What happens if you don't join the union?

[SloppyJoes7]

I said: "But why am I Adamantly against unions?

Classy. Putting words in my mouth.

It's more than obvious you are closed minded and ignorant about Unions and a Union workplace, and I mean that as a statement of fact.

Unfounded ad-hominem attacks are even classier.

You have simply dodged this question.

I answered it twice. It's not my fault that you cannot even imagine your premise being wrong.
To reiterate, I consider your premise as faulty. That's the third time I've replied to the question.

The scoundrel will come to you as the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing, whispering with false pretenses to gain your confidence and hide his true motives.

I've given my motives twice. I told the truth. You are not a mind-reader.

This is key, though, and sums up how you think:
1) You think anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and/or stupid. You assume that they're uniformed idiots who simply "don't get" what the union is offering them and the benefits it provides. If they disagree, they don't actually disagree, they just don't understand.
2) You think anyone who disagrees with you is also malevolent. Evil intentioned. Selfish. You think nobody could actually have a rational disagreement.

So, who is really close-minded?

Then the time might come when Trophy Wife decides she'd be better off without you. You'll go hire a nice patient and humble lawyer. She'll hire a mean a- hole son of a bitch like me...

That sums it up.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

WalMart just announced that they will no longer be paying the $1/hr premium for working Sundays.

I worked for Wal-Mart too. They paid me more than UPS, by the way.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I worked for Wal-Mart too. They paid me more than UPS, by the way.

The health and dental plan alone is far more valuable than the $/hr. Trying to argue that point is not helping your case.

The bottom line is that yourself and crowbar are caught up in a semantics driven argument that I tried to explain earlier in the thread. If you are not a dues paying union member, your representation may vary if you ever have a problem.

Remember, a union rep is only there to be a fair impartial witness only making justifications by the terms and bounds of the contract agreement..

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Nothing wrong with that, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I am curious, though; what is your opinion based upon?... is it possible that your admitted bias against unions is getting in the way of an objective analysis of the facts?

As I briefly explained earlier, my position has to do with fair and free competition in business. Brilliance and hard work are rewarded, laziness and incompetence are punished. Unions tend to equalize everyone, making it more difficult to reward the extraordinary and punish the inefficient. In general, this makes companies less productive, and less efficient. As you can tell, my focus is efficiency. I think unions tend to make companies less efficient, thus less profitable, thus employees and owners make less.
I think the problem with unions was shown with GM and Chrysler, who recently failed. Utterly failed. They were bankrupt, and deep in debt. The promised pensions, benefits, and employment contracts were utterly unaffordable. This seems to be a trend with unions. Huge promises and payouts, which in the long term, prove to be unrealistic. In the case of some unions, those who get in early are paid for by the next generation. This is truly the case with GM and Chrysler. I also know it is the case with government workers and teacher's unions, (which have recently been bailed out in Colorado).

So, you're right, in that union members can consider themselves as benefiting. The union helps them. At what cost? By making others pay for their retirement. I would sacrifice these benefits, for the sake of efficiency and fairness. Because I consider efficiency more important than trying to benefit myself at the expense of others, on principle. And yet, anti-union people are the ones being accused of being selfish. How ironic.

Please note, I'm not addressing the UPS union directly. My opinion is based on GM, Chrysler, government, and teacher's unions. It is also a real problem with employers who offer defined benefits plans. I'm fine with 401k plans. (I've heard more examples, but these are the only ones I can remember right now. I've heard of several other companies had to cut back benefits to current employees, because the older/retired employees had massive retirement plans, which had to now be subsidized by current workers. That is, new hires got lower benefits AND had to pay for the benefits of others.)

I am going to play a hunch here, and say that your dislike of unions has less to do with any actual facts, and more to do with your desire to try and get out of paying the same union dues that your coworkers are. Am I wrong?

You are wrong.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

The health and dental plan alone is far more valuable than the $/hr. Trying to argue that point is not helping your case.

The bottom line is that yourself and crowbar are caught up in a semantics driven argument that I tried to explain earlier in the thread. If you are not a dues paying union member, your representation may vary if you ever have a problem.

Remember, a union rep is only there to be a fair impartial witness only making justifications by the terms and bounds of the contract agreement..

I didn't get benefits from either one. For Wal-Mart, I was young and worked over the summer, and for UPS, I was seasonal.

