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

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

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.

Tyler Durden, Thanks for asking this question. It's a great, and needed discussion!

As this conversation and topic progresses I am truly happy I asked. At the end of the day I hope it helps not only myself but any others considering working for a union company.

I was uneducated about unions and feel I am learning some from both sides of the fence so to speak.

I've noted before that trucking companies use the lowest pay that will get their driver seats filled.

That's exactly right. And that's why I say the whole "truck driver demand" thing is there by design. There is only a huge demand for truck drivers because they can't get enough people to do it at today's current wages. If they suddenly raised the wages into the $70,000+ range guess what would happen? That's right - driver demand would dry up completely because new drivers would be flooding into the trucking industry. But how many people are going to leave their families for weeks at a time, risk their lives every single day, and work 70 hours a week for $35,000/year if they really had a choice? Not too many people.

So on the one hand you might say, "Well then the free market is working as it should. Trucking companies are doing what they can to cut costs and remain profitable." And I would agree. But then you turn around and look at what management is making. Here is a rundown of JB Hunt's management compensation in 2014 as presented on Morningstar:

• John A. Cooper $4.35 million
• Kirk Thompson $2.09 million
• Shelley Simpson $1.62 million
• Terrence D. Matthews $1.33 million
• David G. Mee $1.70 million

Total executive compensation: $11.08 million for 5 people

How about Yellow-Roadway who has been on the verge of bankruptcy ever since the merger and even required drivers to take a pay cut:

• Scott D. Ware $781,369
• Jamie G. Pierson $6.99 mil
• Michelle A. Friel $1.88 mil
• James L. Welch $10.80 mil
• Darren D. Hawkins $1.29 mil

Total executive compensation: $21.74 million for 5 people

So as companies are using the free market to force driver wages lower every year, top executives are getting steady raises raking in millions of dollars each year for themselves because there aren't any checks and balances built into the system. That's why unions were formed - to put a check on the power of management so they don't starve out the workers while raking in millions for themselves.

But hey, if you guys think that's fair and just then let's leave it well enough alone. In another ten years those management figures will double while trucker wages once again will be considerably lower when adjusted for inflation.

You guys who are against unions:

1) Do you think the distribution of corporate earnings is fair?

2) If not, what do you suppose should be done about it?

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.

You guys who are against unions:

1) Do you think the distribution of corporate earnings is fair?

2) If not, what do you suppose should be done about it?

I am neither for, nor against unions. Here is why...

I grew up in a household that was split between union, and non union. My mom was part of the teachers MCEA union (not affiliated with the NEA) and my father was in the school systems "management"... Things got interesting during contract negotiations in my house. However, I got to see how a really good union functions.

My very first job ever, was at Meijer, and was introduced to the UFCW, and it was ridiculous. I saw a lot of abuse of power, from the stewards, and our rep. It really left me with a bad view on unions. And I carried that sentiment through a large portion of my life.

Later in life, my ex wife, who came from a UAW family, was an lpn in a non union nursing home. They voted in the Steelworkers Union. At first, I was like wtf, how will they be able to represent healthcare workers??? Well, they did my wife and coworkers a solid.I got to see a "big" union take care of a group of people not even associated with them by trade.

Now to the questions...

1) Helllllllllll no!!!

2) Right-to-Work, in my opinion is a two edged sword. While it allows a person to opt out, and forces the union to be more competitive, to keep in business, it also takes away a lot of their power, to really represent thge workers. The power was given back to the owner s and management. If the unions want to refrain relevance, they should break up the National charters, and "localize." This should allow them to represent the workers on an "individual" basis, instead of the "one size fits all" contracts. Not all business owners can operate under some of these contracts, forcing them out of business. With local representation, the union leaders can provide better contractrs for all involved, allowing thge owner to stay in business, and the workers to be better taken care of.

There are plenty of "details" that I won't go into, but that is the basics of my thinking.

Would I Jon a union? Sure, but I would hope that it was well represented, and not top heavy.

I hope this makes sense.

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

What the h*ll kind of statement is that? Are you saying that everything the shareholders decide should be the corporation's bible and the workers who are actually making the profits that pay their salaries should have no say in it whatsoever? If the 1% of us that are executives want to keep all of the money for themselves and give the 99% of us that are workers next to nothing that's just life and the workers should shut up and deal with it?

Where in the world did you get that idea from? Sounds great if you're a corporate shareholder. Sounds like tyranny for the rest of us. And it is.

Who do you think resides on the board at major corporations? CEO's of other major corporations, that's who. They all reside on each other's board so they can all vote on each other's compensation packages which is why they all make millions of dollars a year for sailing yachts and playing golf 4 days a week. It's an insider's club, is it not? Am I wrong about this?

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

Another ridiculous statement because without workers the company doesn't exist! That's why you need unions or there's no balance of power. The management will take everything for themselves and leave the workers with nothing. It's happened throughout human history. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"......ever heard that one? You have to have a balance of power or you'll almost certainly have abuse.

