Unions are worthless and need to go

[Deathpig]

I'm still processing the information. My mind may be closed on this, though it is hard to ignore the fact that for you Union membership seems to have paid off with a tripling of salary and increased benefits while apparently not driving the industry wholly, or perhaps even mostly, from the country.

 

I think the issue in this case is that this union is more of a craft union that collects people with specific skill sets that require a degree of training/experience that makes finding 'off the street' replacements very difficult. Compare this to something like modern manufacturing that takes very little training, and so the only leverage the union has is 'we live near the factory'. When you move the factory, you can replace the workers because their skillset isn't defensible (you can teach poor people in another country how to do it easily).

 

Hence, unions that protect people with indefensible skillsets make no sense, and seem to be the ones people dislike the most. No one really wants to complain about plumbers or other craftsmen, about actors or musicians, and in most cases about athletes. I don't think most people have an issue with jobs that contain the very real risk of harm, like miners, firefighters, police, etc.

 

The statement earlier in this thread is the most true, though. So much of what unions fought for are now contained in labor laws enjoyed by anyone, union or not. It tends to make most of the non-trade unions seem like vestigial organs. The source of friction seems to be that the left perceives unions as negotiating leverage to get 'fair wages' while the right perceives unions as raising the cost of labor above 'what the market would otherwise bear'.

 

Look at Taz's example. How much should that labor cost? We have two very different numbers. The people on the left would say the high number is right, and the non-union folks are getting screwed (and hence, should join the union). The people on the right would say the low number is right, and the union folks are driving up the cost of production unnecessarily.

 

I dunno if there's even a right answer there, to be honest.

[polksalet]

gotta love unions

 

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/20...stomer_service/

[westvirginia]

 

Unions help outsource hundreds of thousands of jobs to Canada.

[Crazysight]

That's exactly what I'm saying, thank you. And for the record, I might actually like Taz's union. There are some that I've said I support, like the IEBW, Plumbers & Pipefitters, Millwrights, etc. Those unions ensure their members know what they're doing, and serve a purpose almost like a temp agency.

 

Exactly why I've been saying all along that we need tariffs slapped on products that are produced from countries that employ "slave labor," ie those that have no or few minimum wage laws. I don't know if it's a given that cutting the pay to workers over here would result in increased hiring either. The jobs that are lost oversees are likely there to stay at this point, cutting our pay by a mere 25% wouldn't make it more profitable to move the jobs back over here when they're being done for as little as 1 dollar an hour elsewhere. And as the world's largest consumer if the pay of workers over here was to get cut by that much, who would be left to buy all of their foreign made crap to begin with? If nobody buys it, they can't afford to make as much of it, resulting in fewer jobs both here and abroad.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Crazysight

[rocknrobn26]

Jeezze.. I'd like to get into this fray, but I WILL NOT! I've said my piece many times to mostly dead ears.

My Huddle Buddy Aqua would be right behind me (as would Skippy), but we'll let Aqua RIP and not bring Skippy into this..

All I'll say is that most people will never understand today's (or yesterday's unions) for so many reasons. Biased opinions so they are

 

Taz...I appreciate your vigilance in defending unions. But I fought this fight, more times than I can count and most won't listen or just don't understand. Take a break, Brother, virtually no one here will ever understand. Not worth the wear and tear on the fingers.

 

Yall go right ahead and bash unions all you want. Us union people know it's mostly out of jealousy (or ignorance) you spew your anti-union crap. Whatever makes yall happy.

Peace to all.

rr26

[borge007]

Jeezze.. I'd like to get into this fray, but I WILL NOT! I've said my piece many times to mostly dead ears.

My Huddle Buddy Aqua would be right behind me (as would Skippy), but we'll let Aqua RIP and not bring Skippy into this..

All I'll say is that most people will never understand today's (or yesterday's unions) for so many reasons. Biased opinions so they are

 

Taz...I appreciate your vigilance in defending unions. But I fought this fight, more times than I can count and most won't listen or just don't understand. Take a break, Brother, virtually no one here will ever understand. Not worth the wear and tear on the fingers.

 

Yall go right ahead and bash unions all you want. Us union people know it's mostly out of jealousy (or ignorance) you spew your anti-union crap. Whatever makes yall happy.

Peace to all.

rr26

[gbpfan1231]

Jeezze.. I'd like to get into this fray, but I WILL NOT! I've said my piece many times to mostly dead ears.

My Huddle Buddy Aqua would be right behind me (as would Skippy), but we'll let Aqua RIP and not bring Skippy into this..

