Personal Examples of Unions: PROS & CONS

I grew up in a heavily unionized area of the country. My opinion is that much of the leadership is corrupt, but the average member is honest and hard working.

My grandfather was a coal miner in his youth; became an engineer later. He was grateful for the job the unions did for coal miners in the early days, but never said much good about them later.

My father belonged to the Teamsters when he was young. Became a white collar worker later. He hated all unions.

I'd never join an engineers union.

Although I've been an employee of mostly non ONION shops in the past (steelworks, jet aircraft engines, and mining), I have to say that perhaps an ONION may have resulted in a different outcome of circumstances for some of us long term employees, myself as one small example to be made of, when our company was bought stolen by a Brazilian consortium, in 2006.

The pensions of most were to be reconstructed, as well as redefined, from going from Defined Benefits - to Defined Contributions - WHAT THE F# does this mean, as the co-relating correspondence, regarding these new proposals to the pension, - to the employees, from the new owners, occupiers, stealer's, crooks were very vague to say the least!

Welcome to the BRAVE NEW WORLD of the Right Honourable Mr. Tony Clement, the Canadian Federal Minister of Industry, whose only motions are his right (or LEFT) hand automatically, as well as approvingly, rubber stamping all foreign interests applying to steal our Canadian national natural, strategic and heritage founded interests. (P.S. - Most of these stolen industries were ONIONIZED)

Go ahead - look up his history of his practice of methodically, and over decades, of Mr. Tony Clement tearing this country apart.

So yes, in conclusion, I have to agree that ONIONS have, in the past HELPED the safety standards and resulted in a fair wage to lifestyle ratio, when compared to the feudal 18 hour, 6 day sweatshops of not that long ago; However, I am dishearteningly disappointed, over such a time span of recent decades, as to what can an ONION accomplish anymore, when the Federal Minister of Industry has an orchestrated agenda to follow. (not his own). - and in other countries and jurisdictions, as well.

Please - I only use the word 'ONIONS' as an uncomfortable (for me, anyway) affectionate term for 'Unions' - no 'diss'n intented - Loupy.

Where I come from (Australia) all electricians belong to a powerful union, hence they get good rates, overtime, travelling money, short working weeks etc. etc. Their trade is protected by law and each must have a licence.

Engineers belong to the "Institution of Engineers" which publishes a nice magazine. Anyone can call themselves an Engineer.

Any decent electrician can make more money and have less stress that a typical Electrical Engineer.

So, I think unions are a great idea, I just wish I was in one. Ffej

I should move to Down Underland or Newfoundland! - (There's not too much in Ontario - thanks to the right (or LEFT) rubber stamping hand of our Canadian Federal Minister of Industry - The Right Honourable Mr. Tony Clement! sic) - Loupy.

You have to give the feds the credit for having the brains to stop the deal for the Potash company.

Yeah, I was really 'surprised' by that decision. Apparently the offer for Potash Corp. wasn't high enough for the Right Honourable Mr. Tony Clement and his cronies to pocket a nice little packet of payola favours, for themselves, as they have in recent times.

They are probably sitting back and waiting for a juicier offer to come along. After all, they are working on a pro rata percentage basis on what they can pocket for themselves, when they do approve foreign interest takeover bids for our Canadian industrial assets.

It's almost like we've been reverted backwards, from being a first world nation, to being an almost developing one, as in the old colonial days, while we advertise ourselves "for sale", just like a cheap hooker, with the Ministry of Industry performing the "pimps" duties.

BTW - BHP Billiton have said publicly that they are not proposing another counter offer for Potash, but are planning on going ahead sometime in the near term to start developing the properties that they presently have mining rights to in the surrounding areas around Potash Corp. in Saskatchewan. - Loupy.

its always a good idea to have unions so you can take the pipe apart.

Yes Chris, I agree that it definitely is. But whose job is it to actually do the union's disconnect?

