Non Union Members

[bluehdmc]

Originally Posted by tieguy

collecting from a 401 K match plan they invested in for thirty years? At least with the 401 K they would have a potable plan instead of hoping the union plan did not get drained by last years stock market. Again happiness is what it is. Somehow most of the country is non union with most being very happy. How can that be if the union is so much more beneficial to them

Once you step away from the concept that you are worthless without the union and take an objective look you find that its not all its cracked up to be.

Many people's 401k's have taken a hit by last years stock market, also what has happened to management's 401k match this year?

Is "most of the world" better off without unions? A lot has been said about the auto industry and how Japanese and European automaker who have plants in the US pay "comparable" wages. Yet in their home countries European automakers have unions, they and Japanese automakers don't have the "legacy" health care costs here in the US since they haven't been here that long to have "legacy" workers. In both Europe and Japan they have socialized medicine so they don't have those kind of health care costs at all.

If companies "companies keep their compensation and benifits at a certain level to ensure their employees do not become dissatisfied and join a union. So in reality the threat of unionization may do more for employee compensation plans then unionization itself."
Then why is FedEx so worried about the Railroad Act?

I'm sure we'll never convince tieguy about the benefits of unions, if there wasn't a need for unions they would never have happened. It seems all companies seem to do today is to get around them, and do what they can to keep them out.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

Originally Posted by bluehdmc

...if there wasn't a need for unions they would never have happened.

I would think that even tie would agree that there was a time in our history when unions were essential, both to ensure the safety of our workers and to protect their rights. I do think that we would be hard pressed to present that argument in today's workplace.

[bluehdmc]

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

I would think that even tie would agree that there was a time in our history when unions were essential, both to ensure the safety of our workers and to protect their rights. I do think that we would be hard pressed to present that argument in today's workplace.

I have a neighbor who works for a small manufacturing co. He has not been there very long. He told me they laid off the more senior employees and kept him. So I'm sure he's happy he's non-union, I don't think his laid off co-workers are.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by tieguy

teamsters are pushing for a bill to pass <snip> making it much easier to organize those non-union folks. I have to say, I am not sold on the idea that the "check card" bill is a good thing, I can see the opportunity for misuse from both union and company.

So basically what they are doing is a little marketing to show the non-union folks the benifits of joining. Since people who do thier job do not need unions they off course decided to represent these screw ups.

As Sat pointed out, the union by law has to represent equally, non-union workers that do bargaining unit work. That , in a way, eliminates the marketing angle.
Tie, I have seen, I am sure you probably have also, people that would have lost their jobs over some simple non consequential error simply because the manager didn't like them if there had not been a union to help them. I'm not saying that every person that gets terminated should get their job back. Some people should get fired but it should be for something that justifies the action.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by PassYouBy

I found out today that two of the people that are NON-Union are/were having problems on the PL have been represented by "OUR" union rep! One guy was fired for being late too many days. The other guy that is still here has had an issue with following directions.

My question is this. Why do they represent a NON UNION employee that doesn't pay union?

I'm sure you may miss it in all the "debate" going back an forth that little of will answer your question. The union represents these non-union workers because it is the law.

[local804]

Originally Posted by bluehdmc

I'm sure we'll never convince tieguy about the benefits of unions, if there wasn't a need for unions they would never have happened. It seems all companies seem to do today is to get around them, and do what they can to keep them out.

I think we would have a better chance of it snowing in hell.

[local804]

Originally Posted by filthpig

what in the hell is "coffee pay"?

We are paid an extra 15 minutes when we work past 8.5 hours and contractually in our suppliment it is called coffee time.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by tieguy

there are exceptions to every rule but generally those who are the screw ups are those that need a union.
The exceptions are the kicker, for me at least. I'm sure it doesn't happen everywhere, but I have seen managers that will target people for ridiculous things, stuff that really doesn't have much to do with being an overall good employee and in general is overlooked when anyone else does that same. These people need a union as much as a screw up and actually deserve the union's protection more so. I have very little sympathy for a driver that refuses to go out everyday and do his/her best to get the job done properly. However anyone can have a bad day every now and then.