All I'll say is that most people will never understand today's (or yesterday's unions) for so many reasons. Biased opinions so they are

 

Taz...I appreciate your vigilance in defending unions. But I fought this fight, more times than I can count and most won't listen or just don't understand. Take a break, Brother, virtually no one here will ever understand. Not worth the wear and tear on the fingers.

 

Yall go right ahead and bash unions all you want. Us union people know it's mostly out of jealousy (or ignorance) you spew your anti-union crap. Whatever makes yall happy.

Peace to all.

rr26

No bias here.

[tazinib1]

Just wait until those hookers unionize. Higher costs, better working conditions for them, but not so good for us as they try to hang on untill an age where they can get a full pension. Yuck.

 

[tazinib1]

Taz...I appreciate your vigilance in defending unions. But I fought this fight, more times than I can count and most won't listen or just don't understand. Take a break, Brother, virtually no one here will ever understand. Not worth the wear and tear on the fingers.

 

 

To tell you the truth, I could really give a rats ass if they don't understand. But I do appreciate the few that try. I met my goal and I'm reaping the benefits..literally. Life is good....and these damn new teeth hurt like the Dickens.

Edited August 18, 2011 by tazinib1

[wiegie]

Just wait until those hookers unionize. Higher costs, better working conditions for them, but not so good for us as they try to hang on untill an age where they can get a full pension. Yuck.

Life is good....and these new teeth hurt the Dicks.

f'ing unions... they take a perfectly good $5 BJ from a 20-something toothless meth whore and turn it into one costing $23.50 that you have to get from a 57 year-old skank with brand new sharp teeth

 

Edited August 18, 2011 by wiegie

[Pope Flick]

I'm still processing the information. My mind may be closed on this, though it is hard to ignore the fact that for you Union membership seems to have paid off with a tripling of salary and increased benefits while apparently not driving the industry wholly, or perhaps even mostly, from the country.

 

 

A big chunk of film production has left LA for Canada and other states. Some of that is dues to union costs, some to very competitive tax rates/breaks compared to Cali but the industry has taken a hit in the last decade plus.

[Lady.hawke]

I could not care less about private unions. If they have a charter that distributes profits fairly - all the best to them. Should they be publicly traded, I would not invest there - but I get to make that decision

 

The current problem lies with the public sector unions, that even Roosevelt thought was a bad idea. Public employees create nothing. All they do is deliver a service, hopefully some of them care about that. They have a deal that the the rest of us will pay them a great pension for as long as they live; something no one in the private sector can hope to receive. We are at the tipping point now, that there are more of them than private taxpayers. Indeed, more than 50% of the citizens of the US pay no taxes at all.

 

I wonder if they teach math in math class anymore. None of this is sustainable and I fear that the United States will economically fail.

[borge007]

No bias here.

No bias here.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

A big chunk of film production has left LA for Canada and other states. Some of that is dues to union costs, some to very competitive tax rates/breaks compared to Cali but the industry has taken a hit in the last decade plus.

 

 

I believe that is acknowledged in my post when I wrote "wholly or even mostly". Also film production is only a portion of overall productions. Lots of T.V., video's, Industry training films and commercials.

 

I was just acknowledging that I could see why he was an enthusiastic backer of his union.

[WaterMan]

So history will go something like: America went into the industrial revolution. Then the corporations got greedy. Then unions were formed to fight for workers rights. Then the unions got greedy. Then America's economy failed.

[gbpfan1231]

No bias here.

I would agree I probably am a bit biased and I would not say otherwise - Robin blamed bias when it is obvious that he is also.

 

I am a firm believer that people are on the side of unions mainly because it benefits them personally. In the case of public unions - when it benefits them personally it affects a ton of others negatively.

 

I forget the the school system right now but because of collective bargaining they were enititled to 10-15 sick days per year and allowed to carry them forward. So if they took a sick day then the taxpayer paid for a substitute and we basically paid for two teachers that day. 10-15 days - is that not a bit extreme? Do the people who got the 15 days like it? Of course they do - who pays for it?

Edited August 18, 2011 by gbpfan1231

[caddyman]

I would agree I probably am a bit biased and I would not say otherwise - Robin blamed bias when it is obvious that he is also.

 

I am a firm believer that people are on the side of unions mainly because it benefits them personally. In the case of public unions - when it benefits them personally it affects a ton of others negatively.

 

I forget the the school system right now but because of collective bargaining they were enititled to 10-15 sick days per year and allowed to carry them forward. So if they took a sick day then the taxpayer paid for a substitute and we basically paid for two teachers that day. 10-15 days - is that not a bit extreme? Do the people who got the 15 days like it? Of course they do - who pays for it?

