Should union membership be optional?

[bogeyball]

Dracula,
I am guilty of not extolling the virtues of the Union as much as I should. But, watching this election cycle has soured me so much with the rhetoric coming from the labor movement. with their unabashed love of Barack Obama.
I lose my direction..... I personally do partake in the process, and voice my hope for change. While so many others do not... But yet, like you said; continue to buddy* and complain.
I pay my union dues, begrudgingly sometimes but have and always will....till I walk in about 3 years.
But, that does not give me cause to berate the others that do not.
Peace,

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I'm thinking that the majority of people that believe that everyone should be forced into union membership are the same ones that believe the government should be allowed to force people to buy health insurance. Hmmmm.... and that folks is your Obama voter base. Just sayin.....

 

[Dracula]

I'm thinking that the majority of people that believe that everyone should be forced into union membership are the same ones that believe the government should be allowed to force people to buy health insurance. Hmmmm.... and that folks is your Obama voter base. Just sayin.....

You do understand that your industry-leading pay and cadillac health plan is BECAUSE you are in the union, right? You remembered that part, right? You didn't think you have all of that because of the job you are doing, did you? Just sayin....

 

[Brownslave688]

You do understand that your industry-leading pay and cadillac health plan is BECAUSE you are in the union, right? You remembered that part, right? You didn't think you have all of that because of the job you are doing, did you? Just sayin....

That is not the point I choose to be in the union and I understand what it does for me. However anyone should have the right to choose if they want to be or don't want to be. What I don't agree with is the fact that under current law the union is still forced to represent people who choose not to pay union dues. Just makes no sense your in or out which on is it.

 

[tourists24]

That is not the point I choose to be in the union and I understand what it does for me. However anyone should have the right to choose if they want to be or don't want to be. What I don't agree with is the fact that under current law the union is still forced to represent people who choose not to pay union dues. Just makes no sense your in or out which on is it.

My whole point has been that no one is forced to join or pay union dues..... If you dont want to, then simply take a job that is non union..... Whether a person joins or not, it IS a union job and all pay and benefits recieved has come about from a negotiated contract. Its simply disgusting to think you deserve to have a union job and not at least at a minimum pay the dues to keep that union going

 

[Anonymous 10]

My whole point has been that no one is forced to join or pay union dues..... If you dont want to, then simply take a job that is non union..... Whether a person joins or not, it IS a union job and all pay and benefits recieved has come about from a negotiated contract. Its simply disgusting to think you deserve to have a union job and not at least at a minimum pay the dues to keep that union going

+1

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

You do understand that your industry-leading pay and cadillac health plan is BECAUSE you are in the union, right? You remembered that part, right? You didn't think you have all of that because of the job you are doing, did you? Just sayin....

Yes...I AM in the union because I CHOOSE to be. Not because some whackos who are just wanting me to have to pay dues just because they are have forced me to. And yes....our pay and benefits ARE a direct result of the job I, WE, are doing. And there are plenty of dues (funds) and support coming from RTW states. Otherwise the locals and international wouldn't have plenty of money to throw away every year. And trust me....it happens.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Should it be optional? Ask me in July.
25 years with ZERO increase in starting pay?
It probably should be optional for part-timers.
Then again i'm in a RTW state and come august I will choose for myself whether to keep this charade going.

 

[rudy5150]

[h=2][/h][h=1]Part-Time Poverty by the Numbers[/h] November 21, 2012: Part-time wages are at an all-time low at UPS. How much do part-timers deserve a raise? Consider these facts:

• The starting rate of $8.50 is less than minimum wage in some states.
• Before 1982, part-timers made the same wages as full-timers. That year, the starting rate was cut to $8. It has gone up just 50¢ in 30 years.
• If part-time wages had just kept up with inflation, then the starting wage for part-timers today would be $19.18.
• Today's starting wage of $8.50 is worth just $3.71 in 1982 dollars.
• In the last contract, UPS part-timers went backwards. New employees now have to wait one year to get medical benefits, 18 months for family coverage.
• UPS will make more than $4 billion this year. Half of UPS employees are part-timers. It's time to end part-time poverty at UPS.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Part-Time Poverty by the Numbers

November 21, 2012: Part-time wages are at an all-time low at UPS. How much do part-timers deserve a raise? Consider these facts:

• The starting rate of $8.50 is less than minimum wage in some states.
• Before 1982, part-timers made the same wages as full-timers. That year, the starting rate was cut to $8. It has gone up just 50¢ in 30 years.
• If part-time wages had just kept up with inflation, then the starting wage for part-timers today would be $19.18.
• Today's starting wage of $8.50 is worth just $3.71 in 1982 dollars.
• In the last contract, UPS part-timers went backwards. New employees now have to wait one year to get medical benefits, 18 months for family coverage.
• UPS will make more than $4 billion this year. Half of UPS employees are part-timers. It's time to end part-time poverty at UPS.

