Should union membership be optional?
- Thread starter chopstic
- Start date
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Comparing the union to a home owners association is not a good comparison. The term "apples to oranges" comes to mind. Many neighborhoods enjoy higher property values without a home owners association breathing down their necks. How is this done? It's simple. Some people can take pride in their home, property, belongings, and respect their neighbors without being told how to do so. I believe in unions but have a very strong opinion (a very bad one) about homeowners associations. I only have a few issues with unions on of them is that they sometimes don't provide the adequate service that they are expected to. For this reason I don't think anyone should be forced to join. Plus, this is America right? No one should be forcing anyone to do anything.
Chopstic,
While its understandable for me to know why you dont understand, you must take the time to learn what the Union does for everyone. Rather than just simplify dues to you personally, you must understand WHAT the dues pay for.
First, let me be clear, if your position is an anti-union one, then I feel no respect for you. I have NO PROBLEM with a person coming to UPS, walking into human resources and asking for a job and making it clear that they dont want to belong in the union. That being said, I will also add that the person who does this would need to negotiate there own starting salary and benefit package and SHOULD NOT benefit from the others who contributed to the dues paying process which negotiated a current contract.
The individual should negotiate directly with UPS and establish starting pay, rasise schedules, vacations, sick time, paid for time, hours, pensions, health care and job security.
NO INDIVIDUAL who would enter a union shop and negotiate on their own behalf should ever benefit from the benefit of seniority. So, these individuals would be the first to be layed off.
I agree with you almost 100%. If someone should choose not to join the union they should have to negotiate their own agreement with UPS seperate from teamsters influence.
My only complaint is that I dont have the right to choose. And this is AMERICA, I should have the freedom to choose membership or not. Whether or not I would make less money, more money, less benifits or more benifits, it makes no difference. I should have the freedom to choose to my heart's desire whether I want to join a union. But I think we all know the teamsters would never allow that unless restricted by law to do so. ex. "right to work" states.
Just for clarification, you say my union dues are going for more than just negotiating and representing me in grievances. What else is there? And the bigger question, is it something I would want to pay for?
Whether or not I participate in union meetings makes no difference. I am PAYING MONEY for someone to negotiate for me. If they take my money then they should provide representation for me regardless of whether i am able to attend meetings.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Like I mentioned before, you always have the option to go to Fed Ex... same type of job and you dont have to worry about those pesky money grabbing union bums. I can get an application for you if you need one
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
You do have the freedom to choose. If you dont want to join a union, dont take a union job. It really is that simple. Over 80% of the jobs in this country are non-union, so there is no shortage of opportunities for those who disagree with unions...or are dissatisfied with the representation they are currently recieving....to vote with their feet.
Those who complain about being "forced" to support a union that negotiated industry-best wages and benefits on their behalf are simply mad because they cannot have their cake and eat it too.
You have every right to choose. You just dont work for a unionized company. This fact is upfront and in your face as you approach the door.
This is America, and if you dont want to work for a unionize company, then by all means, release yourself to the industry and work out your own benefit package.
Unfortunately, youre all talk and no walk.
You know all to well, that you couldnt earn the same money anywhere else, and now that you have taken the advantage of getting the job, you want to bite the hand the put it all together in the first place.
You as a part timer have NO concept of seniority or a full time career. Up till now, its beer money, girls and weekends. Should you be lucky enough to make a career out of UPS you will learn to respect the efforts and energies of all the teamsters nationwide who sacrificed for you so you can have the right to complain.
Guys like you believe that UPS would pay you the same benefit package and pay package without a union. This is where your argument goes down the toilet.
Even today, UPS has tried to reduce the pay for part timers, eliminate health care and prevent your ever becoming full time. And this with a UNION representing employees.
Save your "this is america" speech for your appearance on Hannity.
Like a poster stated in another post, FEDEX will hire guys like you, unfortunately, the'll turn you over in 90 days.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Like I mentioned earlier....someone posted a link to a site where you could view each local's expenditures. It was a couple of years ago. Wish I still had the link. When several of our drivers and I looked at ours we were shocked. They were spending money like it was growing on trees. And seeing the report after hearing the die hard union drivers preach about the locals not having enough money to provide more quality representation just blew our minds. Always saying it was because so many people in right to work states didn't pay dues. Not enough money? Yet, they seemed to have thousands and thousands of dollars laying around to spend on picnics, unneeded "upgrades" to the union hall (I know because I had seen them), and what not. Not enough money? Give me a break!
