Originally Posted by rubicon

njbchbum I just caught sight of your reply. Let me say that I am sorry my comments were not clearer. I did not mean to imply that all union workers malinger, etc. The initial union movement did much to help the average worker. However over the years unions have shifted their roles in a manner which is counter-productive. they did so in order to justify their existence.
I put myself through college night and so i worked days and was forced to join two different unions. I witnessed first hand how some workers with the blessings of unon bosses game the system. these are the kind of guys i jokingly say created workers compensation. Let's take the guy I know who was seen sticking his e foot i the snow. when one of my friends ask him what he was doing he said "I have a work comp hearing and I need to get my foot and leg cold and red before I appear in front of the judge" Many of my co-workers were not happy with nonsense like this because they recognized it reflected badly on them. The situation has only gotten worse over the years. Salary and benefits are way out of balance with comparable private sector jobs.

You might be surprised to hear me say that by some measure I want to see collective bargaining. However my rationale would be different than what union bosses are doing because they are pricing workers right out of the market...that is the economic reality . another aspect of this is that unions have such an influence over politics and forcing workers to vote for people and issues they would not otherwise.

This issue is not personal its economic. conersely I will tell you I am not happy about the 1% either. However, if anyone thinks they can get the best of them they might want to look back in history. this 1% has the means and resoruces to escape much at present and I suspect creative enough to adjust for any future changes

So again my apology because my comments seem to have misled you on my thinking

rubicon - we're cool.

every organization reinvents itself, as and when required, in order to continue on, unions included. my best example being the mother's march of dimes...once polio was 'conquered' they had no reason to exit and could have faded away. instead the organization became one intending to fight birth defects! they reinvented themselves, justified themselves and they live on ['tho there doesn't seem to be any counter-productivity in their existence!]. to what is a union counter-productive? the nj state govt unions with which i am familiar seem to be effective in benefitting their members - isn't this what they are supposed to do? if so, they do not seem counter-productive to THEIR main purpose.

when i was employed in the private sector i probably saw more or as many incidents of favoritism at all levels of the corporation as i saw among govt appointees. favoritism was less prevalent among the public sector classified employees because union members would be QUICK to pick up on and file complaints about their perceptions!

you post that salary and benefits are out of balance with comparable private sector jobs....well, that is a whole other kettle of fish! as a former compensation analyst i can find you statistics to counter that...but all that would be is a battle of statistics and opinions on same. in some areas they are and in some they are not and in some areas the differential is justified and in some they are not, etc. and i venture to think that some private sector unions have got it all over govt unions!

re the exercise of political influence - yikes! like that does NOT go on in the private sector?!?!?! on a number of occasions i have been told by my private sector friends of the intimidations that take place right in the workplace where emps are not only 'urged' to vote for a candidate BUT to contribute to the campaign, too! but how is that unlike being 'urged' to buy tix to the policeman's ball? influence is a door that swings both ways. both private and public sectors and special interest groups all have lobbyists crawling the halls of all levels of govt in hopes of prevailing for their clients. a review of the political contributions of any candidate will show that private and public sector entites are guilty of applyng such pressure! some folks feel pressured to contribute and some give willingly; some resent that their $ is used for a candidate they do not personally support - but they do not usually resent when a winning candidate is in their corner!

and as for the 1%!!!!! well, there will always be a 1%. and if people resent the 1% - why do they try so hard to get into it rather than remain pleased that they are in the 99%?

ciao, rubicon!

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Those with MEDICAID cards (not Medicare) usually are harder to please, and usually these folks have complaints that are not based on reality, and when they do have a complaint, it is rare that a resolution can be found to satisfy them, even when that resolution is above and beyond what has been offered to the patients with private insurance. Not all Medicaid folks are difficult to please...no biggy, just throwing it out there.

oh, katz! of course i meant medicaid and not medicare. must be my digital dyslexia acting up again - too much time at the computer! sorry to make you type out that clarification!

