News Wisconsin labor protests it's like Cairo has moved to Madison these days

[Andy Resnick]

Taking the points in order:
$10 per year!. My union membership is £20 per MONTH.

It is what it is- like I said, I could opt out if I so choose, but there's no clear benefit to doing so. Personally, I have no need for the union.

 

[mugaliens]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41664858/ns/us_news-life" ...

1. More citizens of Wisconsin than not elected their new governor and many Republican congressman to office, based on their platform promises for fiscal reform.

2. When fiscal reform begins, it's mostly those who did not elect them to office who are staging a revolt.

I'm sorry, but I have no symptathy for unionized folks who are making 30% to 100% more than non-unionized folks while their actions are resulting in the closures of entire schools. I fully support a Reagan/ATC measure which says, "Either be at your jobs on Monday morning, or your fired. Whatever time you've taken off thus far, or will take in the future will be counted to your leave/sick time. If you've taken off more than you were allowed, or in any other way do not do your job to the required level of performance, you will be subject to the consequences already on the books."

We still have WAY too many unemployed people here in the U.S.A. to put up with this sort of junk. I worked a job for more than 20 years where, if I'd have even conspired to pull this stuff, I wouldn't have just been without a job -- I'd have wound up in prison!

I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

 

[Gokul43201]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41664858/ns/us_news-life" ...

1. More citizens of Wisconsin than not elected their new governor and many Republican congressman to office, based on their platform promises for fiscal reform.

2. When fiscal reform begins, it's mostly those who did not elect them to office who are staging a revolt.

Can I say "duh?" This situation is the norm. Any Governor or President is typically elected by a majority. Obama was elected by a majority, mostly Democrats, and it was primarily Republicans who protested his actions. Why do you find this strange or interesting?

I'm sorry, but I have no symptathy for unionized folks who are making 30% to 100% more than non-unionized folks while their actions are resulting in the closures of entire schools. I fully support a Reagan/ATC measure which says, "Either be at your jobs on Monday morning, or your fired.

Where was this rage when the Tea Party protests across the country involved missing work on Thursday April 15, or Friday Nov 5, or during the week-long rally in March in DC?

Whatever time you've taken off thus far, or will take in the future will be counted to your leave/sick time.

Do you have any reason to believe that is not what's happening?

If you've taken off more than you were allowed, or in any other way do not do your job to the required level of performance, you will be subject to the consequences already on the books."

That sounds fair to me.

We still have WAY too many unemployed people here in the U.S.A. to put up with this sort of junk. I worked a job for more than 20 years where, if I'd have even conspired to pull this stuff, I wouldn't have just been without a job -- I'd have wound up in prison!

Some of us are glad we do not live in an authoritarian state.

 

[Evo]

I like teachers and they do something I would not do (work with children). And this is not about teachers, but about union workers in industry.

I have worked in a company that was crippled by a union and worked first as an occupational employee that saw the anti-company mind set.

I refused to join the union. I was constantly harrassed by union workers. I was pulled aside by union stewards and threatened. I was told that I was working too hard. I was told that the union had worked hard for years to convince the company that people could not do that much work and that I was undoing all of their hard work.

The union workers were scum, they called for grievance meetings constantly. They did as little work as was allowable. They figured the company would go on no matter how little they did. There were two sides to the office, the non-union people that worked and the worthless union people that didn't.

I remember in Texas being at dinner with a labor lawyer for one of the largest newspapers. He pointed out that non-union workers were higher paid because they got merit raises, union workers could only get raises based on their contract. Non union members had better benefits because the company valued them higher for being better workers.

When I became management, it was incredible, no more union limitations. I could make my own hours, get merit raises, bonuses, take time off as I saw fit. I found out what I had suspected all along, the union employees had "negotiated" time frames to do jobs. For example they claimed they needed 72 hours to review a work order. They would wait until the 71st hour then reject the job asking some ridiculous question that was already answered. You'd respond "look at line 52", then 71 hours later they'd respond "oh yeah". By this time the company that wanted the job is fuming and you lose them to a company that is non-union. Can't blame them. And these deadbeat union workers wonder why they are being asked to take cuts?