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
The Other Side;
Perhaps you don't realize it, but I'm sure there are many employees who would like nothing better than to negotiate their own contract. In saying that, I'm recognizing that people tend to forget that union contracts are negotiated with [at best] the "average" worker in mind...and the above average, who would likely receive more if he was allowed to negotiate on his own, is given short-shrift by the union. [Correspondingly, of course, the weak employee are protected - or, if truth be told, overly-protected - when the union negotiates for them, so I can readily understand why there are so many who fear the consequences of negotiating on their own]
I agree in part with your seniority statement, however, in that I don't believe those who negotiate their own contracts should be the beneficiaries of union seniority lists. On the other hand, I don't think they should be bound by them, either. If they are deemed to be the better employee for the job - regardless of seniority - then they should get it. That, of course, goes against organized labor's philosophy of considering each worker of equal value.....a philosphy which we're seeing the [bitter] fruits of already in the organized auto, steel, and transportation industries.
All that said, there's a group - the p/t'ers - at UPS, who have absolutely been killed by being under the union umbrella......especially the ambitious ones. There's not a doubt in my mind that they would be making much more in compensation WITHOUT union representation, albeit being a higher class of employee than the ones hired now who are waiting around for years to be promoted to full time.
Perhaps you don't realize it, but I'm sure there are many employees who would like nothing better than to negotiate their own contract. In saying that, I'm recognizing that people tend to forget that union contracts are negotiated with [at best] the "average" worker in mind...and the above average, who would likely receive more if he was allowed to negotiate on his own, is given short-shrift by the union. [Correspondingly, of course, the weak employee are protected - or, if truth be told, overly-protected - when the union negotiates for them, so I can readily understand why there are so many who fear the consequences of negotiating on their own]
I agree in part with your seniority statement, however, in that I don't believe those who negotiate their own contracts should be the beneficiaries of union seniority lists. On the other hand, I don't think they should be bound by them, either. If they are deemed to be the better employee for the job - regardless of seniority - then they should get it. That, of course, goes against organized labor's philosophy of considering each worker of equal value.....a philosphy which we're seeing the [bitter] fruits of already in the organized auto, steel, and transportation industries.
All that said, there's a group - the p/t'ers - at UPS, who have absolutely been killed by being under the union umbrella......especially the ambitious ones. There's not a doubt in my mind that they would be making much more in compensation WITHOUT union representation, albeit being a higher class of employee than the ones hired now who are waiting around for years to be promoted to full time.
Union annual financial reports (Form-LM-2) from 2000 to 2008 are here . . .
http://kcerds.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgQry.do
To see a list of all Teamster Locals, Joint Councils, and the International, just select IBT -Teamsters from the Union Name drop-down list, and hit "Submit."
takemoreboy
New Member
I have worked both sides of the fence. Believe me, I would choose a union every time. In a non union situation, there are so many deals that are cut between management and regular employees that are blatant violations of favoritism. It usually turns out that the deals that are agreed upon, they always seem to benefit the slugs at the expense of the hard working employee. The slugs make these deals to make their jobs easier. The people that work around these screw offs usually end up doing more, while the slugs end up doing less.
And another thing. I always hear anti-union people claim that the union protects the losers. Well in the non-union company I worked at, the losers were protected even more then at any union company I ever worked at. It was ridiculous.
Plain and simple, a union provides you with third party representation should you need it. At a non-union company, it is you against the world.
And another thing. I always hear anti-union people claim that the union protects the losers. Well in the non-union company I worked at, the losers were protected even more then at any union company I ever worked at. It was ridiculous.
Plain and simple, a union provides you with third party representation should you need it. At a non-union company, it is you against the world.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
takemoreboy;
Given history, I'd say the most significant aspect of union representation is that eventually one is represented out of his/her job. I could point to the steel, maritime, and auto industries, etc....but don't think I need to go any further than the close-at-hand Teamsters union. Think for a second; in it's core industry - LTL NMF trucking - it has lost more than 90% (got that....90 percent!!!!) of it's members' jobs over the last couple/three decades (and saying nothing about the fact that - with YRCW's condition - it's on the verge of losing a lot of the remaining 10%). And this over a time when the industry itself was expanding exponentially.
In that sense, unions don't protect "the losers"; the fact is, they don't seem to protect anybody anymore. Instead, the overwhelming evidence is that they simply cost workers job opportunities.
"Yes", UPS has been the exception. But, in case no one noticed, UPS is no longer primarily a Teamster-organized (or union, for that matter) company anymore. Nor are it's growing profit centers; I.e. - UPS has hung tough in spite of the union by growing overseas, etc. The $64,000 question is just how long it can be successful in doing so....and the jury is still out on the answer.