Originally Posted by njbchbum

rubicon - we're cool.

every organization reinvents itself, as and when required, in order to continue on, unions included. my best example being the mother's march of dimes...once polio was 'conquered' they had no reason to exit and could have faded away. instead the organization became one intending to fight birth defects! they reinvented themselves, justified themselves and they live on ['tho there doesn't seem to be any counter-productivity in their existence!]. to what is a union counter-productive? the nj state govt unions with which i am familiar seem to be effective in benefitting their members - isn't this what they are supposed to do? if so, they do not seem counter-productive to THEIR main purpose.

when i was employed in the private sector i probably saw more or as many incidents of favoritism at all levels of the corporation as i saw among govt appointees. favoritism was less prevalent among the public sector classified employees because union members would be QUICK to pick up on and file complaints about their perceptions!

you post that salary and benefits are out of balance with comparable private sector jobs....well, that is a whole other kettle of fish! as a former compensation analyst i can find you statistics to counter that...but all that would be is a battle of statistics and opinions on same. in some areas they are and in some they are not and in some areas the differential is justified and in some they are not, etc. and i venture to think that some private sector unions have got it all over govt unions!

re the exercise of political influence - yikes! like that does NOT go on in the private sector?!?!?! on a number of occasions i have been told by my private sector friends of the intimidations that take place right in the workplace where emps are not only 'urged' to vote for a candidate BUT to contribute to the campaign, too! but how is that unlike being 'urged' to buy tix to the policeman's ball? influence is a door that swings both ways. both private and public sectors and special interest groups all have lobbyists crawling the halls of all levels of govt in hopes of prevailing for their clients. a review of the political contributions of any candidate will show that private and public sector entites are guilty of applyng such pressure! some folks feel pressured to contribute and some give willingly; some resent that their $ is used for a candidate they do not personally support - but they do not usually resent when a winning candidate is in their corner!

and as for the 1%!!!!! well, there will always be a 1%. and if people resent the 1% - why do they try so hard to get into it rather than remain pleased that they are in the 99%?

ciao, rubicon!

njbchbum: For information purposes only I spent half my career in HRD as manager overseeing job reclassification, including writing new job descriptions, rating them building a merit salary metric system, etc. I also agree with your issues regarding the private sector. While I do not wabt to beat a dead horse, the critical difference and it is huge, is that corporation pay private sector workers while taxpayer foot the bill for public unions.

I am done here

Ciao

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Ohio voters rejected limits on collective bargaining of unionized state employees with 60% of the vote. The AFL-CIO is very pleased this morning.

I guess we can now ignore any Ohioan who complains about their high taxes. They've now given up that privilege. Maybe Ohioans don't know that they actually pay these people?

Without a union, the individual is nothing against a corporation. Without collective bargaining the union loses its reason for existence.

Originally Posted by tonyafd

Without a union, the individual is nothing against a corporation. Without collective bargaining the union loses its reason for existence.

Are you implying that all corporations would mistreat their employees if it weren't for the union keeping them in line?!?

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Are you implying that all corporations would mistreat their employees if it weren't for the union keeping them in line?!?

Some people have good experiences. Some don't.

Originally Posted by tonyafd

Some people have good experiences. Some don't.

...This is a little different from your earlier blanket statement? "Without a union, the individual is nothing against a corporation"

Originally Posted by tonyafd

Without a union, the individual is nothing against a corporation. Without collective bargaining the union loses its reason for existence.

Maybe the individual should be part of the corporation. What is this them against us attitude?

Originally Posted by tonyafd

Without a union, the individual is nothing against a corporation. Without collective bargaining the union loses its reason for existence.

I wasn't talking about corporations. I can agree with you on corporations. That's the private sector, and those union men have to negotiate with their employers on a fair deal that earns them a living while keeping the company alive. Fail that and the company goes out of business and there goes their job.

What the vote in Ohio was for were public employee unions. Those people who work for you and me. Those people that want their money while the foundations are crumbling under their feet. Those people who don't give a rat's patootie about the problems you and your family have with the ever escalating taxes to try to deal with the ever escalating bill that your representatives signed off on with your money to these disconnected people.

There is absolutely no correlation in my mind between public employee union people and their private sector union employee counterparts. It's apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

...This is a little different from your earlier blanket statement? "Without a union, the individual is nothing against a corporation"

OK, let me step back a little because you and loveithere and tony are insisting on talking about private sector unions.

If you are a blue collar employee or a lower echelon employee for a corporation, there is a good chance that you are expendable to that corporation. It's a good chance that you are a face in the crowd easily replaced.

Now, you organize and become a "union" of employees and you have some power. Now you have grievance and arbitration rights when your employer wants to discipline you in some way. It can no longer be frivolous. I can go into intense detail on all aspects of union life having spent my entire life working as a union employee. Surprised?