It is my personal experience that current day unions exist to protect the worthless.

 

[Al68]

But Freedom of Association works both ways: employees are free to associate with employers and each other or not as they see fit, and so are employers.

As long as it is fair on both sides.

Freedom of Association means I have the right to associate, or not, with whoever I want with no regard whatsoever to anyone's idea of fairness. If a right is limited to what others think is fair, it's not a right.

There is no right to job security?

Of course not, not naturally. Such an entitlement could be the result of a specific agreement or contract, but it obviously doesn't and logically can't exist a priori.

Yes, exactly. Far more than the phrase "collective bargaining" generically means. And failure of an employer to agree to employee demands does not constitute violating their right to collectively negotiate for them. Neither would a refusal of an employer to negotiate at all. I have the right to negotiate for a lower price at a car lot, and refuse to buy (as leverage), but that right imposes no obligation on the car lot whatsoever.

I don't see how the right to car ownership is as important as the right to work, its an inadequate comparison IMO.

I wasn't making such a comparison. I made no mention of any right to either, I was referring to a right to negotiate one's own agreements, which applies to cars and jobs. Of course jobs are generally more important than cars, but the right of an individual to negotiate terms applies equally to both.

 

[cobalt124]

I have worked in a company that was crippled by a union and worked first as an occupational employee that saw the anti-company mind set.

I refused to join the union. I was constantly harrassed by union workers. I was pulled aside by union stewards and threatened. I was told that I was working too hard. I was told that the union had worked hard for years to convince the company that people could not do that much work and that I was undoing all of their hard work.

The union workers were scum, they called for grievance meetings constantly. They did as little work as was allowable. They figured the company would go on no matter how little they did. There were two sides to the office, the non-union people that worked and the worthless union people that didn't.

I remember in Texas being at dinner with a labor lawyer for one of the largest newspapers. He pointed out that non-union workers were higher paid because they got merit raises, union workers could only get raises based on their contract. Non union members had better benefits because the company valued them higher for being better workers.

When I became management, it was incredible, no more union limitations. I could make my own hours, get merit raises, bonuses, take time off as I saw fit. I found out what I had suspected all along, the union employees had "negotiated" time frames to do jobs. For example they claimed they needed 72 hours to review a work order. They would wait until the 71st hour then reject the job asking some ridiculous question that was already answered. You'd respond "look at line 52", then 71 hours later they'd respond "oh yeah". By this time the company that wanted the job is fuming and you lose them to a company that is non-union. Can't blame them. And these deadbeat union workers wonder why they are being asked to take cuts?

It is my personal experience that current day unions exist to protect the worthless.

That is certainly unions at their worst. From my own perpective, any workplace situation that makes a job in management look good is a true nightmare. On reading your post, the first thing I thought was "this is like a throwback to union relations in the U.K. in the 1950's". Then my second thought was of the following film from that time, which, having never experienced the situation you describe, I always saw as an extreme caricature, and very funny. Having watched a bit just now, and read your post, it seems frighteningly accurate and I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

 

[Gokul43201]

This protest really sucks. So far, casualties of the protest have been the Madison Winter-Fest (mostly canceled) and the Polar Plunge (lukewarm turnout). Ugh!

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, it appears that some firefighters have joined the protests, and doctors have set up shop to write 'notes' to excuse teachers. I don't think the AMA is going to look kindly on that, but it's still quite the statement.

 

[dlgoff]

I like teachers and they do something I would not do (work with children). And this is not about teachers, but about union workers in industry.

I have worked in a company that was crippled by a union and worked first as an occupational employee that saw the anti-company mind set.

I refused to join the union. I was constantly harrassed by union workers. I was pulled aside by union stewards and threatened. I was told that I was working too hard. I was told that the union had worked hard for years to convince the company that people could not do that much work and that I was undoing all of their hard work.

The union workers were scum, they called for grievance meetings constantly. They did as little work as was allowable. They figured the company would go on no matter how little they did. There were two sides to the office, the non-union people that worked and the worthless union people that didn't.

