Just fixing the closing quote command.
Tom
Tom
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What's wrong with Unions
- Thread starter Jimmy Lavoie
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Wow...Dave S' post looks like some Jackson Pollack painting.
TJR
TJR
Thanks Tom...
Had to close ALL quotes until it resembled a post! I'm sure lots will be lost in the dis-armed translation but meh!!!
TJR: I was thinking more along the line of Andy Warhol!!!:lol:
Had to close ALL quotes until it resembled a post! I'm sure lots will be lost in the dis-armed translation but meh!!!
TJR: I was thinking more along the line of Andy Warhol!!!:lol:
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave,
There is a different in being in IT, like TJR is, or being a factory worker. It is easy to say, "Well, then just quit". It isn't that easy. When you have benifits like a Pension plan and medical benifits, just quitting is not the answer.
I agree, there are some bad apples out there. I stress teamwork in the departments I manage. I work with my hourly workers. I want them to be safe all the time and I know they know that they can talk to me about anything.
I have become friends with many of them.
I have worked for many companies where the rules change for each situation. Guy number 1 is eating lunch under the bosses desk. He is late all the time. He has a job. Guy number 2 eats lunch alone. He is a good worker, but wierd. He is late to work once and he gets fired. It just so happens that the rules were updated that day and then were changed back to the old ways right after "that wierd guy" was fired.
Sound crazy? Unbelieveable? Impossible?
I have seen it with my own eyes. You know what, the only recourse the employee has is 6 months of unemployment benefits and possibly a 13 week extension.
Tom
There is a different in being in IT, like TJR is, or being a factory worker. It is easy to say, "Well, then just quit". It isn't that easy. When you have benifits like a Pension plan and medical benifits, just quitting is not the answer.
I agree, there are some bad apples out there. I stress teamwork in the departments I manage. I work with my hourly workers. I want them to be safe all the time and I know they know that they can talk to me about anything.
I have become friends with many of them.
I have worked for many companies where the rules change for each situation. Guy number 1 is eating lunch under the bosses desk. He is late all the time. He has a job. Guy number 2 eats lunch alone. He is a good worker, but wierd. He is late to work once and he gets fired. It just so happens that the rules were updated that day and then were changed back to the old ways right after "that wierd guy" was fired.
Sound crazy? Unbelieveable? Impossible?
I have seen it with my own eyes. You know what, the only recourse the employee has is 6 months of unemployment benefits and possibly a 13 week extension.
Tom
Oh Damn...I'm gonna try those quotation mark things again!!!
That's not the only recourse employees have in that particular circumstance Tom. They can also file suit against the company and spend years and evey penny they have trying to right the wrong. But alas, in the end, the Corp has deeper pockets with never ending $ & legal and the wrongly terminated employee is worn down to the point that they no longer care. Even if they do have a care left, their last dollar is traded for a loaf of bread rather than to continue the nightmare!!! All in the name of survival!!!!!!!!
You know what, the only recourse the employee has is 6 months of unemployment benefits and possibly a 13 week extension.
That's not the only recourse employees have in that particular circumstance Tom. They can also file suit against the company and spend years and evey penny they have trying to right the wrong. But alas, in the end, the Corp has deeper pockets with never ending $ & legal and the wrongly terminated employee is worn down to the point that they no longer care. Even if they do have a care left, their last dollar is traded for a loaf of bread rather than to continue the nightmare!!! All in the name of survival!!!!!!!!
Les:
NEVER???...Are you sure? Whoda thunk that a bunch of Geeky, white collared Engineers would have need for a union????
Gotta love it..."No Nerds, No birds"!!!!!!!
And they were RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
The company I work for is non-union and it is a field that will never be union. I have all of these benefits and more.
NEVER???...Are you sure? Whoda thunk that a bunch of Geeky, white collared Engineers would have need for a union????
Gotta love it..."No Nerds, No birds"!!!!!!!
