Unions ...... Good Or Bad??

Dave D. ... please walk me through your thought process which explains how raising the minimum wage will hurt truckers purchasing power. So by that same logic, why don't we all ask for LESS money, thereby alleviating this problem you describe.

Someone making less than $15/hour but more than say $11 or $12/hour will lose purchasing power through additional cost, associated through raising the minimum wage. Someone being paid $14.95 an hour will only get a five cent bump an hour. Do you think he or she will see any meaningful increase in purchasing power?

As to your point #5, this is exactly why we need unions, to raise the bar for everyone. Your point #6 ... you really believe the unions would cost you $2,000 per year? Please expound.

Union dues cost money. The union members pay those dues.

Dave, just answer this. Would you like to make more money driving a truck?

Yes, I would, but I don't want to give up 25% of my pay raise to some college educated union hack. The state and Feds (through taxes) already get 25%.

Look up the salaries of these union heads. It might surprise you what they make.

Union Facts

Some (at the top) get salaries that we would think are kind of high.

Dave

Look up the salaries of these union heads. It might surprise you what they make.

Union Facts

Some (at the top) get salaries that we would think are kind of high.

Dave

The chart at the top indicates that their top-paid people (salaries over $50k) have seen steady increases, while the lower-paid employees (salaries under $50k) are making less over time. Funny, they are doing exactly what corporate management is doing. What a surprise.

Unions were created as a way to protect workers. I think they need to come back before we get a Rockefeller mining camp situation happening again. Once they start paying that company script it's time to wake up!

I've been debating going towards a ironworker union after a few years of trucking. And yes it's very much worth it for that kind of industry. I think the big problem was small unions have been bullied by the big corporations for jobs anyone can do. E.g. grocery unions and warehouse unions. If a corporation doesn't like the contract they usually try to lower incentives then when the union strikes they pay scabs. It's a bum deal. But a highly skilled job they can't just hire someone off the streets.

How hard is it to get a LTL job?

Unions used to be about SKILLED and/or DANGEROUS jobs, and NOT about a job some kid in high school took to earn a few bucks.

If unions didn't try and unionize EVERY job in the country, I wouldn't have a negative attitude towards unions. When people DEMAND that McDonald's pay their workers $15 an hour, when MOST McDonald's are franchised out, and small business owners could NOT afford to pay these workers $15/hour.

Unions need to refocus what they are really about. Besides, why send money to a union, when they endorse politicians that are against trucking, against coal, against oil and against manufacturing.

Dave

If you think that the "Burger flippers" and the stock workers are unskilled high school kids, you are paying no attention. That idea has been debunked a long long time ago. Also, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/more-than-a-quarter-of-fast-food-workers-are-raising-a-child/278424/ is a good report on this idea.

However, if someone "flips burgers", there can be any number of reasons. Let's just peruse a hypothetical example. "Tim" flips burgers. But see, Tim grew up in a bad side of Chicago (Hegwich, neighborhood maybe). Dad was an alcoholic and mom ran away. Tim had to quit high school, after getting into gangs. But, Tim found some inspiration and now got a job at McDonalds. He has no diploma, no GED, and no way to get those. He flips a mean burger, and works all the hours he can get. If he works 39.5 hours (they won't give him the last half hour to avoid full time benefits) he cannot even afford a 1 bedroom apartment with utilities. Let alone ANYTHING else.

I am sorry, but anyone working a full time job should NEVER have to live in poverty. If you want to know why there are all these gangs, and drug runners, and other things, there is no benefit to NOT doing that. A full time job is not worth it.

This does not even come close to going into how companies would benefit GREATLY from having well paid employees who will not quit, will do a better job, and there is so much less overhead on HR stuff.

I think many franchise owners could afford that pay, should they though? Nope, the market will pay what it can bear. As long as you can find people to work for low wages then the market will bear that and people will get paid low wages. Until there's a shortage of labor anywhere I don't think pay will go up. Definetly not for fast food workers, I'm resentful of that kind of entitlement. I fought in Iraq for a buck o five an hour and I wasn't complaining about pay. It's just kind of sickening.

Maybe cost of living (COLA) needs to go down or companies need to start cola adjustments. I know in San Francisco minimum wage is $15/hr. But you won't find housing anywhere near the bay on those wages due to gentrification. It's hard to find housing where I'm from near Auburn with those kind of wages. California is just very expensive. Time for people to move out if you ask me. I know I'm working on it. Same cost of living as hawaii if not a little lower. Sure great weather and great produce but it starts to get ridiculous when your broke every week because of rent and taxes.

See, here is the problem. There are no other jobs for people with limited skill sets and limited education. This is why my previous post talked about this. There is NO WHERE in the country that you can pay for a 2 bedroom apartment on a minimum wage job. Period. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE?

Distribution of corporate earnings is up to the shareholders. If they want something to happen with that they'd do it.

Companies aren't in business for the workers but for the shareholders.

What's executive compensation for UNION companies?

Unions look out for unions. They discourage excellence and initiative. They also do NOT look out for the new guy.

Ummm.... It would be great, but it doesn't really work that way. The Board and the top shareholders vote themselves money and not much can be done about it because they are the major shareholders.

HOW do these unions discourage excellence?

This isn't a communist society where your life is mapped out when you are born. If you don't like where you work - MOVE! No cradle to grave jobs exist anymore unless you're with the government.