I'm totally with you here Evo. Unions are one thing but I've yet to see hard working union workers. BTW I'm retired and have "seen it all" and have never been a union member.

 

[nismaratwork]

How can you have "seen it all", if your entire experience didn't include being a member of a union? I've never been part of a union, so I wouldn't include that in my experience. You would seem to have actually disqualified yourself from an accurate view.

 

[dlgoff]

How can you have "seen it all", if your entire experience didn't include being a member of a union? I've never been part of a union, so I wouldn't include that in my experience. You would seem to have actually disqualified yourself from an accurate view.

I've had many friends who were union members, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Besides, while working for the State of Kansas, a Union was taking credit for raises when they weren't even recognized as such. Don't lecture me on unions. How old are you?

There was a time for unions, but not now.

 

[nismaratwork]

I've had many friends who were union members, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Besides, while working for the State of Kansas, a Union was taking credit for raises when they weren't even recognized as such. Don't lecture me on unions. How old are you?

There was a time for unions, but not now.

Whoa... I'm not lecturing you, I'm challenging your credentials; there's a difference. If you want to make such a broad set of statements claiming experience, it behooves you to share that experience... otherwise you're just making an appeal to your own authority.

It's nothing personal, but if you can find where I've lectured you, I'll be happy to apologize. Would it make you feel better if you called me "sonny"?

 

[dlgoff]

Well lecture might have been a little strong.

Examples? I live withing a couple of mile of the Union Pacific rail line (two line shipping coal to the east). I see these workers all the time working on the line. Six men with shovels. Five using them to lean on while only one works. Do you need more examples?

Do you think we need these:

"[URL of Unions and Associations
with Exclusive Recognition
in the Federal Service
January 2004 [/URL]

 

[turbo]

Hey, Nismar. I was the very first person in the history of Scott Paper company to transition from a salaried non-unionized position (process chemist) to an hourly unionized position (machine-tender on the world's most advanced high-speed coated paper machine). The resistance from HR was incredible, but I wanted that experience and the money (I doubled my take-home). One of my best friends' father was president of the union, and he threw the support of that union behind me so that HR eventually relented, though not without throwing lots of barriers in my way.

I became my shift's shop steward, and became the paper machine crew's representative on the contract negotiation team. During negotiations, I grew to be very good friends with the mill's new production manager, and we spent many, many weekends together afterward running white-water rivers in canoes and kayaks. The nasty truth about demonizing unions and their members is that aside from during contract negotiations when they want to make "greedy" union workers look bad in the press, large companies are quite happy about having collective-bargaining contracts. Their wages, benefits, pensions, work rules, etc, are all laid out for years in advance, giving them stability and a sense of certainty throughout the duration of the contract. I have been on both sides of that divide.

BTW, the work rules in our contract were not too permissive. Miss more than one day in a month without medical (or other) documentation? Verbal warning and a notation in your records. Miss another day in the next 90 days? Written warning and 3 days off without pay. Strike 3 and you're out. I mean fired with no chance of reinstatement. Our contract also stipulated that any shift could be held over for a double with no warning. Go into work a 12-hour shift, and get held over for a 24 because of a massive mechanical failure? Suck it up.

My brother-in-law used to rail against unions constantly, and say "nobody is worth that kind of money" regarding wages at the paper mill. I offered to recommend him for a job there, and his response was "no way I'd put up with that crap!" He knew that I often missed family outings, birthdays for the kids, etc, because of the shift-work, and that my wife had to cancel on our engagements for me when I was held over for double shifts. He was jealous of the good wages, but was unwilling to make the commitment necessary to earn them.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well lecture might have been a little strong.

Examples? I live withing a couple of mile of the Union Pacific rail line (two line shipping coal to the east). I see these workers all the time working on the line. Six men with shovels. Five using them to lean on while only one works. Do you need more examples?