Also, crowbar is hardly fair or impartial. He clearly hates anyone who dislikes unions

 

[washington57]

As I briefly explained earlier, my position has to do with fair and free competition in business. Brilliance and hard work are rewarded, laziness and incompetence are punished. Unions tend to equalize everyone, making it more difficult to reward the extraordinary and punish the inefficient. In general, this makes companies less productive, and less efficient. As you can tell, my focus is efficiency. I think unions tend to make companies less efficient, thus less profitable, thus employees and owners make less.
I think the problem with unions was shown with GM and Chrysler, who recently failed. Utterly failed. They were bankrupt, and deep in debt. The promised pensions, benefits, and employment contracts were utterly unaffordable. This seems to be a trend with unions. Huge promises and payouts, which in the long term, prove to be unrealistic. In the case of some unions, those who get in early are paid for by the next generation. This is truly the case with GM and Chrysler. I also know it is the case with government workers and teacher's unions, (which have recently been bailed out in Colorado). This is the IBT. You are on a UPS board where we have the Teamster union represent us. Not the UAW. You are talking about working at UPS, not GM. So when you generalize about unions you are making up problems that arent really problems at UPS. The vast majority of UPSers I know work very hard. UPS hourly employees have under the NMA since 1964 and UPS is still doing great.

So, you're right, in that union members can consider themselves as benefiting. The union helps them. At what cost? By making others pay for their retirement. I would sacrifice these benefits, for the sake of efficiency and fairness. Because I consider efficiency more important than trying to benefit myself at the expense of others, on principle. And yet, anti-union people are the ones being accused of being selfish. How ironic. You are so noble.

Please note, I'm not addressing the UPS union directly. My opinion is based on GM, Chrysler, government, and teacher's unions. It is also a real problem with employers who offer defined benefits plans. I'm fine with 401k plans. (I've heard more examples, but these are the only ones I can remember right now. I've heard of several other companies had to cut back benefits to current employees, because the older/retired employees had massive retirement plans, which had to now be subsidized by current workers. That is, new hires got lower benefits AND had to pay for the benefits of others.) Stop talking about it then. It is not relevant to joining the teamster union. If you don't join you are worthless and shouldn't be allowed to work here IMO. Like many have stated before me, how can you ethically live with yourself by reaping the benefits of union membership without paying for it? And honestly you don't even notice the dues.


You are wrong.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

If you don't join you are worthless and shouldn't be allowed to work here IMO. Like many have stated before me, how can you ethically live with yourself by reaping the benefits of union membership without paying for it?

"Worthless" is a strong word. It shows you have no respect for those who disagree with you.

I've answered your question several times on this board already. In fact, I answered it in the post you're replying to. To reiterate, for the 5th time, I wouldn't consider the union as "helping" me. So, why would I feel guilty?

This was crowbar's problem. He cannot comprehend that someone would actually think the union harms the common citizen. He's so close-minded, he assumes that everyone knows that unions help the worker, so he imagines their critics as evil people who hate Americans, (or some nonsense).

 

[Jones]

It's amazing the lengths someone will go to to try and justify being a freeloader.

 

[over9five]

It's amazing the lengths someone will go to to try and justify being a freeloader.

+1

 

[soberups]

I was wondering, though: If I wanted to work for UPS again, on a non-temporary basis, must I join the union?

I will get right to the point and answer your question.

You live in a non-RTW state, which means you will either pay dues and be a full-fledged member or you will pay an agency fee and save yourself a few bucks each month.

I also live in a non-RTW state, and out of the 220 drivers in my building there is one driver who pays an agency fee instead of dues. I think he saves about $5 per month (our dues are $75).

In exchange for saving $5 per month he has given up the right to attend union meetings, vote on contract offers, or vote for union officials. He is also ineligible for the $25,000 life insurance policy that is provided free of charge to all members in good standing. That benefit alone is worth well over $5 per month.

The company treats him the same as everybody else. Very few of the employees are even aware of his non-member status, and those who are do not treat him any differently. I am one of the shop stewards, and we have been specifically instructed to treat him with respect and to represent him in the same manner as we would a full member. To do otherwise would be illegal and could expose our local union to a lawsuit. To my knowledge, he has never filed a grievance or requested representation anyway, so it is pretty much a moot point. He is actually a very hard worker and a model employee, and his status as an agency fee payer has had no discernible effect on his career.

I do not know, or care, whether it would be the same for you if you chose to pay an agency fee instead of being a member. I think that you have already made up your mind that you arent going to become a member; your long-winded dissertations about the evils of unionism are nothing more than a feeble attempt to convince both yourself and everybody here that by refusing to join you are nobly taking some sort of principled stand against what you see as an injustice. The reality, however, is that you are merely trying to enjoy the benefits of a labor agreement without shouldering any of the responsibilities.

The choice is yours. Join or dont join as you see fit. But please spare us the self-righteous posturing.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I didn't get benefits from either one. For Wal-Mart, I was young and worked over the summer, and for UPS, I was seasonal.

Also, crowbar is hardly fair or impartial. He clearly hates anyone who dislikes unions

So essentially, what you are saying is you have zero or next-to-zero experience with both companies, yet you seem to have your mind made up as though you have worked both sides?

