IBEW or Any Engineering Union - Pros and Cons

AWESOME!! - couldn't have said it any better myself.

Great answer!

OP, Ask the IBEW members in North Canton who used to work at Hoover how their Union membership saved their jobs.

NOT.

milo

Guess ya never worked around a good group of experienced workers, sorry

My only personal experience with a union was not a very good one, but to be honest I cannot fault the union. Many years back a family member politely convinced me to change jobs and work in his company since a technician position had opened up. He forgot to mention that a petition had already been filed for a vote to bring in a union but the vote had yet to happen. The company was owned and run by schmuck. When the vote established the union in the company, I found out that I was in a loop hole position that could be fired for no cause and was fired when the union came in. The union did offer to help me find a job, but within the week I located a new job on my own. Within the year the schmuck dissolved the company and declared bankruptcy. Now did the the union bury him or was his business sense so poor that he could only barely float a company by abusing his employees, only his accountant knows for sure.

Now on general principles, I like the idea that a union represents the employees. But at best I consider a union the lesser evil between two poor choices. At worst they become either a sweetheart for management or just corrupt uncaring middlemen.

Poor, very poor business management I would say.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I have family who are Union Affiliated Mechanical Contractors, who beat out Scab Shops paying half the ages and no benefits, and they have survived longer than these types.

Again, it is the awesome training of the worker that was the key.

I suppose it would depend on which "Local" you are referring to.

You haven't even indicated which continent you are interested in. This query cannot be answered due to the lack of pertinent detail.

Well once again, an engineer over analyzing the question. And complicating a simple question. Muahaha

And Canada!

I suppose it would depend on which "Local" you are referring to.

With that being said that unions are inconsistant

Superb first hand experience from a person who has been active on all sides, not just sitting in a cubical with no windows.

Lol good answer.... so two options?

1) Take the safe road, join a union and be comfortable...

2) Take the risk, might fail, but might prosper.....

Sweet!

Question about the IBEW. Is it possible to be a journeyman with IBEW and also be able to run your own side business? I have heard mixed answers....

The ones that had been in a union and had quit or retired to started a side business, their side business was not union. And they played around with business ownership because of the technicalities of a union member started his own non-union business these technicalities I do not recall.

p911

Here is my experience from other side of the globe.I worked for 33 years in unionised company.Here things are altogether different. Unions are politically controlled.There are some hostile unions who only fight for more and more benefits for the workers.They encourage indiscipline and create violent atmosphere. Every 3 years there is wage agreements during which there is tug of war between union and management. Many of the demands are unreasonable resulting in huge tussles as the companies can not afford such demands and will go out of business.

This attitude of the union has resulted in avoiding hiring of labour, rather increase in automation.One of the union which had hay days, killed already sick textile industry in eighties in Mumbai resulting in loss of millions of the jobs. So, are the unions taking care of worker's welfare or they working against their interest?.

One advantage that people have only implied here I'd like to point out. As an employee there will be a formalized public document that specifies what your pay and responsibilities should be. Also if you have a dispute with management or colleague there is somebody outside of your work review that you can clarify what you and management are entitled to do. I like also the point that a union card for a journeyman can be a key to opportunities. (I've got to give him a GA.)

But as several here have pointed out, just like employers there are good unions and bad unions. The only thing that differs between a bad boss and a bad union is some of the details on how they reek. But when they go bad, they both stink in there own unique way.

One of my first jobs, back in the 60's, had mandatory union membership. We got paid minimum wage and had to pay union dues - hated them every since!

So, your implication, is, that the Union forced you to take this job?

I think not, sure some of the unions, especially in health care and supermarkets suck, but the ones who provide truly skilled workers treat their members well.

İf you are good and capable - you don't need a union! İf you are so-so or lazy then the union is the only way to go. Most workers are somewhere in between and get stuck paying dues to union management that is all too often of marginal intelligence or use.