Keep in mind most of the world is non-union and those people generally live in the same neighborhoods we live in and somehow seem to survive without the mighty union protecting them.
Have you taken a poll of your neighborhood? What jobs do these people hold that lets them earn the wages and benefits that match ours? I really would like to know what kind of jobs the people dp. How many are, in actuality, just surviving with both spouses working, when as you can read on here many UPSers wives are stay at home Moms? On one side of me the neighbor owns a couple of business that do very well, his wife works a job outside of his businesses to provide insurance for the family. On the other side of me is a retired gentleman that his wife still has to work to make ends meet, I don't know how old she is but he is 82 years old.
Most of the world doesn't work for UPS.
Those people make wages that are as much or more as we make and beni's as good or better as ours.
How do you know this? Really, do you know or you speculating?

The union tells you what a great job they do but in many ways the beni's for non-union employees at ups are better.
I am seriously interested to know how the non-union" beni's" are better, keeping in mind that money directly from their paycheck is paying for them?

Many companies keep their compensation and benifits at a certain level to ensure their employees do not become dissatisfied and join a union. So in reality the threat of unionization may do more for employee compensation plans then unionization itself.

Now we are getting somewhere, it would seem that the employees of these many companies can thank the Teamsters, UAW, AFL-CIO and other unions for encourageing the companies to provide decent wages and benefits.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

I would think that even tie would agree that there was a time in our history when unions were essential, both to ensure the safety of our workers and to protect their rights. I do think that we would be hard pressed to present that argument in today's workplace.

OH really? Have you not read most of the threads on this message board? There are thousands of posts saying why we (UPSers) have essential need for the union if we plan on making UPS a career choice. I understand that in your part of the UPS world things are not that bad, I say bravo for you and your good luck with you management teams. However I don't see how you can discount the importance of union protection for the rest of the UPS world. Do you honestly believe that your wages would be what they are if not for the Teamsters? I think not. Without the union all of our incomes would be very simular to what non-teamster DHL people were paid. Fed-Ex employees pay are indirectly a reflection of what the teamsters do for us in wages.
In fact some of your own posts on this board you have described things that you do on a regular bases that is never challenged by your bosses, yet in my center you would be disciplined for the very same actions. This is just one example or the need for the union at UPS.

[tieguy]

[QUOTE=bluehdmc;514323]Many people's 401k's have taken a hit by last years stock market, also what has happened to management's 401k match this year?

your point being that the company may suspend payments to an individual 401K plan. My point being the overall plan is and will continue to be an excellent benifit. My point being that the 401 K is potably meaning you take it with you and do not have to worry that the union may misinvest it or give it to the mob.

Is "most of the world" better off without unions? A lot has been said about the auto industry and how Japanese and European automaker who have plants in the US pay "comparable" wages. Yet in their home countries European automakers have unions, they and Japanese automakers don't have the "legacy" health care costs here in the US since they haven't been here that long to have "legacy" workers. In both Europe and Japan they have socialized medicine so they don't have those kind of health care costs at all.

I don't know much about the japanease automakers and that would appear to be a selective counter. I own a comfortable house and can afford to driver nice vehicles and I am non union. My neighbors were engineers working for the government. non union and both retired at an early age.One of my neighbors just finished a 300 k addition to his house thanks to his nonunion wages. My neighbors across the street are all non union and living well. One of them buys a nice new truck every two years. I can't afford to buy a new truck every two years. Somehow all of these people are living well without a union to protect thier behinds.

The union sells the message that you are weak and defenseless without them. Pratical application reveals that many and most some survive and live well without the union calling them brother and shielding them from life.

[MD Dan]

This a classic example of 'A rising tide lifts all boats'. The higher wages and benefits and better working conditions forced on companies by unions had the effect of the tide coming in and now non union companies pay comparable wages, benefits, etc, -yes- TO KEEP THE UNION OUT. TrplNkl made this point but it seems to have slipped by. The reason that there is a large middle class in this country is directly attributable to the unions and you did not have to be a union member to benefit from it. Professionals (engineers, etc) and members of lower management also benefited. How long could upper management get away with paying their professional workforce and lower management less than their labor?