Is it the plumber's, pipe fitter's, stationary engineer's, millwright's, boiler maker's, gas fitter's, electrician's, general labourer's, etc.'s job?

Some times there are just too many classifications for a task to get accomplished.

As "Larry the cable guy" redneckingly as well as eloquently states - "git 'er done".

Now, as far as reconnecting that same union goes, whose job is it anyway? Is it the plumber's, stationary engineer's, millwright.................?

Loupy

To all you engineers out there that hate unions:

How do you feel about working 60 hours a week but being paid for only 40?

How do you like doing sub professional work like drafting, expediting, technician work, secretarial and clerical work?

How do you like training H1B's to do your job?

How do you like being told that an engineer assigned to help with your project is being laid off but you might be able to get a summer intern?

How do you like being told that when you travel it will be on your own time?

Think about this......... Ed Weldon

Hello Ed, I'm an engineer and do all these things. I don't get paid for it but get a "professional salary" that is only slightly higher than my Trade colleagues. I wish I was in a union (that had some balls). Ffej

Ed,

It isn't that we hate unions. It's the fact we don't get an honest day's work out of them.

In this economy, even though I am salary I often work 50+ hours a week and only get paid for 40. But I have a job.

I've had to do my own letters ever since computers became common place.

The current design engineer is expected to do everything. Heck, even a current designer (with a 2 year degree & not a 4 year degree) At least this is true is smaller engineering groups (less than 10 people)

There is no such thing as a young person doing "detailing" If that is their mentality they don't last long. They're expected to jump from no experience to be a good designer within months, not years.

How do you like not having the self-respect to QUIT because you felt dissed by your employer? How did you feel passing on your lack of self-respect to your young?

Did you believe that your paycheck represented a contract-of-pleasure between you and that entity which signed your paycheck, or did you feel you had the right to dictate by the rule of the gang that yours was the more profoundly virtuous plan and therefore you had the right to extort from that entity which without your gang would have chosen not even to issue your paycheck?

In short, what value do you place on your own expertise? Do you need mob-mentality to enforce your self-confidence, or have you the personal courage to pass it on by refusing to participate in that which you feel is demeaning or corrupt?

"If I refuse to do it because I feel it's wrong, they'll just find other poor saps who'll do it because they fell they have no other choice." Such is now, has historically been, and might always be, a sad post-fiefdom reality. But that does not excuse your failure to reject the options you despise and move on, relying on your belief in your own capabilities and thereby making a better world by becoming the model employer yourself!

Not only the gene pool but intellect - enlightened self-interest - will prevail, and companies with an equally enlightened viewpoint of their employees' worth will prevail by selecting you, and unions will finally be recognized to be that which they have always been, an unnecessary and dangerous distraction from the evolution of a truly competitive market.

Sorry, Ed. I should have allowed myself to be OT for this.

When I started my professional carrier as a design engineer 27 years ago in India union staffs are so strong and usually they delay the work unnecessarily. Being young engineer I did not wait for draftsman to draft drawing or typists to type technical specifications. I did all works myself. Sometime it provoked the staffs but finally work has been completed. We engineers were under officers union which existed only for name sake. Staff unions are powerful and strong pressure group to negotiate with management .

Back in my working days in a non-union shop, we periodically had meetings for all of the low-to-mid level management folks on "Unionization". The one thing that stuck from that training was

"A company will have whatever level of unionization its management dictates."

The many examples above illustrate this quite adequately.

I am a Union member and the only use my union has is to protect bad engineers. There have been serious design problems that if occured in a private buisness the engineer would surely be terminated. The lazy employees that know they are protected from termination do nothing all day and then when it is time to produce, oh htey need overtime, they need consultants, they need to do more exporation into existing conditions, all the while durring a normal work day they chit chat and surf youtube. (I say this on the clock).

Another aspect is if i need another department to do work, it always a big deal and they have no time and excuse after excuse. But god forbid you have a 3rd party do the work when i has to be done.