And they were RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
What you just described in your last post is the reason I think pensions should be done away with. More than once in this thread I have heard the loss of a pension, or the strings attached by a pension as reasons for not being able to be mobile.
A pension as described sounds like modern day indentured servitude.
Having worked my fair share of line jobs in factories and for companies with pensions, I can say that I prefer the mobility that a 401k provides (even in this economy).
TJR
What you just described in your last post is the reason I think pensions should be done away with. More than once in this thread I have heard the loss of a pension, or the strings attached by a pension as reasons for not being able to be mobile.
A pension as described sounds like modern day indentured servitude.
Having worked my fair share of line jobs in factories and for companies with pensions, I can say that I prefer the mobility that a 401k provides (even in this economy).
TJR
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
And how TJR is your 401 K doing?
Know what TJR? I agree with you on this point too!!!
Know why" 'cause I had a 20+ year pension @ $60+ per year of service locked in with Boeing UNTIL they decided to "divest" the site I was working at the time!!! Within a matter of minutes, my projected 62+ yr old retirement went to fantasy land!!!
Only problem is that I was ONLY 10 years away from retirement until BA decided to pull that little fact out of their hat.
Now, the way I have it figured, I will NEVER be able to retire!!!!!!
Know why" 'cause I had a 20+ year pension @ $60+ per year of service locked in with Boeing UNTIL they decided to "divest" the site I was working at the time!!! Within a matter of minutes, my projected 62+ yr old retirement went to fantasy land!!!
Only problem is that I was ONLY 10 years away from retirement until BA decided to pull that little fact out of their hat.
Now, the way I have it figured, I will NEVER be able to retire!!!!!!
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill,
"My" 401k is down only 20% from where it was 16 months ago. But that's because I had it mostly in aggressive growth funds. I'm 22 years from retirement. It will rebound, and then some, and when I get within 10 years of retiring I'll make sure it is more risk-averse.
Back when, I stuck it out in IBM for another year just so that I could get additional vesting. I have that pension to look forward to. I worked for them during the end of their era of giving out pensions. Their pension did what they hoped it would...it acted as a pair of "golden handcuffs" meant to keep me at the company longer.
Note that above I started by saying "My" 401k, as in "I own it", and "I manage it".
That's the nice part about it. As Dave S said, expecting that a company will do the right thing with your pension doesn't seem to be the case. And, frankly, I'm not so sure it should. Should someone working for GM the past 20 years get a nice pension as the company goes under and a ton creditors and suppliers get shafted? Seems to me the answer is NO, because in the past 20 years EVERYONE at GM should have seen the writing on the wall.
Working for the same company for 5 years (the typical time to vest in a pension plan) is a stretch these days. The days of working for the same company for 20 or 30 years, retiring and expecting them to take care of you the rest of your life are gone...heck, those days were never really with us that long... a few generations at best.
TJR
"My" 401k is down only 20% from where it was 16 months ago. But that's because I had it mostly in aggressive growth funds. I'm 22 years from retirement. It will rebound, and then some, and when I get within 10 years of retiring I'll make sure it is more risk-averse.
Back when, I stuck it out in IBM for another year just so that I could get additional vesting. I have that pension to look forward to. I worked for them during the end of their era of giving out pensions. Their pension did what they hoped it would...it acted as a pair of "golden handcuffs" meant to keep me at the company longer.
Note that above I started by saying "My" 401k, as in "I own it", and "I manage it".
That's the nice part about it. As Dave S said, expecting that a company will do the right thing with your pension doesn't seem to be the case. And, frankly, I'm not so sure it should. Should someone working for GM the past 20 years get a nice pension as the company goes under and a ton creditors and suppliers get shafted? Seems to me the answer is NO, because in the past 20 years EVERYONE at GM should have seen the writing on the wall.