I saw a post on another forum the other day, saying how the auto workers in the "southern", non-organized plants would be much happier working in one of the "northern" UAW-organized facilities. No doubt there's some truth to that statement...with the BIG consideration of the word "working". The fact is that the union jobs have disappeared, with literally hundreds of thousands of UAW members - by virtue of BEING UAW members - having lost their means of making a living. The domestic non-union auto industry, however, has grown by leaps and bounds, along with the jobs the industry provides. So a more apt question might be one of "Would you rather be an unemployed union member, or a working, wage-earning non-union employee".
Puts things in an entirely different perspective, to my mind.
Given history, I'd say the most significant aspect of union representation is that eventually one is represented out of his/her job. I could point to the steel, maritime, and auto industries, etc....but don't think I need to go any further than the close-at-hand Teamsters union. Think for a second; in it's core industry - LTL NMF trucking - it has lost more than 90% (got that....90 percent!!!!) of it's members' jobs over the last couple/three decades (and saying nothing about the fact that - with YRCW's condition - it's on the verge of losing a lot of the remaining 10%). And this over a time when the industry itself was expanding exponentially.
In that sense, unions don't protect "the losers"; the fact is, they don't seem to protect anybody anymore. Instead, the overwhelming evidence is that they simply cost workers job opportunities.
"Yes", UPS has been the exception. But, in case no one noticed, UPS is no longer primarily a Teamster-organized (or union, for that matter) company anymore. Nor are it's growing profit centers; I.e. - UPS has hung tough in spite of the union by growing overseas, etc. The $64,000 question is just how long it can be successful in doing so....and the jury is still out on the answer.
I saw a post on another forum the other day, saying how the auto workers in the "southern", non-organized plants would be much happier working in one of the "northern" UAW-organized facilities. No doubt there's some truth to that statement...with the BIG consideration of the word "working". The fact is that the union jobs have disappeared, with literally hundreds of thousands of UAW members - by virtue of BEING UAW members - having lost their means of making a living. The domestic non-union auto industry, however, has grown by leaps and bounds, along with the jobs the industry provides. So a more apt question might be one of "Would you rather be an unemployed union member, or a working, wage-earning non-union employee".
Puts things in an entirely different perspective, to my mind.
Coldworld
Well-Known Member
There are so many more union jobs than just the " shrinking ltl trucking industry"...its always the ltl or the car makers....come on open your mind.
Coldworld
Well-Known Member
one more thing...how many non-union trucking companies have gone out of business because of "other" reasons. In general, are there less or more trucking companies today, than there were 40 or 50 years ago..REGARDLESS OF UNION OR NON UNION????Does anyone have that answer?????
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
Coldworld;
Not absolutely sure about the number of companies relative to 40 years or so ago, but given the number of trucks running (and drivers operating them) which is vastly greater than 40 years ago, I would assume that the number of companies is greater as well.
In terms of the union, however, while there have been non-union companies go out of business as well, one only has to look at the relative number of union vs. non-union companies today compared to a quarter of century ago to see which ones were most likely to survive. I suggest taking a look at the "Lynch testimony"....
https://web.archive.org/web/2009110....house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=2864
...which contains a list of the 50 top operating freight carriers in 1979 and shows how many were still in business at the time of the testimony (2005....the list of union carriers has decreased since then as well). Not a pretty picture.
Obviously, when the number of those under the NMFA has gone from more than three quarters of a million to a tenth of that, it's the union drivers who have lost the most job opportunities...and jobs. No way avoiding that reality.
Not absolutely sure about the number of companies relative to 40 years or so ago, but given the number of trucks running (and drivers operating them) which is vastly greater than 40 years ago, I would assume that the number of companies is greater as well.
In terms of the union, however, while there have been non-union companies go out of business as well, one only has to look at the relative number of union vs. non-union companies today compared to a quarter of century ago to see which ones were most likely to survive. I suggest taking a look at the "Lynch testimony"....
https://web.archive.org/web/2009110....house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=2864
...which contains a list of the 50 top operating freight carriers in 1979 and shows how many were still in business at the time of the testimony (2005....the list of union carriers has decreased since then as well). Not a pretty picture.
