them at will unless there is a specific contract either between the employer and employee or employer and union.

FRSguy -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 9:56:04 AM)
As a person who hires for construction / electrical / computer and telco communications the lowest licensed bidder gets the job... unioned companies just have never bid the lowest so for me all the non union companies that I have known have allways made way more money then companies with a union and they allways seem to be able to complete the task on schedule and on budget.

FRSguy -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 10:00:44 AM)
Depends on which state you live in. For instance, if you live in the state of Maine you can pretty much bet on getting fired at the drop of a hat... if you live in Ca you can allmost allways collect unemployment or greater benefits even if you walk out on your employer. The difference is the style of state Gov. The state of Maine is for the employer while the state of California is for the employee. I have even seen in the state of California where one employee doctored their check to extract more money from the bank... then get fired (with prood of course) for the action... had the criminal charges filed against them in court as well as insurance lawsuit... and still collect benefits.

rulemylife -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 10:43:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FRSguy Depends on which state you live in. For instance, if you live in the state of Maine you can pretty much bet on getting fired at the drop of a hat... if you live in Ca you can allmost allways collect unemployment or greater benefits even if you walk out on your employer. The difference is the style of state Gov. The state of Maine is for the employer while the state of California is for the employee. I have even seen in the state of California where one employee doctored their check to extract more money from the bank... then get fired (with prood of course) for the action... had the criminal charges filed against them in court as well as insurance lawsuit... and still collect benefits. State guidelines for unemployment benefits have nothing to do with employment-at-will. Whether you are in Maine or in California, trying to sue for wages or benefits, or bringing a wrongful termination action is unlikely to get very far unless there are other factors like anti-discrimination laws supporting the employee.

FRSguy -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 10:57:06 AM)
In the California case it was because the person had not been found guilty even though there was strong evidence supporting the crime... like there signiture and bank deposit.

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 11:12:57 AM)
rulemylife and FRSguy, do you think the differences mentioned between Maine and California represent the two farthest examples on employee vrs employer? And I detect a noticable difference some of the examples from East Coast vs West Coast. Is that pretty much the case in general?

FRSguy -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 11:41:06 AM)
The company I work for has offices in several states around the country. Every state is different but in general I have found that south western states have a tendency to lean more towards the individual while northeastern colonial states tend to lean towards government. However, there are huge economic differences in these states. To give an example... if you get a flat tire in Ca or Me your gonna get towed if you walk away from the car... but Az I have seen cops changing peoples tires. I think the trend from state to state is that the better the economy the more the state leans towards the people. In another example... My so hit a pot hole in Ca and I was like oh shit we have to buy a new tire (there was damage of course). My so said no way are you kidding me and she went down to city hall and they wrote a check out for a new tire... in Maine I have damaged more tires then I count and also lost a whole wheel once and never once was I given anything for damages nor was the town required to mark the pothole even when damaged cars were stacked up on the side of the road waiting to get towed (when pot holes are filled with water at major intersection you tend to not think they would be that deep). Point is its a total different mentality towards governement.

Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 11:44:34 AM)
Thank you for those examples. I live on the Central Coast in California. The liability fears are such that on two of the college campuses I attended you could not get assistance with either a dead battery or your keys locked in the car from campus police. You have to call a tow truck or a friend. (Triple AAA has great services for its members so that has always worked well for me.)

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 5:20:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval We have had some threads on unions in the past months and I think it is relevant to discuss the pros and cons of union vs non-union labor, particularly in the case of construction. Your thoughts and opinions please. I could go on for days about this one....personally...Unions are the lowest slime on the planet. (NOT Union members....just unions).

Owner59 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 6:03:22 PM)
I think the peanut poisoner is a little lower. Ken Lay,a bit lower. The CEOs of Bank of America,lower. The guys who got us involved in Iraq are the lowest scum.No one`s lower. Are there union officials flying around in expensive jets? They`re called corporate jets, for a reason. Unions don`t measure a thimble`s worth, compared to the money lost,money stolen, people hurt and damage done by corporate America. Unions are the only check on this because today as yesterday,laws aren`t enough.Law breakers don`t care about laws and bush`s AGs were crooks themselves. Why is it a bunch of working stiff wage earners get all the bad press when they`re just looking for a better deal for themselves and their families?

MrRodgers -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 6:20:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval We have had some threads on unions in the past months and I think it is relevant to discuss the pros and cons of union vs non-union labor, particularly in the case of construction. Your thoughts and opinions please. I could go on for days about this one....personally...Unions are the lowest slime on the planet. (NOT Union members....just unions). What a hoot. If you really believe that then the capitalist propaganda has you...hook, line and sinker. Yea, all they do now is try to preserve jobs, wages and health care...those greedy, capitalist scum. Who do these people think they are ? I much prefer those stand-up millionaire bankers coming to Washington with their hands out, looking for a...handout. Afterall, it is much more important to society that we keep these bloodsucking losers in their yachts and on the golf course then to get your kid an education and dare I say...to the dr. That is in fact one of the values of our society as reflected by your vitriol against unions. It's ok that in the name of profits...we just die younger. We are ranked 46th and dropping fast. You see we love these bankers so much, they get their big salaries and even if they refuse federal bailout money, go belly up after those big bonuses...they still get bailed out by the FDIC. What a deal, I am now entitled yes, my banker's capitalist entitlement can come out of either window at the treasury. And when they are lower than politicians that don't produce anything (except hot air) and just consume...that's gett'n pretty low alright. I love how they insist on me making whatever millions I can and if necessary and I blow it...be the richest Marxist/socialist on the planet.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 7:07:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers What a hoot. If you really believe that then the capitalist propaganda has you...hook, line and sinker. Yea, all they do now is try to preserve jobs, wages and health care...those greedy, capitalist scum. Who do these people think they are ? I think that there is some delusional thinking at work with those who aren't wealthy, will never be wealthy, and yet identify with their financial "betters". Something like the "Stockholm Syndrome", or the same kind of magical thinking that leads millions of working-class people to piss their money away on lotteries. There was a poll on another site about what kind of society they would ideally like to have: one that was a Feudal, dog-eat-dog rigiid heirarchy; one that provided all basic needs and which allowed for equality of outcome and social equality, or a hybrid, much like the EU has (generally speaking). The respondents overwhelmingly chose the Feudal society, and the common thread was that the respondent would naturally rise to the top, unlike all the other respondents. it's akin to the phenomenon wherein drivers nearly always rate themselves better than average, when the opposite is true. I can't think of any other reason why so many white working and middle class people, primarily males, subscribe to the right-wing "philosophy". There is also, of course, the subtle racism that is programmed into that demographic group, and the vaguely religious notion that males are superior to females (maybe call this "The Handmaid's Tale Syndrome"?)