Wow do you have the wrong idea about communism.

So I have no problem with people saying they had a bad experience or heard bad things about some unions. There have been some unions that were run by crooks over the years. Nobody is denying that. But that's an aberration. You can't deny that workers generally have it better when they have strong representation in the workplace by a well run union.

I'll expand on my earlier answer. I came from a union household. My dad started a local teacher's union in the early 60s, and my mom was right there beside him. Growing up, I had a lot of friends who worked in packing houses and were members of the UFCW. I have a cousin who was president of a state AFL-CIO. I was once deeply involved in politics (but then I got religion and quit entirely ;-) ) and knew many local and state union leaders. There were a few who I believe genuinely cared about their members, but there were many more who were in it for money or power or both. The guys who represented the electricians and plumbers and other trades seemed most sincere. The others - not so much, including my cousin. And the packing houses have worse conditions in them now than they did in the 70s, even though the union is still in there. (And yes, many of the workers are here illegally.)

What should be truckers' natural choice for representation, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, has a well-known history of corruption and criminality. When I was a member, the Justice Department forced most of the leadership out. The local guy who ran things was an international vice president, president of the state organization, and president of 10 locals. He got to retire. He built a $4 million house near Bill Gates, and he used non-union labor to do the work. The elections for the local were a joke, with all of the candidates predetermined by the guys in power. So much for "brotherhood."

I agree in theory that a union would help raise wages and improve conditions for workers. The problem with that theory is that the people who run unions are just like the people who run companies. I don't think it's an aberration when they turn out to be grifters just like many corporate executives. In my experience, that's the norm to a greater or lesser extent. They're facing the same temptations and generally these days are cut from the same cloth.

The other problem for truckers is that organizing them is like herding cats, which may well be why the Teamsters turned into the organization that they did. I'm old enough to remember the truckers strikes in the 70s. They were an abysmal failure in the long run, and it was the independents who struck over fuel prices, not the union guys. Deregulation gave birth to many, many more carriers, so now even if drivers wanted to unionize, there are only a handful of companies where it would be practical to do so. (Funnily enough, some of the greatest drivers on earth bash the "starter companies" and praise unions, having no clue that those are the very companies most susceptible to unionization.) Even some of the union shops have had to take cuts, as discussed in other threads.

Do I agree that the folks at the top of big corporations are paid too much? Hell yeah. Do I agree that drivers should be paid more? Hell yeah! Unfortunately I don't have a solution for either problem, but I don't think that the unions do either. Even if I were less jaded and inclined to believe all the union rhetoric, I can't think of a single situation where workers made big gains by organizing in the last 20 or 30 years, with the exception of professional sports and government employees.

So, while I respect those who are pro-union, I could not join one in good conscience at this point in my life. Politics aside (I don't do politics any more), I don't see any practical way for unions as they currently exist to organize and make a big difference for drivers any more. And for those few carriers that are still unionized, I'd have a hard time handing over money to their leadership knowing what I know about current unions. And since there's zero chance that I'll become a professional athlete or a government employee or join one of the trades, where belonging to a union makes some sense, there's zero chance that I'll join one. I think that would be true even if I were still in my 20s. I'm too impatient to wait 10 or 15 years to get the shift or the route that I want.

Tough choice for the OP maybe, but he asked for opinions. Might as well give him both sides. That's what I love about this forum!

Bud A.,

This is an excellent and well thought out post. The only way I disagree is that it would benefit workers entirely if they were organized into a force. While many unions are corrupt, misguided or unable to accomplish anything, they are still the best vehicle for labor to organize. You are right that there are no easy answers, but I am pretty *&^% sure that the answer to do nothing creates nothing.

More on communism and applied communism...You have two cows...

Dave

I totally get that. But isn't it shameful that a man whose labor produced so much prosperity doesn't get to benefit from any of it during a time of need for him and his family? I don't care where he got hurt. The man has a family to feed and he's put in years of hard work that filled offshore bank accounts and bought jet aircraft and yachts and mansions for people who weren't even doing the work that produced the wealth in the first place. Now he's hit hard times and his family has to eat beans and beg the bank not to foreclose on the house while those same rich executives continue to drink wine and brag about their private jets on their yacht in Bermuda without a care in the world?

That's ridiculous

Exactly!

......

The way I see it, is that our industry is probably the best group to start another grassroots "fair labor movement", however we are also probably the hardest to get a solid consensus, because our workplace is all over the place, and not one central area. If the various companies catch wind, they can route us accordingly so we cannot cross paths with the key players, meetings, etc. But we do have today's social media to use for our advantage. The industry NEEDS more drivers than are signing up, and more are leaving than coming in. There will be a critical tipping point, where the companies will be forced to offer better pay, to lure new drivers, and/or keep existing ones. That would be the time to step in, and unionize, to whatever degree, to make sure it benefits the drivers, who are the backbone of this industry. If enough wheels stop rolling, commerce comes to a stand still.

Aren't we in EVERY SINGLE AREA?

A lot of people mistakenly think everyone should just leave the free market alone completely and things will work out on their own. No, they most certainly will not. The free market has to be governed by a strong central body, in our case the Federal Government. The problem is that the Federal Government is mostly controlled by big money people who manipulate the law making process in their favor. So in return there has to be yet another force out there trying to establish a fair and balanced system, and that's what unions are meant to do.

This might be one of the smartest and most well spoken paragraphs ever written.