But, as a union employee I worked for a union that boosted my standard of living in the halcyon days of intense economic growth and prosperity. My company made money and we made sure we got our rightful share in terms of wages and benefits.

Now, with the economic downturn and changes in the way we can organize, the landscape has changed. In order to survive my union has made major concessions because of the new economic order and we've adjusted work rules and compensation, and even reworked our own union pension plans to preserve some semblance of a dignified retirement when that time comes. That time has also been pushed back to a higher "full retirement" age.

Does that sound like anything the public sector will do? Ha ha ha ha ha.......

Originally Posted by RichieLion

OK, let me step back a little because you and loveithere and tony are insisting on talking about private sector unions.

If you are a blue collar employee or a lower echelon employee for a corporation, there is a good chance that you are expendable to that corporation. It's a good chance that you are a face in the crowd easily replaced.

Now, you organize and become a "union" of employees and you have some power. Now you have grievance and arbitration rights when your employer wants to discipline you in some way. It can no longer be frivolous. I can go into intense detail on all aspects of union life having spent my entire life working as a union employee. Surprised?

But, as a union employee I worked for a union that boosted my standard of living in the halcyon days of intense economic growth and prosperity. My company made money and we made sure we got our rightful share in terms of wages and benefits.

Now, with the economic downturn and changes in the way we can organize, the landscape has changed. In order to survive my union has made major concessions because of the new economic order and we've adjusted work rules and compensation, and even reworked our own union pension plans to preserve some semblance of a dignified retirement when that time comes. That time has also been pushed back to a higher "full retirement" age.

Does that sound like anything the public sector will do? Ha ha ha ha ha.......

NOPE...I know of what you speak.
Mr. Katz has been a Teamster about 40 years. While I on the other hand, manage 38 employees who are public union members who are still at "30 years and out", collecting immediately no matter their age and free full health benies...This recent voting day in Ohio was topic for some interesting discussions among my peeps and I had to remain silent! Ya gotta know that was difficult for me.LOL

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

NOPE...I know of what you speak.
Mr. Katz has been a Teamster about 40 years. While I on the other hand, manage 38 employees who are public union members who are still at "30 years and out", collecting immediately no matter their age and free full health benies...This recent voting day in Ohio was topic for some interesting discussions among my peeps and I had to remain silent! Ya gotta know that was difficult for me.LOL

Mr. Katz and I have a lifetime of Teamsters Experience between us. I was a Teamsters member for 45 years. The life was good to me. The men who are still working are making sacrifices now. It'll never be the same.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I wasn't talking about corporations. I can agree with you on corporations. That's the private sector, and those union men have to negotiate with their employers on a fair deal that earns them a living while keeping the company alive. Fail that and the company goes out of business and there goes their job.

What the vote in Ohio was for were public employee unions. Those people who work for you and me. Those people that want their money while the foundations are crumbling under their feet. Those people who don't give a rat's patootie about the problems you and your family have with the ever escalating taxes to try to deal with the ever escalating bill that your representatives signed off on with your money to these disconnected people.

There is absolutely no correlation in my mind between public employee union people and their private sector union employee counterparts. It's apples and oranges.

Two public unions in New York State have settled for 0 percent raises for the next three years and have also settled for higher health care premiums. Seventy six thousand of them have settled for nine furlough days without pay. They are already paid less than it takes to live in NYC and buy a home there.

Could you imagine the disadvantage that they would be at if they were fragmented with a law like Ohio's?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Mr. Katz and I have a lifetime of Teamsters Experience between us. I was a Teamsters member for 45 years. The life was good to me. The men who are still working are making sacrifices now. It'll never be the same.

Here's what Mr. Katz says-"We worked our @$$es off and the Company took care of business. The worse thing that happened was when the public unions got really rolling...those mamby pamby cry babies!"...Yes, djplong, this is just his OPINION

[QUOTE=tonyafd;417342]Two public unions in New York State have settled for 0 percent raises for the next three years and have also settled for higher health care premiums. Seventy six thousand of them have settled for nine furlough days without pay. They are already paid less than it takes to live in NYC and buy a home there.

My guess would be that the state had them convinced jobs would be eliminated otherwise.

Maybe this was one of the groups that was cut so that the State could placate the powerful teacher's unions who wouldn't budge an inch and would have created a public policy nightmare in the event of a teacher's strike. The teacher's were threatened with layoffs but stood firm and the state blinked.

Great win for the selfish teacher's union, but the money has to come from somewhere.