Do you think we need these:

"[URL of Unions and Associations
with Exclusive Recognition
in the Federal Service
January 2004 [/URL]

I'm familiar with that, and to share my own experience, the only union folks I knew were postal workers. I've never been so afraid of a group in my LIFE... one of the guys smoked CRACK in the rafters in front of supervisors! I didn't work there, just visiting once with a friend, and it was absurd. I'm also intimately familiar over a couple generations with sanitation and food service unions, both of which seem to be criminal bastions.

So... no, I'm not challenging your content... I'm basically asking for more. I don't consider my own anecdotal experiences, however powerful, to be justification for me to damn unions, or praise them. I would also have to guess that unions are very much a product of just what is being unionized. I know I can't generalize from postal workers to police officers, but I also know of some pretty wretched cops. I know more good ones however, and they're not fleecing the system.

So, I'm very doubtlful of declaritive statements based on personal experience by nature, even if I agree with them... especially if I agree with them actually, becuase I WANT to believe.

So yes I find your personal experience interesting, but to bulk it up I need... bulk!

For what you've listed, I'll read through it, and respond once I have an actual answer, because right now I don't. I hope that you understand, this isn't about some particular doubt about you, it's just what I consider to be good process.

 

[Proton Soup]

an old friend of mine was a union worker in the oil industry. he seemed to think that thai elbow boxing had some interesting features that enhanced negotiation.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hey, Nismar. I was the very first person in the history of Scott Paper company to transition from a salaried non-unionized position (process chemist) to an hourly unionized position (machine-tender on the world's most advanced high-speed coated paper machine). The resistance from HR was incredible, but I wanted that experience and the money (I doubled my take-home). One of my best friends' father was president of the union, and he threw the support of that union behind me so that HR eventually relented, though not without throwing lots of barriers in my way.

I became my shift's shop steward, and became the paper machine crew's representative on the contract negotiation team. During negotiations, I grew to be very good friends with the mill's new production manager, and we spent many, many weekends together afterward running white-water rivers in canoes and kayaks. The nasty truth about demonizing unions and their members is that aside from during contract negotiations when they want to make "greedy" union workers look bad in the press, large companies are quite happy about having collective-bargaining contracts. Their wages, benefits, pensions, work rules, etc, are all laid out for years in advance, giving them stability and a sense of certainty throughout the duration of the contract. I have been on both sides of that divide.

BTW, the work rules in our contract were not too permissive. Miss more than one day in a month without medical (or other) documentation? Verbal warning and a notation in your records. Miss another day in the next 90 days? Written warning and 3 days off without pay. Strike 3 and you're out. I mean fired with no chance of reinstatement. Our contract also stipulated that any shift could be held over for a double with no warning. Go into work a 12-hour shift, and get held over for a 24 because of a massive mechanical failure? Suck it up.

My brother-in-law used to rail against unions constantly, and say "nobody is worth that kind of money" regarding wages at the paper mill. I offered to recommend him for a job there, and his response was "no way I'd put up with that crap!" He knew that I often missed family outings, birthdays for the kids, etc, because of the shift-work, and that my wife had to cancel our on engagements for me when I was held over for double shifts. He was jealous of the good wages, but was unwilling to make the commitment necessary to earn them.

See... this is what I mean: I don't doubt your experience either, so what does that leave me with?

My conclusion: Unions are like virtually any other organization, and being portrayed as universally lazy is unjustified. I'd also add, some unions were/are fronts for organized crime, and that taints matters. Yet... criminal or irresponsible acts by corporations don't seem to smear other companies the same way.

I've never had that kind of personal experience, but that just speaks to my point of view, and not reality.

 

[dlgoff]

So... no, I'm not challenging your content... I'm basically asking for more. I don't consider my own anecdotal experiences, however powerful, to be justification for me to damn unions, or praise them. I would also have to guess that unions are very much a product of just what is being unionized. I know I can't generalize from postal workers to police officers, but I also know of some pretty wretched cops. I know more good ones however, and they're not fleecing the system.

So, I'm very doubtlful of declaritive statements based on personal experience by nature, even if I agree with them... especially if I agree with them actually, becuase I WANT to believe.