Obviously, when the number of those under the NMFA has gone from more than three quarters of a million to a tenth of that, it's the union drivers who have lost the most job opportunities...and jobs. No way avoiding that reality.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
coldworld;
I think my mind is relatively open. And "yes", there ARE other jobs...predominately in areas in which layed-off Teamsters are unlikely to access, either for lack of training, or economic matching. But, even then, it's difficult to avoid the fact that the Teamsters have lost half their members (read that exactly; I said "members", and not those simply "represented", which is a somewhat higher figure), and thus half their members' jobs. Now if you take away the non-traditional, non-transportation jobs that the union has "organized" to replace them (sheet-changers, bedpan emptier's, etc) the figure is much, much greater. And tell me...how likely was it that one of the hundreds of thousands of Teamsters who was working in transportation was going to shift professions to one of those jobs as a nurse or an aid in a hospital, or make a career change to support his family by making beds at the local Holiday Inn? Very likely you think?
Beyond that, even the small, non-trucking Teamster jobs have been disappearing lately...often simply because the companies that provided them can no longer sustain the remarkable underfunding liability imposed upon them by the Teamster pension funds (such underfunding also a function of the Teamsters inability to maintain employment of it's members...a vicious cycle). Every month ones reads of a car dealership that employed Teamster mechanics, or a lumber yard that employed Teamster delivery drivers, going out of business because their owners saw the economic handwriting on the wall in terms of the union's pension liability ("yes", usually Central States, but others as well). Look at the ongoing Twin Cities newspaper drama for a current example.
Bottom line? ANY reasonable way you look at it. the Teamsters union has cost its members literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of decent jobs...and replaced them only PARTIALLY (VERY "partially") with much less viable and/or accessible ones. The one exception? UPS. But, again, UPS is becoming less and less "Teamster" every year, and that company's viability is running very much against the Teamster grain. And it's also under intense competive pressure from the likes of unorganized competition like FDX. Are the Teamsters helping to preserve this core employer? I don't know...but one gains an impression from reading posts from Teamsters here and elsewhere.
With all that "in mind", I'd suggest that I already have an "open mind"...and that those who ignore reality might have the closed one. Of course, I'm more than willing the listen to arguments as to how the Teamsters have enhanced OVERALL the prospects of its members over the last several decades......fully aware that it has to be a difficult argument to make without snickering.
I think my mind is relatively open. And "yes", there ARE other jobs...predominately in areas in which layed-off Teamsters are unlikely to access, either for lack of training, or economic matching. But, even then, it's difficult to avoid the fact that the Teamsters have lost half their members (read that exactly; I said "members", and not those simply "represented", which is a somewhat higher figure), and thus half their members' jobs. Now if you take away the non-traditional, non-transportation jobs that the union has "organized" to replace them (sheet-changers, bedpan emptier's, etc) the figure is much, much greater. And tell me...how likely was it that one of the hundreds of thousands of Teamsters who was working in transportation was going to shift professions to one of those jobs as a nurse or an aid in a hospital, or make a career change to support his family by making beds at the local Holiday Inn? Very likely you think?
Beyond that, even the small, non-trucking Teamster jobs have been disappearing lately...often simply because the companies that provided them can no longer sustain the remarkable underfunding liability imposed upon them by the Teamster pension funds (such underfunding also a function of the Teamsters inability to maintain employment of it's members...a vicious cycle). Every month ones reads of a car dealership that employed Teamster mechanics, or a lumber yard that employed Teamster delivery drivers, going out of business because their owners saw the economic handwriting on the wall in terms of the union's pension liability ("yes", usually Central States, but others as well). Look at the ongoing Twin Cities newspaper drama for a current example.
Bottom line? ANY reasonable way you look at it. the Teamsters union has cost its members literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of decent jobs...and replaced them only PARTIALLY (VERY "partially") with much less viable and/or accessible ones. The one exception? UPS. But, again, UPS is becoming less and less "Teamster" every year, and that company's viability is running very much against the Teamster grain. And it's also under intense competive pressure from the likes of unorganized competition like FDX. Are the Teamsters helping to preserve this core employer? I don't know...but one gains an impression from reading posts from Teamsters here and elsewhere.
With all that "in mind", I'd suggest that I already have an "open mind"...and that those who ignore reality might have the closed one. Of course, I'm more than willing the listen to arguments as to how the Teamsters have enhanced OVERALL the prospects of its members over the last several decades......fully aware that it has to be a difficult argument to make without snickering.
JimJimmyJames
Big Time Feeder Driver
Unionism did not decline in the trucking industry because the average worker thought that his union job was not sufficient and instead ran to a non-union company for a better deal.
Deregulation is what transformed the trucking industry.
Can we at least be honest with ourselves and agree that if you are respresented by a union, you will probably make more and have better benefits than your non-union counterpart?
PobreCarlos, I just had to add this here, I don't wish to get in another intractable conversation.