Working for the same company for 5 years (the typical time to vest in a pension plan) is a stretch these days. The days of working for the same company for 20 or 30 years, retiring and expecting them to take care of you the rest of your life are gone...heck, those days were never really with us that long... a few generations at best.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
They can also file suit against the company and spend years and evey penny they have trying to right the wrong.
Depends on the state. Ohio is an "at will" state. In other words, an employer can fire you and does not need a reason. If the employer would say something as liable, then they could be sued.
My wife, then girlfriend, was fired from Alstate insurance for "hanging up on customers". They had no proof. Nothing, nada, zilch. They lost the unemployment case, but we could do nothing besides that. We looked into a lawyer since we got some internal documents that said in not so many words to eliminate, by any means, all employees with over 4 years seniority.
She got the ax and even with that information, there was nothing we could do.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
Yep, same in the commonwealth of PA. Employment at Will. Was the same in NY.
That's the way it should be. I don't want to work anywhere where I am not wanted, and vice versa.
Nor do I want to work next to someone that the company doesn't want around.
Still, even with employment at will, "wrongful termination" lawsuits can still be filed, and one, for the egregious cases.
TJR
Yep, same in the commonwealth of PA. Employment at Will. Was the same in NY.
That's the way it should be. I don't want to work anywhere where I am not wanted, and vice versa.
Nor do I want to work next to someone that the company doesn't want around.
Still, even with employment at will, "wrongful termination" lawsuits can still be filed, and one, for the egregious cases.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the way it should be. I don't want to work anywhere where I am not wanted, and vice versa.
That is easy to say. If you were in todays economy, there are not many good paying jobs available. I am one of the those people that is worried if the company likes me, or even wants me.
If I follow the rules and do my job, leave me the hell alone. I am doing my part.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
Rules? Who the hell wants a job with rules. There were rules in the cafeteria in grade schools. There were rules in the gym class and on the playground
At work, I expect to be surrounded by adults, work with adults, and be respected as an adult. I'm no longer a child. I don't need rules to do the right thing, and I don't want to work for a company that has a long list of rules, and a set of watchdog organizations to make sure that all sides are playing by the rules.
But again, that's just me.
I've worked for companies with employee handbooks. They include rules, of sorts, and make certain policies like vacation, sick time, terms of use of Internet, non-compete, non-solicitation and the like very clear. Yeah, those are rules. But I don't think those are what you are talking about; are they?
I suspect the rules you are talking about get a lot more specific than that.
I've worked with folks from the laborers union. Their rules kept getting in the way of us getting things done. Heck, there was more energy spent defining, understanding, debating, and safeguarding the rules than there was in getting actual work done on some days.
More often then not these excessive rules simply seem to generate distrust and friction...IMHO.
I am sure there is no "blanket rule" that states that "everyone must be treated the same and treated fairly". Instead, there are no doubt dozens of rules that if all followed and enforced in the same way, for all workers, ensures fairness and sameness. Again, like I said, I'd rather work for the company that will treat everyone fairly and with respect WITHOUT the need for a litany of rules that enforce such.
TJR
Rules? Who the hell wants a job with rules. There were rules in the cafeteria in grade schools. There were rules in the gym class and on the playground
At work, I expect to be surrounded by adults, work with adults, and be respected as an adult. I'm no longer a child. I don't need rules to do the right thing, and I don't want to work for a company that has a long list of rules, and a set of watchdog organizations to make sure that all sides are playing by the rules.
But again, that's just me.
I've worked for companies with employee handbooks. They include rules, of sorts, and make certain policies like vacation, sick time, terms of use of Internet, non-compete, non-solicitation and the like very clear. Yeah, those are rules. But I don't think those are what you are talking about; are they?
I suspect the rules you are talking about get a lot more specific than that.
I've worked with folks from the laborers union. Their rules kept getting in the way of us getting things done. Heck, there was more energy spent defining, understanding, debating, and safeguarding the rules than there was in getting actual work done on some days.
More often then not these excessive rules simply seem to generate distrust and friction...IMHO.