So yes I find your personal experience interesting, but to bulk it up I need... bulk!

For what you've listed, I'll read through it, and respond once I have an actual answer, because right now I don't. I hope that you understand, this isn't about some particular doubt about you, it's just what I consider to be good process.

Oh there's no problem without discussion. As a mater of fact, when it comes to politics, I'm not qualified one bit.

But since you mentioned police, I'll relay what my CPA mentioned just last week.

He said he did a return for a county sheriff (no names of course) but he informed me his income was over $100K. Do you know the qualifications to become a cop? A high school education. Do Engineers start out that good? Just saying.

 

[turbo]

See... this is what I mean: I don't doubt your experience either, so what does that leave me with?

My conclusion: Unions are like virtually any other organization, and being portrayed as universally lazy is unjustified. I'd also add, some unions were/are fronts for organized crime, and that taints matters. Yet... criminal or irresponsible acts by corporations don't seem to smear other companies the same way.

I've never had that kind of personal experience, but that just speaks to my point of view, and not reality.

Before paper mills unionized, pulp and paper mills in Maine were about the most dangerous places to work. Also, the management was quite arbitrary and wages were very low. In fact, in the early-to-mid 1900s, these mill-jobs were often taken by immigrants who were willing to take a lot of risks and a lot of personal sacrifice to provide for their families. In some Maine towns there are multiple generations of Italians, Poles, French-Canadians, etc that are present just because these mill-jobs existed and most of the natives didn't want to take them.

 

[Gokul43201]

But since you mentioned police, I'll relay what my CPA mentioned just last week.

He said he did a return for a county sheriff (no names of course) but he informed me his income was over $100K. Do you know the qualifications to become a cop? A high school education. Do Engineers start out that good? Just saying.

Is County Sheriff a starting position? Are engineers likely to be shot at work?

I'm a physicist. Do you know the qualifications to become an engineer? A college degree.

 

[dlgoff]

Is County Sheriff a starting position?

Yep. I have a high school buddy who started straight out of HS.

As an EE in the field, 30 or 40 kvolts is worse than a gun shot.

 

[nismaratwork]

Before paper mills unionized, pulp and paper mills in Maine were about the most dangerous places to work. Also, the management was quite arbitrary and wages were very low. In fact, in the early-to-mid 1900s, these mill-jobs were often taken by immigrants who were willing to take a lot of risks and a lot of personal sacrifice to provide for their families. In some Maine towns there are multiple generations of Italians, Poles, French-Canadians, etc that are present just because these mill-jobs existed and most of the natives didn't want to take them.

See, this is what I was taught, and came to believe about the need for unions. Much as we can't say, "tear down all of the banks and corporations" because of corruption and bureaupathologies, I've always believed the same about unions. It seems obvious from history, and the historical resistance to unions that it's a powerful tool for workers.

Any tool can be misused, but I'm yet to see the unions at fault except in specific cases.

@dlgoff: It really depends on the scope of his duties. For one, he's at risk (as Gokul states) and not just due to accident; by definition he's dealing with alleged and convicted criminals. I can't find a relative risk assessment of EE vs. Police officer, but I'd agree that both strike me as a less than safe profession. The different to me is that you can take many precautions as an EE, to the point of utterly avoiding danger. A police officer NEVER has that option.

In addition, a county sheriff is a supervisory role which requires that you fulfill your duties... and not just a patrol. We're talking about mountains of paperwork, from the normal reports, to sorting through LT C's, lectures, and the joy that is testimony (and prep) in court. I'd add, while 100K USD is a nice check, what's the upward mobility there? As an EE, you could live in poverty, or become ridiculously wealthy in the extreme. If you're a Sheriff, that may be your paycheck ad infinitum, and in a job that is also psychologically stressful.

Still... 100K is a lot, but maybe the issue is how EE's are paid, not Sheriffs. That said, with no more info it's hard to make a judgement. When we're left with warring anecdotes on all sides, isn't it time to look to the scientific method for answers?

 

[Gokul43201]

Yep. I have a high school buddy who started straight out of HS.