UNION SCUM!

From a UNION member!! Out of the mouths of babes!!!!

Metaphorically, that is. The babes part. I don't know your gender or appearance, so please don't misinterpret that. Thanks.

GA kramarat --- Very important comments you made. Yes, there are solutions other than unions.

I threw out my first comments about engineering overtime, etc. not because I have a great love of unions (I have mixed feelings about them). It's pretty obvious that unions are subject to the same flaws in human nature as businesses. But I saw the trend of this thread going toward a litany of complaints that engineers have with what is basically ridiculous work rules. I, too, went through some of that as a young engineer.

But I grew up in an era when there was more respect for a graduate engineer in the workplace than there is today. Also employment conditions were generally more characteristic of a time of prosperity and a general shortage of skilled labor. Those circumstances are changing in the USA and technical workers are holding the short end of that stick. Unfortunately state labor laws have been very lax with regard to so called "professional" employees.

Perhaps we could contrive a new model for professional organizations. One that is more concerned with the welfare of their members and less with publishing profitable books and standards. I don't have a lot of hope for that. Nor do I have much hope for changing labor laws and immigration rules to favor overworked or unemployed engineers. And I fear that anything remotely resembling a new engineering union where none was already in place would be stillborn.

The best I could see happening is a court challenge in some state that attacks the current state labor law definitions and interpretations of the "exempt professional" employee. There was a time when an engineer did truly professional work that only one with that level of technical training and experience could do. Their work was largely mathematical analysis and interpretation of technical and scientific material. Putting the results on paper was a job their time was too valuable to be wasted on.

How that has changed! Now it's almost as if having an engineering degree is only a ticket to the bottom rung of a management ladder where 24/7 is what is expected and limited only by one's physical conditioning. At what point do we say "no" to companies that direct engineers to do everything but real engineering during their regular work day and spend what should be evening rest hours working on 3d drafting in front of a computer screen? This is professional work?? I don't think so.

Ed Weldon

Great story! - Great Answer!

Good points, and I especially agree with the comment about complaisance. So, don't take this as a negation of what you've said, but as a consideration of another side of the problem. Who hired the shotgunner? The poor slobs who didn't have the training, and might have lost their jobs? Possible. Or the management, who wanted to protect their control and their positions? Equally possible? Either could have. Either had a motive. And which one did it would help to determine the real problem, and the real cure.

In the mines where I grew up, Northern California, the mine owners hired Pinks (Pinkerton got its start hiring out as strike-breakers, and where the strike wouldn't break, because the miners weren't complaisant, leg- and arm-breakers, and no doubt in some cases out and out killers. The Pinkertons were called Pinks) to break up any disagreement between miners and management. Unions became the only way to survive. But Hangtown (Placerville, California) got it's name because the law was more likely to hang someone without connections there than to even hear the case "for or agin' 'em". No doubt a rich owner did better in the courts than the miners he brought the Pinks in to kill.

Ah, well. Old history. But it does bring to mind the similarities between nearly all of the organizations that have risen in history around ethnic protection (The Connemara, The Black Hand, The Irgun, The KKK), or economic protection (The Pinks, then, and in another way, now), or any other favored position you can conceive of. And in too many of their cases, once power accreted to the organization, unscrupulous people moved in to abuse that power. Undoubtedly, some of the stories we've read, and recounted, here, are as a result of that same machination working in the Unions. And who can forget the blatant corruption of the AFL/CIO of the 70's and 80's, leading to the eternal question ...

Just where IS Jimmy Hoffa, anyway? And how did he die? At who's hand?

Or, for a more up to the moment question, where did the SEIU get all of it's political might? Which it undoubtedly has, at least since 2008. Any of you ever hear of it BEFORE 2008? I've been a federal government employee since early 1999, and I sure never heard of it before that.