I have 10 years as a Teamster, had 3.5 years as a non-union hourly with another company. I've passed through picket lines to work (not as a union member), as well as have walked lines with unions.

Your vendetta to verify your negative opinion of workers unions and its negative impact on companies at the least excuse imaginable, is very obvious. Normally people who want the truth begin with no bias and formulate their opinion independently, rather than start with an opinion and pick and choose examples to support their case.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

You bunch of intolerant close-minded fools...

It's amazing the lengths someone will go to to try and justify being a freeloader.

+1

...your long-winded dissertations about the evils of unionism are nothing more than a feeble attempt to convince both yourself and everybody here that by refusing to join you are nobly taking some sort of principled stand against what you see as an injustice. The reality, however, is that you are merely trying to enjoy the benefits of a labor agreement without shouldering any of the responsibilities.

The choice is yours. Join or dont join as you see fit. But please spare us the self-righteous posturing.

Your vendetta to verify your negative opinion of workers unions and its negative impact on companies at the least excuse imaginable, is very obvious. Normally people who want the truth begin with no bias and formulate their opinion independently, rather than start with an opinion and pick and choose examples to support their case.

Four people in a row, (in addition to crowbar), are now calling me a liar? Including a moderator? Wow.

I've admitted that I'm biased against unions, and gave reasons for that bias. My opinions are based on general classical economics, fairness, and examples I've seen and read. I have been honest about my ignorance regarding UPS, and was honest that I wasn't automatically against its union. I have subsequently given reasons why this thread has turned me against it, specifically crowbar's descriptions of unethical and illegal activity by himself and others.

And, through all of this, I have been honest and sincere.

I'm done being nice, though, because I'm sick of being accused of lying and being insincere and/or stupid. Get it through your ***********, people. It is possible for someone to disagree with you. Get it?

I can disagree, and not be selfish. I can disagree, and have rational reasons for my opinions. I can disagree, for real reasons. I can disagree, without having to invent reasons. I can disagree, with opinions I've developed, that weren't forced upon me. I can disagree, without being an "evil freeloader attempting to feebly justify my opinion."

Why attack my sincerity, because you disagree? Why question my morality, because I disagree? Why not say, "Oh! He doesn't like unions, and has given his rationality. I disagree, and think it's a shame he has that opinion, but I suppose that's his right." No. Instead you call me a liar.

In truth, it is obvious that many here simply do not understand how ANYBODY could disagree with their glorified opinion of unions.

You are a group of ************************************* (And that's not an unfounded attack or name-calling. I choose my words to be descriptive and precise.)

 

[over9five]

Kinda fly off the deep end there, SloppyJoes7?

I've tried to stay out of this thread, but in my humble personal opinion you are trolling. Everything you've said is designed to get the kind of responses you get. Come on now, you come on a (mostly) Teamster website and say you don't like unions! What were you expecting?

May I suggest you try Tnet next.

 

[soberups]

Re: You bunch of intolerant close-minded fools...

Four people in a row, (in addition to crowbar), are now calling me a liar? Including a moderator? Wow..........I've admitted that I'm biased against unions, and gave reasons for that bias........ And, through all of this, I have been honest and sincere.

1. I never called you a liar. You asked a specific question, and I gave you what was, in my opinion, a specific and honest answer. I'm sorry I didnt tell you what you wanted to hear.

2. You cannot on the one hand admit to being "biased", yet at the same time claim to be "honest and sincere". The two mindsets are mutually exclusive.


You are perfectly entitled to your opinions. You are perfectly entitled to disagree. You are not entitled to get your feelings hurt when you post those opinions and disagreements on a forum for others to respond to.


I fully respect your right to not want to join a union. What I cannot respect....is the hypocracy of your stated desire to capitalize on the benefits of working at a union shop while at the same time refusing to bear any of the responsibilities that go along with it. You want to have it both ways. You want to have your cake and eat it too. That simply isnt right, and it offends people, and you dont have the right to get your feelings hurt when people respond to that.

I am being 100% sincere when I say that I hope you get a job at UPS. I hope you get the opportunity to experience some of the advantages of working for a successful company that has had a union contract in place for its people for over 75 years. It might just change your mind.

Peace.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Re: You bunch of intolerant close-minded fools...

Four people in a row, (in addition to crowbar), are now calling me a liar? Including a moderator? Wow.

I've admitted that I'm biased against unions, and gave reasons for that bias. My opinions are based on general classical economics, fairness, and examples I've seen and read. I have been honest about my ignorance regarding UPS, and was honest that I wasn't automatically against its union. I have subsequently given reasons why this thread has turned me against it, specifically crowbar's descriptions of unethical and illegal activity by himself and others.