It is pretty obvious that RR could care less how things negatively affect the people THAT PAY HIS SALARY AND PAY FOR HIS BENEFITS. As long as he and his union thug brethren get theirs...he could care less. Of course he acts like we are the ones that won't hear his side of the story. What a joke. Unions are more narrow minded than any of their opponents could possibly be. I just would like to be there when the pot runs dry and hear what they say to each other. Because some day soon...real soon...the pot is going to run dry...then what? There is only so much money to continue to coddle these people.

[cliaz]

So history will go something like: America went into the industrial revolution. Then the corporations got greedy. Then unions were formed to fight for workers rights. Then the unions got greedy. Then America's economy failed.

 

Surprisingly, I think that is an interesting statement, water.

[Big Country]

Out of curiosity, what do you do now for $37 an hour plus full benefits that you didn't do for $12 hour? Serious question, as it seems like a major disparity if the work being done is the same.

 

 

It is the same. In fact, it gets even easier when you are on a union gig. I do lighting for movie/television..thought you knew that. On a union gig (not all but a majority, depending on budget) the electric crew is almost triple that of what independent movie has. And yes it is a major disparity. It takes the average crew member 5 years to gain the contacts/experience to make union. Some do it faster, others longer. I did it in 3 (worked 2 years as a Production Assistant..so technically 5 but only 3 in my specialty). Until then, you work on low budget independent movies/pilots/commercials/music videos etc etc. where you are making $150 a day on average. Working with maybe 3 guys in your department. You pay your dues to get that opportunity to work on a union show, get your 30 days needed to qualify for whatever union you are going into, pay your HUGH union dues to officially join (mine was $6k) and you get the pleasure of tripling what you made previously. With full ride benefits and retirement package to boot. Its everyone's goal that starts out in this business to make union. There are a few, however, that love the independent circuit and will never go union. I love the independent circuit as well, but I also like to pay my bills, eat and pay for hookers...errrrr..wait.

 

I knew what you did, and now another serious question, not intended to bag on you personally, but just a question in general.

 

If you perormed the same work at the same caliber of quality for $12/hour that you now do for $37/hour, for what reason should studios etc. pay triple the labor cost to receive the same level of product/service. Just doesn't seem to make much sense to me from a business perspective.

 

I guess this is what I am not understanding. As you said in a previous post, yes, you put in your time and you got yours, but if you are performing the same work, and, as you say, it is actually even easier, then why would/should a studio use you at a cost of $37/hour instead of non-union labor that is providing the same level of service for $12/hour?

[tazinib1]

I knew what you did, and now another serious question, not intended to bag on you personally, but just a question in general.

 

If you perormed the same work at the same caliber of quality for $12/hour that you now do for $37/hour, for what reason should studios etc. pay triple the labor cost to receive the same level of product/service. Just doesn't seem to make much sense to me from a business perspective.

 

I guess this is what I am not understanding. As you said in a previous post, yes, you put in your time and you got yours, but if you are performing the same work, and, as you say, it is actually even easier, then why would/should a studio use you at a cost of $37/hour instead of non-union labor that is providing the same level of service for $12/hour?

 

Most big budget are produced by major studios. They are inherently union themselves.

 

The level of production increases dramatically on a union movie. So would you pay the extra 10 million being a studio for a crew of trained, seasoned professionals, or go the independent route and get what you pay for. Trust me...the difference, from my experience, has been dramatic. Other than that, I can't give you a real answer lol.

[Big Country]

Most big budget are produced by major studios. They are inherently union themselves.

 

The level of production increases dramatically on a union movie. So would you pay the extra 10 million being a studio for a crew of trained, seasoned professionals, or go the independent route and get what you pay for. Trust me...the difference, from my experience, has been dramatic. Other than that, I can't give you a real answer lol.

 

 

I guess my issue with this is that earlier on you just said there was no difference in the level of the work you did.

 

Now, if it were something like in order to be in the union you had to have passed some set of certifications, had x amount of time as an "apprentice" to a union certified guy, etc., essentially a certification/license, then I could see the justification for the increased cost to essentially get "certified" labor, but to me that would be more a trade association or licensing board as oppossed to a need for a union.

 

Maybe those are all requirements for acceptance into the union.

[tazinib1]

I guess my issue with this is that earlier on you just said there was no difference in the level of the work you did.

 

Now, if it were something like in order to be in the union you had to have passed some set of certifications, had x amount of time as an "apprentice" to a union certified guy, etc., essentially a certification/license, then I could see the justification for the increased cost to essentially get "certified" labor, but to me that would be more a trade association or licensing board as oppossed to a need for a union.