Thank you guys for all your stories. This has been very education and a little bit entertaining. I'm just going to fart and see where the wind takes me . :D

Friends,

Interesting thread, and fairly civil. Congratulations to all who have posted. I agree fully with those who see pro's and con's on both sides. This seems to echo the adage that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Unions have served, and will continue to serve a necessary purpose, to ensure justice and reasonable treatment for employees when faced with circumstances in which they are relatively powerless. On the other hand, they have been guilty of the feeling "I am union and you can't touch me." I worked as a nurse when RN's were paid less than (unionized) grocery store checkout clerks, and worked to unionize them. I have been an electrician both within and without the IBEW. Both within and outside the IBEW I have seen a great many who are dedicated, hard-working, and very well-trained. I have met a smaller number who are otherwise, but they were often weeded out by early layoffs, etc. Unions have a problem with the seasonal nature of their work--to complete an apprenticeship you need fairly steady work during the entire period--so entry opportunities are often restricted (in many cases the method of restriction has been questionable).

In the present economic climate, I have seen precious little "trickle-down" in the philosophy of tax cuts we have followed for a couple decades. I would be happy to see corporate pay scales that didn't reward the top management with large bonuses because they wrested pay cuts from the rank and file; that didn't have a ratio of 10,000:1 between highest and lowest pay. Of course, this is also true in the academic setting--a football coach's pay of $1 million or even $250 thousand per year is frequently mentioned, but is totally wrong compared to academic or academic support staff pay scales.

--JMM

It seems to be in the nature of power and greed. For a eye-opening insight into our species, check this paper out:

Keating, C. F., & Heltman, K. R. (1994). Dominance and deception in children and adults: Are leaders the best misleaders? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 312-321.

Since I work at a university, I have access to this sort of paper. It may not be available, generally. But here is the link I used to get it: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/312

I actually saw this research on some "news" tabloid TV show years ago. It made a deep impression on me.

Too many people in power tend to abuse those beneath them -- or at the least, take advantage of them, if they can. Unions began because of this. They may have deteriorated over time, but the idea that workers are entitled to a living wage and a greater share of the wealth of a company/business are at the root of their inception. It is only a matter of time before this same process happens in developing countries, now that that labor is providing the bulk of worldwide manufacturing. It may be harder in China for this to happen, but overworked and underpaid workers will only take such treatment so long. Profit-sharing would be a better structure as opposed to union agreements. All employees should be expected to pull their own weight. But they shouldn't have to suffer a 400 to 1 salary ratio discrepancy between top and bottom.

Any given job is only worth so much, from flipping burgers to CEO. It is utterly ridiculous to pay a UAW hand $75.00/ hr to screw on lug nuts. Flipping burgers is probably worth about $2.00/hr, but the minimum wage dictates 3 or 4 times that. No wonder a .25 cent burger now costs $5.00.

If you want a share of the profits, buy stock in the company, or better yet, get together with your 'brothers' and buy the entire company. Then you can have ALL the profits. But don't be surprised if you can't find a decent CEO. Most of the good ones are able to generate many multiples of their salary in earnings. Can the guy on the shop floor say that?

Let the free market determine the wage.

When the CEO gets 2hundred 500 thousand dollars an hour, don't be so surprised if the labor wants 75 an hour.

Even Mr. Ford figured it was a good idea to pay people on the shop floor enough that they could live somewhere, eat, and show up for work in a car they bought from the company.

There are some companies with profit sharing plans. Most working people would love to buy stock, but really can't afford to gamble with what little money they get for honest work. It is honest work you know to show up and do your job, either flipping burgers or turning wrenches. There are only so many hours in a day.

Many of the CEO club run companies into the ground and walk away with every cent. This idea that they are irreplaceable and deserve to walk on the backs of those who don't have membership in the Country Club, and the finest of golf clubs, is ludicrous.

I think well of The Home Depot, and Wegmans. Don't know what the CEOs make there.

It does seem that many of the Captains of Industry, Masters of the Universe, have been consistently looting companies, and doing all they could to maintain wage slaves who are more and more incapable of even buying anything more than lies.

Well home depot's Nardelli was very well paid before he left, but that was nothing compared to the $210 million Severance package!

Home depot 2008:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52T43F20090330

I would suggest NOT combining CEO salary to The Union / Non union issue. it may add fuel to the fire, but it adds no insight as to workrules and quality of worklife as a member of the " brotherhood"etc... It's just another data point about risk reward compensation. Different issue.