I am sure there is no "blanket rule" that states that "everyone must be treated the same and treated fairly". Instead, there are no doubt dozens of rules that if all followed and enforced in the same way, for all workers, ensures fairness and sameness. Again, like I said, I'd rather work for the company that will treat everyone fairly and with respect WITHOUT the need for a litany of rules that enforce such.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Rules? Who the hell wants a job with rules. There were rules in the cafeteria in grade schools. There were rules in the gym class and on the playground
At work, I expect to be surrounded by adults, work with adults, and be respected as an adult. I'm no longer a child. I don't need rules to do the right thing, and I don't want to work for a company that has a long list of rules, and a set of watchdog organizations to make sure that all sides are playing by the rules.
So, I guess I need to be a little more detailed. Rules such as you must be at work by 9 AM and work 8 hours is a rule you don't like, then you cant work anywhere.
I want to know that if I am late so many times, I will get fired. I do not abuse the system. Never have, never will. But, I want to know if an emergency comes up, I know that the "boss man" won't fire me because he wants to hire his nephew and my emergency was the excuse to make room.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
Yeah, start-time and minimum hours worked per day are rules for assembly-line workers, and customer-facing workers, and aren't typically needed by many if not a majority of jobs held by people in today's workforce.
All the companies I have worked for the past 25 years have had some informal "flex time" policy. Sure, each had a "core" set of hours they wanted most people working, but if you wanted to show up to work 1/2 hour earlier, or 1/2 hour later, as long as that wasn't an obstacle to getting your work done it was "all good."
At the end of the day, start time and minimum hours worked in a day are all "clock punching", "replaceable cog" ways of thinking. I submit they DO NOT respect the employee, and certainly don't treat the employee with like an adult. What is the point at sitting at your desk, or at an idle machine/station until 5:12pm if you don't really have any work to do, or any work you can do, or are simply performing "make work" tasks?
Many companies have done away with timeclocks for these very reasons.
Yes, without such rules there will be people that abuse the system (or lackthereof a system). When that happens, counsel the guy/gal. If they don't shape up, then curb them. If they are getting all their work done by arriving late and leaving early then that's a management issue (not enough work assigned).
Less rules are better, IMHO.
TJR
Yeah, start-time and minimum hours worked per day are rules for assembly-line workers, and customer-facing workers, and aren't typically needed by many if not a majority of jobs held by people in today's workforce.
All the companies I have worked for the past 25 years have had some informal "flex time" policy. Sure, each had a "core" set of hours they wanted most people working, but if you wanted to show up to work 1/2 hour earlier, or 1/2 hour later, as long as that wasn't an obstacle to getting your work done it was "all good."
At the end of the day, start time and minimum hours worked in a day are all "clock punching", "replaceable cog" ways of thinking. I submit they DO NOT respect the employee, and certainly don't treat the employee with like an adult. What is the point at sitting at your desk, or at an idle machine/station until 5:12pm if you don't really have any work to do, or any work you can do, or are simply performing "make work" tasks?
Many companies have done away with timeclocks for these very reasons.
Yes, without such rules there will be people that abuse the system (or lackthereof a system). When that happens, counsel the guy/gal. If they don't shape up, then curb them. If they are getting all their work done by arriving late and leaving early then that's a management issue (not enough work assigned).
Less rules are better, IMHO.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
I submit they DO NOT respect the employee, and certainly don't treat the employee with like an adult. What is the point at sitting at your desk, or at an idle machine/station until 5:12pm if you don't really have any work to do, or any work you can do, or are simply performing "make work" tasks?
...and now you get it. You can not compare your job as a blanket to all jobs. There are still many manufacturing jobs in the USA. We need manufacturing jobs. There is a difference between what you do and what I do. There is no great sense of satisfaction of watching another one of our products leave the plant knowing the importance of our product and what it has to do with everyone that calls himself/herself an American.