One detail that has not been mentioned in this thread, is the fact that if it were not for union influence, by contrast, we all would not be making as much money as we do,union or not. With the dwindling of union influence, we stand to make less. Is this as it should be? I do not know. I have a propensity for more money rather than less. We all have motives.

Forgive my ignorance but what is the SEIU?

DCaD answered your question in his #30. I can't do better, and I wouldn't do less. Thanks, DCaD!

Unions aren't necessarily all bad.

Politicians aren't necessarily all bad.

The ugliness starts when bad politicians decide to climb into bed with bad union leaders.

Everyone loses something but them.

Well said. But who do we set to "watch the watchers"? Or am I being naive in believing that is one thing the politicians were supposed to do?

But then there is the definition of poly-ticks to remember also. Oh, don't get me started there!

I have almost no education in fields like political science, but I surely doubt the politicians are charged (or should be charged or left alone) to watch the watchers.

More likely (imho), at least in a democracy, that is our responsibility (as citizens), with help from wherever we can get it (sometimes from the news media, sometimes from whistle blowers, etc.).

If someone told you it was the politician's responsibility, well, that's a real "bill of goods".

Job. Not responsibility. At least not sole responsibility. But they are charged with making the laws that SHOULD help control the unscrupulous. The problem is when they demonstrate no scruples of their own.

Which we've all seen too often, regardless of our party affiliation.

Unfortunately, both unions and politicians have evolved to the point, where money and power rule the day. Corruption is inevitable.

The people that the politicians are supposed to represent have become secondary, and the members that the union bosses are supposed to represent have become secondary.

I don't know who's going to clean up the mess, but if it doesn't happen, we are all on the road to ruin.

In the past unions did a lot of good and not much bad.

In current times unions do a lot more bad and a lot less good.

Laws that give unions too much power make it very easy (and profitable) for lazy and corrupt forces to take over. It is a shame that all efforts in this country are "two party" type efforts. It is almost impossible to improve laws if all efforts are geared toward "unions are good" or "unions are bad". Overall, as they exist today, unions are both.

Part of the reason some workers have the degree of fairness and safety that they have is due to unions. That is good.

Part of the reason so many jobs are being lost is due to the greed of some unions. That is bad. Many people are unemployed, under employed or now working long term "part time" jobs with no insurance and no benefits is due to the pressure on the economy caused by unions workers with fully burdened wages (pay, sick leave, vacation, insurance, retirement pay, retirement insurance) of $80+/hr. That inequity for workers is bad.

Give big business and managers with huge, unjustified bonuses a chance and many of them will cut workers pay, benefits, security and workplace safety. That is bad.

I have known many people who worked union jobs while paying their way through college. Many of them put their diploma on the wall at home and never tell their employer about it. They make the decision that they can not afford the pay cut to move from their routine factory floor job to the office. These were not skilled workers, just overpaid union workers.

The answers are in the middle. The people in Washington are on, and paid well by lobbyists to stay on one side or the other. That is sad.

As a side note, if laws were changed so that companies actually (I mean in reality) were run to serve the stock holders then a lot of this would start to work itself out. Both managers and workers could buy stock. If they wanted more of the companies profits then they could buy more stock. Some managers (VPs, Presidents, CEOs, CFOs, etc.) are very skilled and deserve good compensation. Most engineers and other office workers deserve fair and good compensation. Many other workers are hard working and skilled and also deserve good compensation. But in many cases both sides are fighting for a piece of the pie bigger than what they have earned. If the companies were actually run to serve the stock holders (don't they own the company?) then there would not be this big pot of gold laying around for anyone who can grab it. Somehow we have lost our check and balance system of power.

Last year one of the top dogs of a large bank was to get full pay plus a 50 million dollar bonus for running the company into the toilet and needing a government bailout. Many other firms got bailouts and huge bonuses. A few years ago Disney hired a new top dog, decided he wasn't working out and "paid him off" 120 million dollars not to come back. This is all pretty typical of the way business is run. Neither unions or upper management have a limit on what they can try to grab. Meanwhile the average worker is squeezed, consumers pay too much and the people that actually own the company are forgotten.