Wegmans is privately held.

you said:

"Most working people would love to buy stock, but really can't afford to gamble with what little money they get for honest work."

It is the attitude that investing is gambling that has driven a lot of the greed on wall street.

But investing is different from gambling, and my IRA and 401k are doing fine, with what I can set aside from my pay.

I couldn't afford to retire if I wasn't "INVESTING" and creating jobs and growth with my "INVESTMENTS."

Did my holdings decrease in value when the market and everybody's houses values tanked? Yes. Are they back up or soon to be where they were before the "recession" You betcha.

I basically lost a year of time, with my "investment." And as today's ceo's see that they can continue to improve productivity with out adding workers, (because new regime in Washington makes workers VERY EXPENSIVE to have) There will be some stellar profits to be made. Businesses in US are sitting on the largest pile of cash ever. It will automate and eliminate labor. Union can't stop technology. Maybe in one shop, but the next guy will get it and blow their socks off by using it.

Dow 12,000 very likely- concurrent with a jobless recovery.

Money= capital investment; Wages = cost. Workers who invest wages in stocks of legitimate companies earn a piece of that success. Mutual funds help diffuse that risk. Workers who are "afraid to gamble with what little money" remain poor and angry. Even if they "save" in an FDIC guaranteed acct, they lose value on buying power decrease and inflation.

Engineers develop processes that add value and remove waste from operations. Wages paid to engineers are investment that reduce overall costs. If the engineers are properly deployed. If they are just ambulance chasing , that's another story.

Invest and prosper. Work to make a difference. Learn as you go along. Intelligently manage risk.

These are my answer to the fearful little working man. (I was one once upon a time)These have been demonstrated by wave after wave of immigrants to our shores. They can work for us too.

I think you are off track on this post, my friend.

milo

I believe that you are at crossed purposes my friend. Buying stock in your own company that you are working at is a very bad idea, not just for the hazard of insider trading concerns but this is gambling instead of investing. Gambling can be done in the stock market and it's done all the time. Gambling is putting money into a single company's stock based on a hunch. Investing is distributing your stock purchases over such a wide group of companies that no single company collapse can significantly effect your return since the collapse of one provides the room for others to grow. Naturally there are exceptions to this rule of thumb, a technology base that has seen its time is but one such example. The buggy whip manufacturing market for example, has gone through a dramatic collapse in the past 150 years. But it's real stable now.

The problem I personally have with the exorbitant executive pay is when it is linked only to a company's short term performance measure. So very often this leads to a dismantling of the company rather than reasonable growth and expansion. (Do you still own shares of NORTEL? ) As long as any corporate person is a true long term "rain maker" then I have no problem with them getting a healthy part of the pie. But the problem always come down to perceptions. When the salary savings of a worker layoff matches the bonuses of the executive staff, this looks bad.

Did I say I bought stock in my own company?

Did I say to exclusively buy any kind of stock?

I thought i said "Mutual funds help diffuse that risk."

I accepted stock options and company contributions in their stock. I was grateful and they were an incentive it worked out just fine. I put my contributions into mutual funds options.

However, I did fine though on company stock, and once I knew the cycle, bought and sold (timed) based on historical swings. USS Steel used to swing like a pendulum between say $16 and $34 dollars a share annually.

Then i got smart and just bought mutual funds.

Until I saw everybody using the same internet provider in Atlanta. So I bought some of their shares. My broker thought I was a genius.

Have I lost money on some stocks? YES. G^%#^%*%* federal mogul. Have I made better than the rate of inflation +t bill rate over my investing history? Yes. It remains to be seen how much I really made, because I do most trades inside my ira's, so the tax bill is yet to be determined.

But I do not recall saying buy your employers stock. You already have all your job risk there. Why add investment risk to that same bucket? Diversifying Risk is what it is all about. Buy stock in companies that do not correlate to your own industry. Lots of companies. And say, probably not even on the same continent.

Dr. Ken Mayland, one of my favorite economists, likes to say that "if you own enough oil company stock, what happens at the Gas pump doesn't bother you at all."