UPSG -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/12/2009 11:11:04 PM)
I've worked for two fairly stellar non-union contractors in the past - one I even started off with "under the table" (payment). If it was for stand up contractors like them there would really be little need for organized labor. On the other hand, I've worked with a few, small-time, non-union contractors that were some rather cheating people. One pocketed all of my overtime (I was working under the table) so, I didn't last long with those two. Organized labor, especially when they spread to the industrialized workers (non-skilled), really built the famous American middle-class. This was largely done by returning WWII veterans who were going to be damned if they toiled for crumbs for the captains of industry. There has been a lot of propaganda sold against organized labor in the U.S. over the last few decades. What many don't realize is that the increased wages and or benefits organized labor fought for was for the benefit of American families. If young Chip's father earns $18 or $25 an hour that is better for their entire family than if young Chip's father earns $7 an hour. Now, I'm not against women in the work force, but I remember asking one of my economic teachers "Who benefits more from the addition of women in the workforce, American families or the owners of corporations?" A basic economic principle is that the more people you have competing for jobs then the lower the wages drop for those jobs (benefits the employers). Currently in Milwaukee there are more people available for work (at least entry level and semi-skilled) than there are jobs. I've read just two or so years ago in the local paper that various employers say they have on average something like 1,000 applicants per everyone 1 position. So, just with strict math it would seem the addition of women and Latin American immigrants (mainly Mexican in most cities) into the U.S. labor market thrusts the wages down. As I've said in the past, neither my Black or White grandfathers ever graduated from grade school. Nonetheless, they both earned incomes in blue collar professions (the former unskilled industrial and the latter skilled craftsman) that allowed them to take care of BIG families (something like 8 and 12 kids or so - I can't remember off the top of my head) whilst their wives stayed home. Today in general, both spouses have to work even with households 1/3 the size of my grandparents days. Have unions at times hurt the efficiency of companies? Yes. And there can be some draw backs to organized labor especially if they are headed by people who will not promote reeducation within the labor force of a company or more, to keep up with the technological changes within their industry. There has also been a well known history of corruption in various union shops. Overall though, I think when weighed, unions have done more good than harm for American families.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/13/2009 2:05:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval We have had some threads on unions in the past months and I think it is relevant to discuss the pros and cons of union vs non-union labor, particularly in the case of construction. Your thoughts and opinions please. I could go on for days about this one....personally...Unions are the lowest slime on the planet. (NOT Union members....just unions). What a hoot. If you really believe that then the capitalist propaganda has you...hook, line and sinker. Yea, all they do now is try to preserve jobs, wages and health care...those greedy, capitalist scum. Who do these people think they are ? I much prefer those stand-up millionaire bankers coming to Washington with their hands out, looking for a...handout. Afterall, it is much more important to society that we keep these bloodsucking losers in their yachts and on the golf course then to get your kid an education and dare I say...to the dr. That is in fact one of the values of our society as reflected by your vitriol against unions. It's ok that in the name of profits...we just die younger. We are ranked 46th and dropping fast. You see we love these bankers so much, they get their big salaries and even if they refuse federal bailout money, go belly up after those big bonuses...they still get bailed out by the FDIC. What a deal, I am now entitled yes, my banker's capitalist entitlement can come out of either window at the treasury. And when they are lower than politicians that don't produce anything (except hot air) and just consume...that's gett'n pretty low alright. I love how they insist on me making whatever millions I can and if necessary and I blow it...be the richest Marxist/socialist on the planet. Look...as I stated, I have absolutely nothing against union members...just the top dogs. They are scum. Lowlife's. I could go on for days. Back in 1990 the local painters union attempted to unionize one of my companies. No problem...I was already paying more than union scale (and still do). To make a long story short, we won the election, but I spent $30,000.00 doing it and the bulk of my effort was spent trying to clear up the unions lies. Here's what finally was discovered: 1) The union told them they'd make more money with them than staying non union. Union companies don't pay health benefits as a part of the hourly wage, they pay it as a separate benefit, ditto with with 401k's/pensions and so on, so...if we put it all on their paycheck, the union paycheck was larger. Added up separately, our wages were 9% higher. 2) The head of the local organization and his 3 nearest associates drove a new Cadillac every two years. Not such a bad thing really, except they'd lost money every year for the previous 3 years. But no cutbacks there!!!! 3) The union at that time had recently gotten their offices painted. Got 3 bids even. One was non union, "for price comparative values". Guess who got the job? Yep. The non union outfit. Those are the guys out protecting jobs for union members. If a union could provide me with quality workers, I'd hire union operators every day. I just wouldn't belong to a union.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875