Money is a drug that is legal. If you get what you earn then things tend to work out pretty well. If it is too easy to get excessive amounts of it then people will become addicted and good people will start to act badly.

So, kwosnia1 how is your paper on this subject going so far?

We haven't heard back from yourself, since your posting of this topic, and that is approximately 40 comments ago, with more surely to come entering into the fray.

Any new insights, viewpoints for further discussions, recommendations to policy makers, (IEEE as mentioned in your posting) so far?

Have you corresponded or forwarded with the commissioning body (IEEE), any of these revelations placed forth by the contributors, so far, and have you received any feedback from them, regarding same?

Please touch base with us from time to time, and let us CR4 interested parties have at least some kind of acknowledgement, (good or bad, or otherwise), if we are contributing anything much worthwhile towards your report to IEEE. When is it due to be on their desk, this year or next?

Also, what are your own personal viewpoints regarding this topic, or are you betrothed to staying on keel, and being an non influenced, unbiased objective observer and reporter? - Loupy.

Also kwosnia1; as an after thought, as I ran out out of editing time for my last comment, I meant to ask you;

Are you canvassing the same topic on other similar internet forums, and if so, how do the other forum's responses compare in substance to the ones engaged upon here at CR4? - Loupy again.

Sorry guys, just been getting very busy at the moment with other work. I have been recording & observing the discussions and some trends? Any examples of how the unions protected the rights from the works due to health conditions? Was the union needed? Could have been done without organized labour? and any opnions on evolution of organized workers with respect to safety? productivity? bottem line? efficiency. And somthing on organized vs non-organized workers

Based on your reply, It does not appear that you have been reviewing these examples.

kwoznia1

you might consider setting up a survey and send it out. Not sure there is a way to do that within the CR4 community.

You're now asking for specific information instead of the general info you first requested.

Thanks for the post. This has been an interesting discussion.

Yeah, so, Kwosnia1, how's it going out there? Is it all good for you? That's good - all is just fine for all of us back here at CR4 - thanks for asking.

We haven't heard back from you in a while - Just a note to refresh your memory of posting a thread, asking us CR4 participants to be included with our collective revelations of union experiences in order to contribute to your request of preparing a report to IEEE regarding same.

So how's it going? Many good people here on CR4 have basically spilled their guts to you on this post, and I am sure with some discomfort in doing so.

I herefore ask you, kwosnia1, to reply to this forum thread that you have initiated on 11/29/2010, to relay to us an update of your report.- Thank you - Loupy.

Loupy:

I agree with you. But don't beg, for Pete's sake!! (Just who IS Pete, anyway?)

It's just not seemly for one of your stature!

for Pete's sake!!

Yeah, but what's that got to do with the price of pork bellies?

So - How DO we hold one accountable, when they openly state that they are soliciciting input from discussion groups such as this, and subsequentiously including the sometimes painful, and at other times, sometimes refreshing, renewing, but always insightfull revelations, as have been put forth so far, as well as the entries of which, are now in the public domain, into a 'report' to be duly delivered to the "IEEE' at an obscufurcious time in the "near term"?

Huh? Got the <openly state that they are soliciciting input from discussion groups such as this, and subsequentiously including the sometimes painful, and at other times, sometimes refreshing, renewing, but always insightfull revelations, as have been put forth so far, as well as the entries of which, are now in the public domain, into a 'report' to be duly delivered to the "IEEE' at an obscufurcious time in the "near term"?>"subsequentiously", and "obscufurcious". I assume I know what "soliciciting" is. Your fingers stutter. And I THINK I know what those other two meant, but you know what they say about assuming. And I don't know about you, but I don't want to make one out of me, anyway.