I am sure getting a network up and running is an awesome feeling. Watching a bunch of metal coming in the front door and years later seeing a product going out the back door has its own sense of accomplishment.
In case you haven noticed, the majority of unions represent factory workers for a reason. Usafe working conditions, long hours, heat, etc. is part of the jobs that must be addressed.
It is a night and day difference than what you experience on a day to day situation.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I didn't say we don't need manufacturing jobs. There are still countless jobs where a clock should be punched.
You say:
I don't think so. Not "night and day" different.
True, I don't punch a clock at my job (but I do fill out a weekly timesheet accounting for all the time I spent on projects), but there are countless times throughout the year that I need to be punctual, whether it be to attend a meeting, meet at a customer location for a sales call, etc. In my job I don't have any set maximum number of "free passes for being late", which is essentially what the rule you described is. I could be late once to an important customer meeting and get fired on the spot. That's a fact. For these reasons, among others, I make sure I am not late. And, if something truly unexpected comes up (I get carjacked, or mass transit breaks down for hours while stuck on a train, or somesuch) then my employer and/or the customer understands and makes an allowance. They might not be happy, but if its not my fault, they understand. If its chronic, I get counseled, and if its a problem I get fired.
Again, for me, my punctuality comes from the fact that I am a professional and I take my job responsibility seriously. For this reason I am not late. The expectation is that I am on-time, and there are few rules to ensure that happens.
I'm not saying line workers shouldn't punch a clock, or be expected to show up on time. They should. What I am saying is that the NEED for a clock and the NEED for "big stick" rules to assure people show up on time (again, IMHO) shows a poor dynamic between employer and employee, and tends to foster mistrust and "us vs them", again, IMHO.
I wonder if there are any manufacturing jobs out there that are staffed by workers that do not punch a clock. I wonder how it works for them?
TJR
I didn't say we don't need manufacturing jobs. There are still countless jobs where a clock should be punched.
You say:
It is a night and day difference than what you experience on a day to day situation.
I don't think so. Not "night and day" different.
True, I don't punch a clock at my job (but I do fill out a weekly timesheet accounting for all the time I spent on projects), but there are countless times throughout the year that I need to be punctual, whether it be to attend a meeting, meet at a customer location for a sales call, etc. In my job I don't have any set maximum number of "free passes for being late", which is essentially what the rule you described is. I could be late once to an important customer meeting and get fired on the spot. That's a fact. For these reasons, among others, I make sure I am not late. And, if something truly unexpected comes up (I get carjacked, or mass transit breaks down for hours while stuck on a train, or somesuch) then my employer and/or the customer understands and makes an allowance. They might not be happy, but if its not my fault, they understand. If its chronic, I get counseled, and if its a problem I get fired.
Again, for me, my punctuality comes from the fact that I am a professional and I take my job responsibility seriously. For this reason I am not late. The expectation is that I am on-time, and there are few rules to ensure that happens.
I'm not saying line workers shouldn't punch a clock, or be expected to show up on time. They should. What I am saying is that the NEED for a clock and the NEED for "big stick" rules to assure people show up on time (again, IMHO) shows a poor dynamic between employer and employee, and tends to foster mistrust and "us vs them", again, IMHO.
I wonder if there are any manufacturing jobs out there that are staffed by workers that do not punch a clock. I wonder how it works for them?
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I moved this over from the "Who & Where (not political)" thread out of respect for the original poster; moving it here because this is a union discussion thread:
I truly love talking to you about unions. I appreciate your opinions more and more.
Above you said:
I respectfully ask if you can take off your union cap for a second, Caymen, scrub off that union tatoo, purge your mind about everything you know or have been indoctrinated with related to unions and follow along below.
What you seem to be describing is:
A company hits on hard times and presents two options to its workers at a given plant:
a. Take some type of concessions (pay cuts, no raises, etc) and the plant stays open,
or
b. The plant must close.