You forgot that wage progression for part-timers decreased in the last contract also.

 

[UPS1907]

[h=2][/h][h=1]Part-Time Poverty by the Numbers[/h] November 21, 2012: Part-time wages are at an all-time low at UPS. How much do part-timers deserve a raise? Consider these facts:

• The starting rate of $8.50 is less than minimum wage in some states.
• Before 1982, part-timers made the same wages as full-timers. That year, the starting rate was cut to $8. It has gone up just 50¢ in 30 years.
• If part-time wages had just kept up with inflation, then the starting wage for part-timers today would be $19.18.
• Today's starting wage of $8.50 is worth just $3.71 in 1982 dollars.
• In the last contract, UPS part-timers went backwards. New employees now have to wait one year to get medical benefits, 18 months for family coverage.
• UPS will make more than $4 billion this year. Half of UPS employees are part-timers. It's time to end part-time poverty at UPS.

The FT's could always negotiate a little less and give back to the PT's. I guess the question is why does the union give up on the PTer's and not fight as hard. If the union truly thought it was an issue, they would strike. The union never goes to the wall for PTer's. They just take the due$ and leave them like lambs for slaughter only to benefit the FTer.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The FT's could always negotiate a little less and give back to the PT's. I guess the question is why does the union give up on the PTer's and not fight as hard. If the union truly thought it was an issue, they would strike. The union never goes to the wall for PTer's. They just take the due$ and leave them like lambs for slaughter only to benefit the FTer.

I'm not really sure why FT's have to take less money so that we part timers can get what we deserve. The problem is FT's keep voting to accept a contract that screws PT's over because FT's are getting what they want. We can BOTH get what we want.

Permanent part time jobs is a growing trend across many industries in this country to cut cost on pay and benefits. The union should take a stance against this approach to boosting profits, but instead they embolden this tactic by letting the union inadequately represent part timers.

I think a lot of the problem is the old man "well back in my day I walked 10 miles in the snow uphill both ways" attitude.

 

[rudy5150]

I totally agree with ups1907. Part timers ALL need to vote next contract!

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I totally agree with ups1907. Part timers ALL need to vote next contract!

LMAO. I'm trying to figure out if that is sarcastic or not but it's funny either way. Short of renting a bus and picking up all the people I see walking to work or hustling from the bus stop everyday when I pull into work, that's not going to happen. Not to mention the money they would lose from a shift off from their second job.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

LMAO. I'm trying to figure out if that is sarcastic or not but it's funny either way. Short of renting a bus and picking up all the people I see walking to work or hustling from the bus stop everyday when I pull into work, that's not going to happen. Not to mention the money they would lose from a shift off from their second job.

Uh, you do know that we vote by mail, don't you?

 

[rudy5150]

haha we vote by mail driveindriveout

 

[Dracula]

I'm not really sure why FT's have to take less money so that we part timers can get what we deserve. The problem is FT's keep voting to accept a contract that screws PT's over because FT's are getting what they want. We can BOTH get what we want.

Permanent part time jobs is a growing trend across many industries in this country to cut cost on pay and benefits. The union should take a stance against this approach to boosting profits, but instead they embolden this tactic by letting the union inadequately represent part timers.

I think a lot of the problem is the old man "well back in my day I walked 10 miles in the snow uphill both ways" attitude.

Look at the numbers, PT vs. FT. It's not even close. If PT's voted in favor of PT's, you wouldn't be complaining here. Many, MANY more PT's than FT's. For the most part, PT's just don't care, or are ignorant of their issues. That doesn't take into account of long-time PT's, but then, they are in the minority. The vocal minority needs to corral the vacant majority...

 

[TrueTeamster]

Union membership is ALREADY opitional. If you do't want to be union here is a shot list of companies you should work for:
Fed Ex, Con-Way, OD, Transport America, JB Hunt, Swift, Pitt Ohio, Dayton Freight that is enough to get you started. Use extreme caution when applying. The pay, benefits and working conditions are not as good as what you enjoy as a Teamster. Oh and that grievance procedure does not exist at these companies. Got a complaint at these companies just complain to yourself.