And, through all of this, I have been honest and sincere.

I'm done being nice, though, because I'm sick of being accused of lying and being insincere and/or stupid. Get it through your ***********, people. It is possible for someone to disagree with you. Get it?

I can disagree, and not be selfish. I can disagree, and have rational reasons for my opinions. I can disagree, for real reasons. I can disagree, without having to invent reasons. I can disagree, with opinions I've developed, that weren't forced upon me. I can disagree, without being an "evil freeloader attempting to feebly justify my opinion."

Why attack my sincerity, because you disagree? Why question my morality, because I disagree? Why not say, "Oh! He doesn't like unions, and has given his rationality. I disagree, and think it's a shame he has that opinion, but I suppose that's his right." No. Instead you call me a liar.

In truth, it is obvious that many here simply do not understand how ANYBODY could disagree with their glorified opinion of unions.

You are a group of ************************************* (And that's not an unfounded attack or name-calling. I choose my words to be descriptive and precise.)

You may be 100% right AND honestly you may be 100% genuine (I didn't see anyone outright call you a liar, though. That is pretty weird)

You are the one who is 100% upset. No one else gives a rats . Bye!

 

[hypocrisy]

It's amazing the lengths someone will go to to try and justify being a freeloader.

Post of the year anyone?


Talk about being efficient, Jones just summed up Sloppyjoe in less than 20 words.


Sloppyjoe, I'm really enjoying your opinion now, especially the **** part. Keep deluding yourself that you are so much more righteous than us thug Union members. Keep deluding yourself that non-Union workplaces are so much more efficient and better for the employee (oh, wait, the employee must sacrifice their own prosperity for efficiency).

You bring up Walmart, yet ignore the huge volume of literature and court records that prove, unequivocably, that Walmart is a shining example of how bad a non-Union employer can be. Besides screwing the workers who made Walmart worth more than the GDP of many countries, they have institutionalized criminal misconduct in the workplace.
Explain how Costco, the Union workplace, is kicking Walmart's butt with their Sam's Club competitor.

You rail against the UAW, citing GM and Chrysler as chief culprits while completely ignoring the success at FORD. American car makers have their share of problems for sure, but Unions are not to blame.

You can come here and disagree all you want but we are going to continue to shoot holes in your leaking bucket of an argument against Unions because unlike yourself, arguing from a classroom, we live it and know the benefits. The Teamster's are here to stay at UPS. By the way, it's fine that you do disagree, but as I pointed out you came here under false pretenses trying to provoke a discussion when you were loaded for bear with your RTW rhetoric. Sorry we weren't easy targets and your talking points fail to live up to the facts.

So go back to having your hissy fit. Feel free to attack me all you want as this thick skin is bulletproof. I've been laughing my a ss off the entire time.

------------------------------


To the Part time poster: I think your area must be paying the "training wage" to be under the Federal Minimum Wage in the first 90 days. Nobody was happy about the p/t language for new hires in the last contract but the sad fact was that the contract they agreed to protected p/t workers already hired and the Company wanted to keep the starting wage low and screw them on lengthening the benefit period. Their argument is that turnover is so high in p/t they had to reduce those costs. While that is valid, it just makes the problem worse by making the pay less attractive and harder for people to hang on until eligible for benefits. Perhaps they will realize this as the problem continues to get worse. I know we had the best p/t workforce when it was mainly offered to college students as the pay was better than what was available out there and benefits to boot. Most of us graduated then became drivers.
Regardless, as I believe Sober pointed out, the voting block in p/t could completely rule this Union but low participation prevents that. As with most problems at UPS: Organize! Organize! Organize!
I'll continue to vote "NO" on any contract that I feel under serves new p/t hires also.

 

[BrownSwirly]

One of the benefits of being in a Union in a right to work State is when you file a grievance and it goes past the center hearing, any costs accrued (i.e travel, food, etc.) is paid for by the Union. Non-members have to pay for the costs of the Union expenses. At least that's what happens at our local.
I know of two non-members who had to pay. Needless to say they are now members.

 

[BrownSwirly]

Forgot to add it was to get their job back

 

[Jones]

One of the benefits of being in a Union in a right to work State is when you file a grievance and it goes past the center hearing, any costs accrued (i.e travel, food, etc.) is paid for by the Union. Non-members have to pay for the costs of the Union expenses. At least that's what happens at our local.
I know of two non-members who had to pay. Needless to say they are now members.

I guess their "principles" had a price

 

[tieguy]

Interesting thread. the OP may be a troll or at the least a baiter of sorts that has certainly asked some thought provoking questions.

Within that context I think all of you pro-union advocates should be prepared to sell the benifits of unionism without shooting the guy asking the questions.
Once you resort to questioning his motives you lose the debate...jmho