[PassYouBy]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

I'm sure you may miss it in all the "debate" going back an forth that little of will answer your question. The union represents these non-union workers because it is the law.

Then why in the hell am I paying union dues? If these MFKERS can be represented by MY union for free, then why in the hell am I paying for union dues?

When I heard this yesterday I came unglued. So basically my money is saving there ass?!

I have never had a reason for the Union to represent me and I hope I never do....(Maybe I should just quit the union because I know now I am entitled to representation for FREE.) BULL******

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by ih8tbrn

Quote:
Originally Posted by tieguy
Since people who do thier job do not need unions they off course decided to represent these screw ups.

Pretty much sums it up right there.

I don't know why I let this pass till now, but I beg to differ.
In our center we had a 30 year driver who's odometer just quit working during the day, it showed him with like 30 miles on a route that averaged 250-300 miles per day. When he returned to the center he wrote it up on the DVIR and because there was no full time management in the building he asked the OMS/specialist what he should do. The OMS told him to estimate his mileage, he did so. His estimated miles entered was 275. The next morning he talked to the CM and was told that was OK to do that. 3 months later the odometer still had not been replaced and he had kept writing up the problem and estimating the same miles because his route rarely changed in logistics and he had been told it was OK. They fired him for dishonesty. He missed 2 months work and wages for this atrocity. He reluctantly accepted the company's offer to return him to work without back pay or reinstatement of lost time to his retiement contributions becuase he was afraid an arbitrator would not side with him and he was too close to his planed retirement date. He had always done his job without too much harassment but when they had him over a barrel they exploited the oprotunity. Now, try again to tell me that no one doing their job needs a union.

[Fnix]

Europe is almost %80 union and they have a higher standard of living then us Americans. The rest of the world? Do you mean South America, Africa, Asia? They do not live in the same neighborhoods as us and have terrible working/living qualities.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by PassYouBy

Then why in the hell am I paying union dues? If these MFKERS can be represented by MY union for free, then why in the hell am I paying for union dues?

When I heard this yesterday I came unglued. So basically my money is saving there ass?!

I have never had a reason for the Union to represent me and I hope I never do....(Maybe I should just quit the union because I know now I am entitled to representation for FREE.) BULL******

I don't disagree with you, I don't like it much either, but do you really want to lower yourself to their level? I would guess not.

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by PassYouBy

Then why in the hell am I paying union dues? If these MFKERS can be represented by MY union for free, then why in the hell am I paying for union dues?

When I heard this yesterday I came unglued. So basically my money is saving there ass?!

I have never had a reason for the Union to represent me and I hope I never do....(Maybe I should just quit the union because I know now I am entitled to representation for FREE.) BULL******

It ain't pretty, but in a right to work state, you have right to join or not. Which works better for you?

Originally Posted by trplnkl

I don't know why I let this pass till now, but I beg to differ.
In our center we had a 30 year driver who's odometer just quit working during the day, it showed him with like 30 miles on a route that averaged 250-300 miles per day. When he returned to the center he wrote it up on the DVIR and because there was no full time management in the building he asked the OMS/specialist what he should do. The OMS told him to estimate his mileage, he did so. His estimated miles entered was 275. The next morning he talked to the CM and was told that was OK to do that. 3 months later the odometer still had not been replaced and he had kept writing up the problem and estimating the same miles because his route rarely changed in logistics and he had been told it was OK. They fired him for dishonesty. He missed 2 months work and wages for this atrocity. He reluctantly accepted the company's offer to return him to work without back pay or reinstatement of lost time to his retiement contributions becuase he was afraid an arbitrator would not side with him and he was too close to his planed retirement date. He had always done his job without too much harassment but when they had him over a barrel they exploited the oprotunity. Now, try again to tell me that no one doing their job needs a union.

Him coming back under those conditions, was what he accepted. He would "probably" have gotten back all of his wages and time lost, but that takes faith in the union. Do you have faith in your union?