So, I guess we can't hold them accountable, and we can go away shaking our heads, if we said something we think we shouldn't have (is this the place for a "shame on you?" I didn't say anything shameful, and I'm not afraid of retribution, so I guess I'm still on an even keel here, anyway.), and make it a personal note not to ever get suckered like that again.

Of course, that brings up that pesky "but that's why we LIKE CR4, cause of the free discourse of public opinion, and the opportunity to help out" argument again.

Beats me how we solve this problem.

Yo, OP, you still out there? C'mon back, y'hear. Don't MAKE US COME HUNTIN' YOU!!

Or, alternatively, don't bother to come back. But if not, don't EVER!

I guess either one will work. Right?

Or we can just refuse to answer next time.

references, but am having trouble digesting the meanings of

'nuff said - thank you - Louis.

P.S. I made up those words as they would seem to someone like yourself to challenge the meanings of them - Good work! - Louis

Silkwood is one of many terrible examples of corporate greed gone amuck - never mind the movie (although it brought the situation to light to millions of eyes). I try to hold on to the hope that these kind of murderous _{^{pun intended}} indiscretions (the United Fruit Company during the 1940's and 50's comes immediately to mind), are behind us in the "enlightened age of this new millennium", but not so much anymore (see financial misdemeanors).

The dregs of the past still hang from the backsides of our 'ASSHOLES"- the cling ons, if you will. and the only way to get them off from our asses is to take really strong advice, and medicine and a really strong "Pressure Washer", and blast the scummy shit and crud off from our asses into the sewers. (with most of the current, and past if they are still alive and still indictable legislators and media included). - just a rant - more to come later - Loupy.

Unredundant what a tale to tell - please share more with us as that is a posting worth all on it's own about that you have put forward. Please tell us more!

I see a lot of people comment on corruption at Union upper levels, politicians, etc., but haven't seen anyone address the corruption by employers. Private companies are just as capable and likely to be corrupt as well, (Enron,etc) affecting the employees themselves. Just a thought...

If the Union is taking care of it's members, using the dues to forward workers interests honorably, running schools to train the workers in their craft at different levels, then I would say it's doing it's job and the members are getting their money's worth. Mine is pretty effective at this, and at weeding out those who aren't safe, aren't cut out for this line of work, or aren't performing because of laziness or attitude.

There are plenty of stories of non union companies hiring and coddling/protecting their buddies or relatives who are lazy or unqualified for the job. IMO, that nullifies the argument against Unions on this subject basis.

Let's put it like this: The union sword can cut both ways. I have belonged to the Pipefitters' Union (the official name is much longer) in amicable relations with the employer; I have also been there when such relations broke up. Right now, relations are good between the IBEW and the NECA, and they advertise jointly.

If you research the history of labor relations in the US, you will find various swings of the pendulum. Before unionization in the 1800s, employers had the upper hand over labor (too much so, in my opinion). In 1935, the Wagner Act established the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board), which in my opinion swung the pendulum too much the other way. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 was more "pro-management."

Whatever else you do, you need to be careful of propaganda emanating from exclusively pro-labor or pro-management circles. Objective views may be hard to find.

When I was a machinist I was a member (and sometimes an official) in my IAM&AW local, in a Civil Service shop. My primary observations were:

Pros:

Job security

Cons:

You're put in a box with everybody else and your turn to advance is based almost strictly on seniority (discounting any internal union politics).

The latter is why I left the union. I'm an individual, not a number, and want to succeed or fail on my own. Security under someone else's rules is for the weak, IMO.

Hooker

My experience with Unions has been that Union workers are generally safer.

Personal experience #1: I was working for a beef slaughter house in a union environment just out of high school. The ammonia based refrigeration system developed a major leak. Company people tested the air quality and said it was safe to work; meanwhile our eyes were watering and we were coughing and hacking due to throat and lung irritation. The union stepped in said we'd go back to work once it was fixed and the space ventilated. In this case, the union worked well to protect the me and the other employees.