To which the plant workers counter with their own (seemingly non-negotiable) option:
c. Give us raises and a guarantee that the plant stays open
Does that sum up what you said?
If so, I don't see that as a "simple" request by the unions. On the surface, that is an unreasonable request.
Yes, I understand and appreciate the insights you will give. I understand that there are abuses at the executive levels of most companies. I understand that the plant workers were probably dedicated and hard working, doing everything asked of them. I understand that the executives might have ran the company into the ground and it was not the fault of the workers. I understand and appreciate all of that.
But regardless, even if executives are to blame for running the company into the ground, how exactly does option C benefit anyone in the long term? How does it "fix" the problems of the company? How, in most cases like this, is it anything other than "worker welfare" (an artificial propping up of wages and jobs that aren't able to be sustained in the long term by the profitability of the company)?
TJR
I moved this over from the "Who & Where (not political)" thread out of respect for the original poster; moving it here because this is a union discussion thread:
I truly love talking to you about unions. I appreciate your opinions more and more.
Above you said:
I do not remember the details, but the union was simply asking for a small raise to keep up with inflation and promises the plant would remain open. Bridgestone/Firestone wanted to close the plant and if the plant were to remain open, the guys would have to take concessions.
I respectfully ask if you can take off your union cap for a second, Caymen, scrub off that union tatoo, purge your mind about everything you know or have been indoctrinated with related to unions and follow along below.
What you seem to be describing is:
A company hits on hard times and presents two options to its workers at a given plant:
a. Take some type of concessions (pay cuts, no raises, etc) and the plant stays open,
or
b. The plant must close.
To which the plant workers counter with their own (seemingly non-negotiable) option:
c. Give us raises and a guarantee that the plant stays open
Does that sum up what you said?
If so, I don't see that as a "simple" request by the unions. On the surface, that is an unreasonable request.
Yes, I understand and appreciate the insights you will give. I understand that there are abuses at the executive levels of most companies. I understand that the plant workers were probably dedicated and hard working, doing everything asked of them. I understand that the executives might have ran the company into the ground and it was not the fault of the workers. I understand and appreciate all of that.
But regardless, even if executives are to blame for running the company into the ground, how exactly does option C benefit anyone in the long term? How does it "fix" the problems of the company? How, in most cases like this, is it anything other than "worker welfare" (an artificial propping up of wages and jobs that aren't able to be sustained in the long term by the profitability of the company)?
TJR
A company hits on hard times and presents two options to its workers at a given plant:
a. Take some type of concessions (pay cuts, no raises, etc) and the plant stays open,
or
b. The plant must close.
To which the plant workers counter with their own (seemingly non-negotiable) option:
c. Give us raises and a guarantee that the plant stays open
Does that sum up what you said?
The issue was..
1, The company was not on hard times
2, the plant was not inefficient
3, the company wanted to pull strong arm tactics.
If the company was in dire straights, then I could see the discussion. The fact is that they were not. That plant was building tires for the most popular SUV ever built. They were working 7 days a week. That plant was pumping out tires as fast as they possibly could.
I do not wear a union hat, nor do I have a union tatoo. If I felt that I must be union, I would never have left to union and joint "the bad guys" team like I did.
With that being said, I strongly feel that a union has a place in todays workforce. There is a mistrust between the company and its employees. There is a need for rules, or policys. There are rules in every walk of life. Speed limits, alcohol laws, tobacco laws, FCC laws, etc.
I do not punch a time clock, but at the same time I still punch one. I have to pass through the security gate. They know when I come and when I go. My time sheet is to report days I worked, days I took off, and any extra hours worked. There is a policy that stipulates that I must work a certain number of hours over before I get paid for it.
These are all rules.
Does it show mistrust? Yes and no. I see it from the side that I am rightfully charging extra for extra time worked.
I like to know the rules of the game before the game starts. Going to work everyday is a game. The rules of the game should never change to suit one player only.
Tom