[705red]

Originally Posted by PassYouBy

I found out today that two of the people that are NON-Union are/were having problems on the PL have been represented by "OUR" union rep! One guy was fired for being late too many days. The other guy that is still here has had an issue with following directions.

My question is this. Why do they represent a NON UNION employee that doesn't pay union?

This is a big problem and why unions are weak! The blood sucking leeches that do not pay dues but reap the same benefits as dues payers. Legally the union has to represent the employee if the employee asks for representation.

Originally Posted by tieguy

teamsters are pushing for a bill to pass that has been mislabeled the free choice bill. If passed it would allow them to hold public votes for unionization. What this means is it would allow them to see who voted for the union and who did not. Once they get that info they can then harrass those who voted against unionization into voting for it. They expect the bill to pass making it much easier to organize those non-union folks. So basically what they are doing is a little marketing to show the non-union folks the benifits of joining. Since people who do thier job do not need unions they off course decided to represent these screw ups.

The company spin master at his best! Bravo Tie, I haven't seen this much B.S out of you in a while, that is until I scrolled down a little!

Originally Posted by tieguy

there are exceptions to every rule but generally those who are the screw ups are those that need a union.

Keep in mind most of the world is non-union and those people generally live in the same neighborhoods we live in and somehow seem to survive without the mighty union protecting them.

Those people make wages that are as much or more as we make and beni's as good or better as ours.

The union tells you what a great job they do but in many ways the beni's for non-union employees at ups are better.

Many companies keep their compensation and benifits at a certain level to ensure their employees do not become dissatisfied and join a union. So in reality the threat of unionization may do more for employee compensation plans then unionization itself.

I'm in a center of 78 drivers and a building that has close to 400 package car. There is not 1 driver in my center that i have not sat in on for one reason or another, mostly b.s. I represent more good employees for making a simple mistake here and there, which will happen eventually. We are HUMAN beings and do make mistakes from time to time. We are not programmed robots like the management team!

Originally Posted by tieguy

I'm not taking the argument that far 804 just making the point that most of the world survives without a union protecting them and somehow lives in the same neighborhood as us and drives the same cars.

Most of the world benefits form the union being around! Before unions, you did not have paid vacations, paid holidays, over time pay, medical benefits, pensions, 401ks, etc no one even new what a weekend was until unions created it!

Originally Posted by UPSNewbie

We don't know that. Anti-union comes from management who manages CBUs... I am pro-union, but I can at least see why management seems cold-hearted towards union.

Operational management gets more frustrated with their labor department over the contract. Here when we negotiated the contract we had working members like myself and others that do the job on a daily basis on our negotiating team. While ups had only labor reps, and finance guys. They had no one from everyday operations.

The sups that are really pissed because they cant fire someone just because they do not like them are the ones that have no integrity anyways!

[705red]

Originally Posted by tieguy

The retirees could have just as easily brought the lawsuit without the unions help. It would seem to be logical that the union would argue the case in court since they were the ones that were supposed to be watching the shop.

We where watching the shop, and in doing so we caught ups shop lifting right out of the pockets of the retiree's! The only thing we did not have was the surveillance video of the act in progress.

But you still claim that we as employees do not need a union! Really? Look at what ups does when they know we have an agency to protect our rights! What would ups do if it was every man for themselves?

[705red]

Originally Posted by local804

I was commenting on your statement that non union benifits at UPS are better.

Originally Posted by tieguy

Overall they are.

LMFAO! How much of a raise did you get this year? How's that 401k match going? How much of last years stock can you sell this year? How much do you pay for medical?

Your right tie its better to be non union! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

Him coming back under those conditions, was what he accepted. He would "probably" have gotten back all of his wages and time lost, but that takes faith in the union. Do you have faith in your union?

In his situation "probably" is a huge word, one that he really couldn't afford to challenge.
No, I do not have complete faith in the union, but they are all we have in situations as this.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

Trp, you make some excellent points and your real life example brings it home. My point was that the need for a union presence is not as great as it was during the early 20th century IMO.