What's executive compensation for UNION companies?

How does worker compensation at union companies compare with worker compensation at non-union companies? Isn't that the point of this conversation? I don't mind that executives make a ton of money at a profitable company as long as the workers are getting their fair share.

A typical driver:

• Spends thousands of dollars and months of time training for this career
• Earns and protects a CDL license and is held to much higher standards than the general public
• Is subjected to endless scrutiny including drug tests, equipment inspections, fingerprinting, GPS tracking, and a million other things
• Works about 70 hours a week officially, and closer to 100 hours a week unofficially
• Risks his life every day in a job that has proven over the years to be one of the most dangerous job out there
• Leaves behind his home, family, and friends for weeks at a time

So even with all that you just think drivers should shut up and take what they're given?

Do you think it's fair to pay drivers $35,000-$50,000 a year while the average executive makes several millions every year? Does that make sense in your world? Because to me it doesn't seem fair. Considering the fact that drivers are the backbone of the company it seems the drivers should get a bigger cut than they are and executives should get less than they are.

And before you say, "If you don't like it then go somewhere else" - that's not the answer. You can't just tell workers "Love it or leave it" and let management be as selfish and abusive as they'd like to be at companies all over the world. You have to develop a system that's fair and reasonable. There are a lot of laws these days that try to maintain some sort of reasonable fairness in the workplace but they don't deal with the wage issues we're talking about, so it has to be done another way.

And if you think that management can and should be trusted to make all decisions without the input of the workers then tell me why do all of the laws that we have today to protect the workers from abuse even exist? Because absolute power corrupted absolutely and the Government had to step in to put a stop to these abuses.

Unions look out for unions

Well, considering the fact that unions are comprised of workers and they exist to protect the workers than that's kind of by design, isn't it?

What's executive compensation for UNION companies?

How does worker compensation at union companies compare with worker compensation at non-union companies? Isn't that the point of this conversation? I don't mind that executives make a ton of money at a profitable company as long as the workers are getting their fair share.

Youre dodging the question here, Brett. You listed income for top executives at non union companies. DSH69 asked what is the top executive pay for unionized companies, and for good reason.

I get it, youre a union guy, and ive talked to quite a few of guys like you, and I never get a satisfactory answer to this question.

ok, so lets say your the CEO of a major trucking company, you want driver pay to be raised, how do you do that? What polices can you cite that would guarentee increased driver pay? So, because were dealing with a corporation, we have a limited resource pool to draw from. What areas do you cut to insure drivers pay?

I have worked under 5 different unions starting at age 20. In the beginning, I really didn't understand the benefit to them. Not until I was working in an electric company. I started there as a CSR in the call center under IBEW after 2 years I wanted to move to the field reps where I would knock on doors and ask for customers' payment of past due accounts or disconnected the electric meter. At the time, women had never done that job. I noticed that male call center CSR's were welcomed but a woman had never asked. Well, I was transferred to that department since I met all the requirements, seniority being one of them. The supervisor did many small things that made me feel that he didn't want me there. Then my first trainer made it totally clear that I was not wanted in the department, heckling me for using a meter puller (safer and the required method), telling me that "us men, just use our hands and you need to go to the gym to build some muscle." That day, I called my union. After my grievance, things changed dramatically. More women came to the department. Turned out, women did better than men out in the field. There was a huge decline in volatile incidents with customers in the field with the women. I could possibly had the same outcome without the union, but it would have taken years and a good lawyer and money.

On to my next union job as a city transit bus driver with the oldest union in America, Amalgamated Transit Union or ATU. This is where I found out that not all unions are good. In my first year there I saw how afraid my co-workers were of management. They didn't want to make waves at all. They didn't want management to even notice them. Disciplinary hearings were frequent about twice a week. This was for only for 120 +/- drivers. And it seemed to me too many drivers were terminated. I had never seen anything like it before being a union shop. Then I started getting my own disciplinary hearing invitations and got to see how the ATU represented me. They mostly said nothing and when they did it backed up management. This went on for about 4-5 years, until my last hearing where I was accused of an alcohol problem. Stunning to me, since I didn't drink. I was ordered into alcohol counseling to keep my job. ATU said nothing and agreed with management. That was when I approached Teamster's to take over representation for our bus drivers. A year long process that was successful. Unfortunately, I was now a target of management. I was terminated right as the transition from ATU to Teamster's was completed. YES, it was worth it!!! I was an employee there for 6 years. In that time of disciplinary hearings, 99% were won by management and there were 17 terminated drivers. In the 4 and a half years since, it is rare for a driver to lose a hearing and no terminated drivers.

And to address Brett's true comment about management salary...under ATU the upper management salaries were more than what their equivalent's were getting in Seattle which has almost 4 times our population, many more routes and drivers. Since Teamster's took over, most of those exceedingly high salaried managers were replaced by reasonably salaried managers.