I will always believe that as long as business are allowed to use the fiction that a corporation has personhood, workers must be allowed to join a union to make their voices one.
Deregulation is what transformed the trucking industry.
Can we at least be honest with ourselves and agree that if you are respresented by a union, you will probably make more and have better benefits than your non-union counterpart?
PobreCarlos, I just had to add this here, I don't wish to get in another intractable conversation.
I will always believe that as long as business are allowed to use the fiction that a corporation has personhood, workers must be allowed to join a union to make their voices one.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
Jim;
Sorry, I can't buy even that. "Regulation" was essentially a welfare program that favored a union and a few privileged companies...and was an abomination in the way it suppressed competition and royally screwed-over the American consumer. It simply couldn't exist much longer than it did....and that it existed as LONG as it did is surprising in retrospect.
That said, the union-organized companies actually had an advantage with the onslaught of "de-reg"; their capital was already in place. All the had to do was be somewhat competitive with all the "new" companies that needed to get their ducks in a row before beginning operations. The union, however, kept them from doing that...again, with the solid exception of UPS. UPS, BTW, was the one "union" company which had the most to lose under de-regulation, in that it had the widest operating authorities/tariff rights - rights that much blood, sweat, and tears went into obtaining - of any company then in existence. The value of those operating authorities went to nothing the instant regulation went by the wayside.
As for your assertion that....
"Can we at least be honest with ourselves and agree that if you are represented by a union, you will probably make more and have better benefits than your non-union counterpart?"
....I have to say that one would be completely DIS-honest in making such an assertion....unless you're limiting it to that minority who are represented and who still RETAIN a job. Bear in mind, the majority of "represented by the Teamsters" individuals LOST their jobs...and thus make nothing and receive no benefits - besides a POSSIBLE pension payout (and even that is looking a little remote) from that representation. whatsoever,
Not trying to go hyperbolic here; just stating the facts as they are. The point is that, if you were a Teamster over the last three decades, it was likely that you would lose your job....at a time when employment in the industry the Teamsters primarily concerned themselves with was growing by leaps and bounds.
Lastly, I have nothing against workers joining unions; I think their freedom to do so should be unlimited. However, I do NOT think they should be absolved of the consequences of such membership....meaning that they shouldn't be insulated from employer reactions to their joining. Too many unions - and union members - today seem to expect an organizational "free lunch", in which they are absolved from the consequences of any actions they care to take. Unfortunately - as we've seen with the steelworkers, autoworkers, grocers, and transportation unions (and what they've done to job opportunities in this country), life just doesn't work that way.
Sorry, I can't buy even that. "Regulation" was essentially a welfare program that favored a union and a few privileged companies...and was an abomination in the way it suppressed competition and royally screwed-over the American consumer. It simply couldn't exist much longer than it did....and that it existed as LONG as it did is surprising in retrospect.
That said, the union-organized companies actually had an advantage with the onslaught of "de-reg"; their capital was already in place. All the had to do was be somewhat competitive with all the "new" companies that needed to get their ducks in a row before beginning operations. The union, however, kept them from doing that...again, with the solid exception of UPS. UPS, BTW, was the one "union" company which had the most to lose under de-regulation, in that it had the widest operating authorities/tariff rights - rights that much blood, sweat, and tears went into obtaining - of any company then in existence. The value of those operating authorities went to nothing the instant regulation went by the wayside.
As for your assertion that....
"Can we at least be honest with ourselves and agree that if you are represented by a union, you will probably make more and have better benefits than your non-union counterpart?"
....I have to say that one would be completely DIS-honest in making such an assertion....unless you're limiting it to that minority who are represented and who still RETAIN a job. Bear in mind, the majority of "represented by the Teamsters" individuals LOST their jobs...and thus make nothing and receive no benefits - besides a POSSIBLE pension payout (and even that is looking a little remote) from that representation. whatsoever,
Not trying to go hyperbolic here; just stating the facts as they are. The point is that, if you were a Teamster over the last three decades, it was likely that you would lose your job....at a time when employment in the industry the Teamsters primarily concerned themselves with was growing by leaps and bounds.
Lastly, I have nothing against workers joining unions; I think their freedom to do so should be unlimited. However, I do NOT think they should be absolved of the consequences of such membership....meaning that they shouldn't be insulated from employer reactions to their joining. Too many unions - and union members - today seem to expect an organizational "free lunch", in which they are absolved from the consequences of any actions they care to take. Unfortunately - as we've seen with the steelworkers, autoworkers, grocers, and transportation unions (and what they've done to job opportunities in this country), life just doesn't work that way.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Similar threads