In our local, we do have the option to opt out of the union but we still have to pay 99.44% of the monthly dues so opting out just does not make sense.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

Trp, you make some excellent points and your real life example brings it home. My point was that the need for a union presence is not as great as it was during the early 20th century IMO.
Thank you, I don't disagree that the union presence is no where as critical as the early 1900's, and for many companies a union just helps put them under. i.e. some of the freight lines that no longer exist. However for companies such as UPS and the Big Three in Detroit, yeah I think they are needed. Although I think the UAW needs to get a grip on reality and back off a little. A blind man can see that the auto makers are in big trouble. If UPS was in the same shape as GM, I would ask them to lower my wages till the crisis is over and then afterward reinstate it to where it would be without the crisis.

In our local, we do have the option to opt out of the union but we still have to pay 99.44% of the monthly dues so opting out just does not make sense.

NYS is classified as a union state, I guess maybe it's the 99.44% is what keeps it that way.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by MD Dan

This a classic example of 'A rising tide lifts all boats'. The higher wages and benefits and better working conditions forced on companies by unions had the effect of the tide coming in and now non union companies pay comparable wages, benefits, etc, -yes- TO KEEP THE UNION OUT. TrplNkl made this point but it seems to have slipped by. The reason that there is a large middle class in this country is directly attributable to the unions and you did not have to be a union member to benefit from it. Professionals (engineers, etc) and members of lower management also benefited. How long could upper management get away with paying their professional workforce and lower management less than their labor?

The market will always pay what the market will allow. A fine example now exists with the automakers and the steel mills. Your unions have gotten them some terrific pay and benifits however you actually have to keep your job to enjoy them. Working continously at a lesser rate may actually be better for you then working intermittingly at a higher one.

Market pays what the market allows. The union was a powerful force and did much to improve overall working conditions for labor a 100 years ago. In todays world however it may actually be a liability as evidenced by the number of manufactoring jobs or jobs in general that have moved out of country.

[UPSNewbie]

Originally Posted by tieguy

The market will always pay what the market will allow. A fine example now exists with the automakers and the steel mills. Your unions have gotten them some terrific pay and benifits however you actually have to keep your job to enjoy them. Working continously at a lesser rate may actually be better for you then working intermittingly at a higher one.

Market pays what the market allows. The union was a powerful force and did much to improve overall working conditions for labor a 100 years ago. In todays world however it may actually be a liability as evidenced by the number of manufactoring jobs or jobs in general that have moved out of country.

The way I see it: if unions had the best interests for BOTH the company and CBU, there wouldn't be such negativity about them. Some unions need to stop trying to ask for the moon.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

I don't know why I let this pass till now, but I beg to differ.
In our center we had a 30 year driver who's odometer just quit working during the day, it showed him with like 30 miles on a route that averaged 250-300 miles per day. When he returned to the center he wrote it up on the DVIR and because there was no full time management in the building he asked the OMS/specialist what he should do. The OMS told him to estimate his mileage, he did so. His estimated miles entered was 275. The next morning he talked to the CM and was told that was OK to do that. 3 months later the odometer still had not been replaced and he had kept writing up the problem and estimating the same miles because his route rarely changed in logistics and he had been told it was OK. They fired him for dishonesty. He missed 2 months work and wages for this atrocity. He reluctantly accepted the company's offer to return him to work without back pay or reinstatement of lost time to his retiement contributions becuase he was afraid an arbitrator would not side with him and he was too close to his planed retirement date. He had always done his job without too much harassment but when they had him over a barrel they exploited the oprotunity. Now, try again to tell me that no one doing their job needs a union.

I have EEOC for age discrimination. I have Osha for health or working condition issues. I have a grievance process that can go all the way to an impartial arbitrator. I have lawyers to sue the company if I choose to bypass the arbitration process. I have a benifity package that is superior to what the overall union package would provide me. why the heck would I possibly want a union so I can recieve less and pay them union dues?

Your example happened in a union shop. Its actually an example of how your driver did not get what he paid for in that union shop. So you're right he paid the union his dues all those years and was short changed by them when it came time to deliver.

Its an argument against unionism trp not for it.