Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Unions....  (Read 2158 times)

Offline BjornBee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 3775
  • Gender: Male
« on: January 29, 2009, 05:33:33 PM »
If you do not know what job banks are, it will make your eyebrows perk.

As a company upgrades it capacity to manufacture a product, many times less workers are needed. It is evolution of the business market. You lose some in one area, and create more in another.

But the unions, have pressured automakers to keep a certain number of slots or people employed, even after they are no longer needed. The union basically wants to keep paying members to the union, and could care less about the bottom line of the companies. They use strong arm tactics and threats of strike, to keep thousands on the companies payroll, and so they continue paying those member dues, long past the day they are no longer needed.

It puts the company at a disadvantage in the market, the costs are passed onto the consumer, and it is a small part of what is wrong with auto industry in the U.S.

Today, Ford announced:

 "Ford also said today that the UAW has agreed to end its controversial jobs bank program, which pays UAW workers who are not working. About 1,400 employees were in Ford's jobs bank as of November. General Motors Corp. said Wednesday its jobs bank program will end next week and Chrysler LLC ended its jobs bank program earlier this week."

Doesn't sound like much does it. 1,400 employees. But in salary and benefits, if each one was getting pay of 50,000 a year, that equates into 70 million per year. Chump change for Ford I'm sure. But all that chump change adds up.
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com

Offline Keith13

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Gender: Male
Re: Unions....
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2009, 06:12:23 PM »
Wow  70 million is crazy money, but this does not surprise me. I have for a long time believed the unions to be the downfall of the US auto indutry.


Offline asprince

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Gender: Male
Re: Unions....
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2009, 08:15:26 PM »
Unions are like our Federal Government, they have outgrown their usefulness.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resembalance to the first. - Ronald Reagan

Offline johnnybigfish

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
  • Gender: Male
    • The World of Johnnybigfish
Re: Unions....
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2009, 09:28:30 PM »
 I used to be against union...Now, I'm a shop steward for the UAW. The turning point for me to join the union was when I learned that I wasnt half as valuable employee as I thought I was...Where i work, the union struck....Out of about 100 ppl, I was one of three that went to work...I was a delivery driver for Sheppard AFB base supply at that time..12 drivers, and I was the only one working...ALL the routes!....And no delinquent documents(means everything was within there time frames on delivery...some had to be delivered in 30 minutes or less)..at Any rate, dad mentioned to me( who previously was management at the same company, and anti union of course) that I oughtta hit up management on a letter of recognition as I supported the mission...(oh yeh....contract was coming up for bid and I felt this would show me as being a company person) So I did....The branch chief agreed and pased it up to the project manager(the big boss)...2 weeks later, I get the word that the project manager refused the letter for me...I walked the strike line and then the company stabbed me in the back!
 But.....I have to agree with the above replies pretty much now....even being a union guy, I KNOW that theres nothing a union can do about the economy...They cant ensure a job that doesnt exist...and for sure, union is not as strong in the south as it is up north...Also the union IS responsible for how much these workers earn..But the union is not responsible for how these people managed their money..If I was making 40 or 50 bux an hour, I sure wouldnt know how to live on less, I bet.
I get a raise every year...usually about 3 to 4 percent...I have seniority as a contract employee..i have 6 weeks of vacation a year, 11 days sick leave, 12 federal holidays....I have NO retirement...no health coverage from my company..This is what I have after 23 years doing what I do. Not all union people have it like the auto workers do.
Union is just another corporation now...and they really are only interested in union dues, pretty much.  But, what little I do have after all these years, wouldnt have happened if the union hadnt gotten in the door. and the door swings both ways...I always tell ppl if they dont like the union, dont join...But I also feel that non union members shouldnt share the benefits the union does offer...But, if its a union shop, the union has to protect them, regardless if theyre a member or not..at least thats the way it works in Tx, on a federal installation( which is considered federal land).
your friend,

Online kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16133
  • Gender: Female
Re: Unions....
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2009, 09:42:02 PM »
is tx a right to work state?  in many states, you don't have a choice in joining the union if the place you work is union.  i remember when my son went to work for safeway.  he worked a couple of days a week.  he'd been there less than a month when the manger called him in.  the union 'boss' had taken him to task because my son had not yet joined.  the manage gave my son the choice of joining the union, or putting the future of his job in jeopardy.  he said he could protect my sons job if he didn't join.

this was about 15 years ago.  the union dues for his part time job were 18 dollars a month.  that doesn't sound like much, but to a kid trying to earn spending money and save for college, it was a lot.  what was the union going to do for him?  nothing.  they just wanted his money.
One could not learn history from architecture any more than one could learn it from books. Statues, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets ? anything that might throw light upon the past had been systematically altered. (1.8.85)

George Orwell  "1984"

Offline Jerrymac

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 6047
  • Gender: Male
Re: Unions....
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2009, 10:25:41 PM »

Friday, August 27, 2004
Texas right-to-work laws protect both employees and employers
Houston Business Journal - by Hurlie Collier Special to Houston Business Journal

Texas is one of only 22 states with "right-to-work" provisions, but what exactly does that mean to employers and employees?