If you track your fuel bills, you'll see that that really doesn't have to be a huge amount of oil company stock.

(multiple oil companies in multiple mutual funds of course)

milo

Well Milo, I suppose I got bad advice. The father of my Scoutmaster years ago, told me never to put money into the stockmarket, I couldn't afford to lose. Back then he also said don't even bother unless you have 5 grand that you don't need.

He was a stockbroker. At the time I was an impressionable paperboy.

I did have some money in a Union account. Every report that I got showed management fees that ate away any profit, large or small.

My friend, I think you missed the point. Any employee of a profit making company must produce more than he costs. I use a non-scientific guess for my own employees. I need them to produce for the my company, about 150% of their pay to my endevour. Much less than that and I can't justify their existance in my company. It's not that I 'pocket' the difference, it is that I must pay overhead for secretaries, accountants, taxes, taxes, taxes, R&D, infrastucture, etc. I clear ( a good year, which I haven't had for a while), 3%. I looked up 'prevailing wage', and found out that I am paying my people pretty well. They make me money, when things go well, and when they don't, I bite the big one, they don't.

Mr. Ford paid his employees many multiples of the farm wages they had been receiving, but expected them to produce him a profit. Then they organized. They got rid of unsafe conditions, unpaid overtime, and many other things, but by that time, the unions were 'organized'. Then the 'shop steward' would tell a hand to 'slow down, you're making everybody look bad', and other things that didn't help Mr. Ford. Then they pilfered the pay of the men on the floor to buy luxury items for themselves on the grounds that it made their bargaining position better! In the old days, just parking a GM car in Fords lot would cause 'spontanious combustion'. Now they pilfer the check of the worker to support socialist ideas and candidates who's policies have been historically proven destructive.

End of rant (for a while...)

Definitely not off topic.

Agreed.

Dittoes.

milo

When I went to the link I had the impression there that to read what you were referring to, I needed my credit card, debit card handy. Possibly you could give a short summation?

I have to say, with the information so far the mine disaster that happened last Monday in West Virginia, if that mine was a union the disaster may never have happened. but with ever thing seemingly bought and run by big business included the media, who knows what is true.

Really! İ doubt it but who knows. This whole topic is a little strange as what does the İBEW have to do with engineering? İt is a skilled trades union and nothing more.

I myself are not familiar with unions such as IBEW, UAW, Steamfitters...... But the topics seems to trail off with peoples experience with unions which does cross between the different union types..

What I have found/experienced is, as far as quality and workmansship good and bad both can come from both union and nonunion shops. ie its the individual workers work ethic.

I think phoenix911 had the best answer. Simple, logical and so true. ...

"I suppose it would depend on which "Local" you are referring to. With that being said that unions are inconsistent"

Most comments stem around the NEED for unions. It is true, back in the old days we needed them due to lack of employer regulations to protect workers from greedy unfair employers. Now days, probably less, but there are exceptions to every rule.

I wonder if all them people constantly killed in mining accidents, have a Union looking out for them? You see, there are still needs for good unions in some instances.

I too, have seen both sides of the coin. Just like anything, there is good and there is bad. Balance works best.

Hi All,

Noticed that Milo posted here (after following his latest post on austenitic metal), and thought add to the discussion, since no one has mentioned the following yet:

Germany - an important U.S. competitor - has a large trade-union that covers white-collar engineers in that country: "IG Metall" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Metall.

In the U.S., white-collar engineers (Mechanical, others) who work for the U.S. Government (Army Civilians among them who work for various branches of DOD) are able to join the National Federation of Federal Employees: http://www.nffe.org.

The U.S. government is one of the largest employers of Mechanical Engineers in the United States, and (sadly, IMO) may even provide a larger 2010 median salary than private sector employers at this point, according to recent statistics.

I'm 43 and have never belonged to an engineer's union myself (I have assumed joining one would hurt my career), but allowing them to exist is fundamental to U.S. democracy, and separates us (from a freedom of association perspective) from the various "People's Republics" around the planet.

BTW, my ~90 y/o and retired grandmother belonged to a book-binders union in NYC in the 1940's-50's. I need to learn more about her days there, before it's too late. :)

- Larry