Things must be very different in your county.

Here's the first page I found with a quick search, for the Summit County (OH) Sheriff's Office: http://www.co.summit.oh.us/sheriff/careers.htm

You need a high school degree
+ 676 hours of Basic Peace Officer Training Academy
+ 165 hours of Corrections Training Academy
+ pass a Civil Service Exam
+ pass an Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission State Examination
+ complete a 1-year probationary period working in the County Jail
and then you are eligible to serve as a Sheriff's Deputy with a starting salary of $35,000.

As an EE in the field, 30 or 40 kvolts is worse than a gun shot.

I also spent a few minutes looking up fatality rates by profession. Law enforcement/police always appeared in the top 20. I've yet to find a list that's long enough to include EE's.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/09/04/americas-most-dangerous-jobs/
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead-careers-cx_mk_0825danger.html

I don't think it's meaningful to use some random Sheriff's salary as an indictment of the union system. I believe there are much better arguments against the evils of unions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Things must be very different in your county.

Here's the first page I found with a quick search, for the Summit County (OH) Sheriff's Office: http://www.co.summit.oh.us/sheriff/careers.htm

You need a high school degree
+ 676 hours of Basic Peace Officer Training Academy
+ 165 hours of Corrections Training Academy
+ pass a Civil Service Exam
+ pass an Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission State Examination
+ complete a 1-year probationary period working in the County Jail
and then you are eligible to serve as a Sheriff's Deputy with a starting salary of $35,000.

I also spent a few minutes looking up fatality rates by profession. Law enforcement/police always appeared in the top 20. I've yet to find a list that's long enough to include EE's.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/09/04/americas-most-dangerous-jobs/
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead-careers-cx_mk_0825danger.html

I don't think it's meaningful to use some random Sheriff's salary as an indictment of the union system. I believe there are much better arguments against the evils of unions.

Now that's what I'm talking about... data, not our shared experiences and anecdotes. That is a LOT of training that I presume is not something you're paid for, and 35K to handle criminals in and out of court? I think I'd rather be a teacher in Wisconsin.

 

[turbo]

I don't think it's meaningful to use some random Sheriff's salary as an indictment of the union system. There are much better arguments against the evils of the unions.

In Maine, sheriffs are not getting rich. They hold elected positions (generally after a very long career in law-enforcement) and they are responsible for administration, budgeting, negotiating for funding with the county commissioners, and supervision of their deputies, including scheduling and HR issues. They are also responsible for overseeing the operation of the county jail, health-care for prisoners, transfer to other facilities, etc. It is a really big job. And here, it typically pays less than $50K

 

[Gokul43201]

I thought that was typical. I've never heard of anyone making County Sheriff straight out of High School.

 

[turbo]

I thought that was typical. I've never heard of anyone making County Sheriff straight out of High School.

Me either. Our county sheriff is pretty typical. Got elected to the position after retiring from 25 years as a Maine state trooper. He is one of the most decent people you'd ever want to meet, too. One day in the 80's (I was putting a combo together with another guitarist/singer at the time), my friend called me up in tears because he had been busted for operating under the influence and wouldn't be able to fulfill his commitments to me due to loss of license. I went to his place and tried to calm him down and see if we could work out some options, like him moving really close to me instead of 35 minutes away, so we could rehearse and travel together. There was a knock on the door and it was the arresting trooper checking into see if my friend was OK (small-towns here). As long as he wants to run for sheriff, he has my vote.

 

[nismaratwork]

I thought that was typical. I've never heard of anyone making County Sheriff straight out of High School.

He could have meant "Deputy Sheriff", but that's a hugely different job.

 

[dlgoff]

I don't think it's meaningful to use some random Sheriff's salary as an indictment of the union system. I believe there are much better arguments against the evils of unions.

You're right. I did say however:

As a mater of fact, when it comes to politics, I'm not qualified one bit.

touche

 

[dlgoff]

He could have meant "Deputy Sheriff", but that's a hugely different job.

Yea. You're probably right. He would have been a Deputy Sheriff. Sorry.