Right-to-work laws are state statutes that ban the practice of requiring union membership or financial support to a union as a condition of employment, and provide employees with individual bargaining rights.

These laws establish the legal right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.
Protected by federal act

States began adopting right-to-work laws in 1940, and the right to enact a right-to-work law was assured in 1947 by the Federal Labor-Management Relations Act (also called the Taft-Hartley Act).

Understandably, this provision angers labor union officials who contend that the security and solidarity of organized unions is jeopardized by allowing individual workers to opt out of any union membership or financial requirements.

On the other hand, right-to-work proponents argue that these laws uphold the right of Americans to work without being forced to pay union membership dues or agency fees in order to continue working.
Individual rights

In 1993, Texas enacted the current version of the Texas Right-to-Work Act, which includes the following provisions:

    * Right to bargain. A person's inherent right-to-work and to bargain freely with the person's employer, individually or collectively, for the terms of the person's employment may not be denied or infringed by law or by any organization.
    * Contract for withholding union dues from employee's compensation is void without employee's consent. A contract that permits or requires the retention of part of an employee's compensation to pay dues or assessments on the employee's part to a labor union is void unless the employee delivers to the employer the employee's written consent to the retention of those sums.
    * Denial of employment based on labor union membership is prohibited. A person may not be denied employment based on membership or non-membership in a labor union.
    * Contract requiring or prohibiting labor union membership is void. A contract is void if it requires that, to work for an employer, employees or applicants for employment must be or may not be members of a labor union or must remain or may not remain members of a labor union.
    * Fee for privilege to work is prohibited. A labor union, a labor organizer or an officer, member, agent or representative of a labor union, may not collect, receive or demand, directly or indirectly, a fee as a work permit or as a condition for the privilege to work from a person who is not a member of the union; however, this does not prevent the collection of an initiation fee.

Simply stated, under the Texas Right-to-Work Act, it is unlawful for any company or organization in Texas to require an employee to join a union or pay union dues in order to be employed or to maintain his employment. It is also unlawful in Texas for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to join a union.

Texas courts have found that the Texas Right-to-Work Act is intended to protect employees in the exercise of their right of free choice of joining or not joining a union. Any attempt by a company or organization to infringe on this right may result in a civil lawsuit brought by the state on behalf of the aggrieved employee.
Economic benefits

While right-to-work laws are written in language that protects workers' rights, they were originally enacted by states primarily to attract and promote economic growth.

Opponents of these laws often call them the "right-to-work-for-less" laws. However, according to a 2002 study on The Effect of Right-to-Work Laws on Economic Development, "a quarter century of superior economic growth in the right-to-work states adds to the increasing evidence that economic growth is the best way to raise the incomes of all Americans."

For example, the study shows that Michigan's high unit labor costs have increasingly discouraged fresh capital from investing in the state. The report's conclusion is that right-to-work laws increase state economic development and the overall prosperity of state residents.

Hurlie Collier is a partner in the Houston office of Baker & Hostetler LLP (www.bakerlaw.com).
:rainbowflower:  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   :rainbowflower:


My pictures.Type in password;  youview

Offline johnnybigfish

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
  • Gender: Male
    • The World of Johnnybigfish
Re: Unions....
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2009, 04:37:20 PM »
yep, jerry...Thats it!
 In my case, Part of the base is considered "Leased land" and some parts federal land..The North end of the base is leased land...Those people are aircraft maintenance..They fall under the "Right to work" laws...But, they are also about 98 % voluntary union members. They belong to the IAM. Its this way because their main office is in that area.
 For me, the UAW,..Our office was on federal land when the union was voted in, so we didnt have to follow the right to work laws...a catch 22 sort of. But, where i work, out of about 60 people, all are retired military except 3 or 4 of us. But, Its a "closed shop"..... Instead of people being forced into the union...For these non members, they pay what is considered a "Maintenance Fee"..which, pretty much, is the same cost as union dues...Joining or not joining the union is basically a "Principle issue, because everybody is represented by union if need be.Being mostly retirees, my union has not bargained for medical ins, retirement, etc. as they dont need it!...But,....There are 3 of us who would,if our spouses didnt have coverage. These issues are decided by a majority vote, so its understandable why we dont have pensions and stuff...because the majority doesnt need it...So, instead, we are compensated by $$$
 And, as you know, "MONEY TALKS"...Its always about the dollar, union or non union.
And, there are very few corporations who really care about their employees..Matter of fact, I cant think of one co. who honestly cares about their workers.
oh well...thats about all I got!
your friend,


  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 2011
  • Gender: Male
Re: Unions....
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2009, 05:38:05 PM »
Unions get their money from a % of your wages, not your benefits. Therefore its to their advantage to negotiate pay, not benefits.I think this is an inherent conflict.

Unions are also needed in some industries, and not in others. I do worry that without unions, many people would also be w/o defined benefit pensions and health benefits.
"The more complex the Mind, the Greater the need for the simplicity of Play".