 

Maybe those are all requirements for acceptance into the union.

 

There was no difference in the level of work I did. Not tooting my own horn, but I was pretty good, pretty fast. My first union gig I was the Best Boy Electric. That speaks volumes as I was a pay grade higher than guys that were union 4,6,8years already.

 

Basically, Hollywood is old school. You have to pay your dues in this business. It doesn't matter how good you are at times. It's who you know or what show you worked on that flipped union. It's a catch 22. You can't join the union unless you've worked 30 days on a union show. But you can't work on a union show unless you are union. UNLESS...you happen to luck out and get on a movie that flips or you do what is called "permit days". But permit days are tricky as well as they are seasonal and if you don't acquire 30 days within a calender year, you lose them and have to start over.

[rocknrobn26]

I would agree I probably am a bit biased and I would not say otherwise - Robin blamed bias when it is obvious that he is also.

 

I am a firm believer that people are on the side of unions mainly because it benefits them personally. In the case of public unions - when it benefits them personally it affects a ton of others negatively.

 

I forget the the school system right now but because of collective bargaining they were enititled to 10-15 sick days per year and allowed to carry them forward. So if they took a sick day then the taxpayer paid for a substitute and we basically paid for two teachers that day. 10-15 days - is that not a bit extreme? Do the people who got the 15 days like it? Of course they do - who pays for it?

 

Of course I am, I said/admitted to it many times especially when I think it was D3 that called my attention to it, but I do see it 2 ways:

If there's a union available at your place of work...Join it!

If there is NO union at your place of work...Organize one!

I've done both.

Edited August 19, 2011 by rocknrobn26

[cliaz]

Yall go right ahead and bash unions all you want. Us union people know it's mostly out of jealousy (or ignorance) you spew your anti-union crap. Whatever makes yall happy.

Peace to all.

rr26

 

Couldn't be more wrong. And for the record, I've been in 4 unions, one being the teamsters, and they were crap. They make the employee base dependent on a group of people that keep wages on a scale, controlling the fact that you could be the most hardest working, sterling employee ever but no matter what, Johny Smith the so-so worker with the same time in as you and a clean work record will make roughly the same. How is that even remotely close to being a good thing for you? A vast majority of union do nothing more than control you for their own gain.

 

My career I made for myself. I'll put my HR department up again any union any day of the week, and I speak first hand on this because every time i went to my union about an issue, it was a political game or fudging of the numbers and nothing ever got done about my issues. I went to my HR department about an issue, resolved in a week (and each instance was for a manager doing something to employees and not low level crap either). If I were in the same position I am in now with the same years in service but in the union side of my company I would be making close to 38k less, wouldn't have bonuses and stock options, would have less benefit (We have the same health coverage but our dental and eye is better) and, because of the years in service i wouldn't have qualified for a pension, I would have a lesser retirement options

 

Sorry, but you are dead wrong, there is nothing I am jealous about for not being in a union. I prefer to make my career what it is based on how I perform and truly earn what I am worth instead of being lumped in to pay scales.

[Ursa Majoris]

Not sure if this place is unionized but I doubt it:

 

Hundreds of foreign students on a State Department cultural exchange visa program walked off their factory jobs in protest on Wednesday.

 

The J-1 visa program brings foreign students to the country to work for two months and learn English, and was designed in part to fill seasonal tourism jobs at resorts and seaside towns. The 400 students employed at a Pennsylvania factory that packages Hershey's candies told The New York Times that even though they make $8.35 an hour, their rent and program fees are deducted from their paychecks, leaving them with less money than they spent to get the visas and travel to the country in the first place.

 

Some of the students were assigned night shifts, and said they were pressured to work faster and faster on the factory lines.

 

Hershey's said they didn't hire the students when the Times asked:

 

A spokesman for Hershey's, Kirk Saville, said the chocolate company did not directly operate the Palmyra packing plant, which is managed by a company called Exel. A spokeswoman for Exel said it had found the student workers through another staffing company.

 

Last December, the AP revealed that federal immigration officials were investigating two human-trafficking abuse cases related to J-1 visas. Strip clubs openly solicited J-1 visa holders in job listings, and some foreign students told the AP they were forced into sexual slavery when their passports were confiscated by a ring of criminals. About 150,000 J-1 visas were given out in 2008. Businesses save about 8 percent by using a foreign worker because of Social Security and other taxes they do not have to pay.

 

So, here we are with umpteen million unemployed (entirely the fault of the government, specifically B. Obama, naturally) but this company chooses to bring in foreigners because they can avoid SS tax and fleece them while they're at it.

 

Less regulation is what we need because business will always do the right thing.