What happens if you don't join the union?

[hypocrisy]

Starting pay non-union Fedex Express Package handler ~ 10.20
Starting pay union UPS package handler 8.50

"pays better..." ?

Not by my math.

just sayin.

Fedex Express drivers either load and drive or drive and unload so I'm guess you are referring to Fedex Ground drivers?
Starting pay is $10.25 for inbound (preload), $9.75 for outbound (twilight) and after 30 days they get a $.50 raise and then they are topped out. (Compare this to your average P/T UPS pay of over $13/hr and a scale that tops out over $20).
They do have a current advantage of becoming eligible for benefits (but poor benefits in comparison to UPS) after 90 days but this will be changing in the new year.
It is assumed p/t FDXG workers next jump is management which is about 1-3 positions a year.

So you might want to complete the equation prior to rendering your solution.

 

[hypocrisy]

Financial reasons would be a big part of it. However, they wouldn't be the only part.

The UPS union doesn't sound too bad, so it won't make a good example for my next point: instead, I'll use the teacher's union. I hate the teacher's union, (NEA being the best example). Again, my wife, mother, and mother-in-law are teachers, and I'm friends with other teachers, so I'm very familiar with the subject.

If I were a teacher, I would not want to be a member in principle. I hate 90% of what the union stands for, and would not want to be associated with it in any way. The weaker it is, the better, even if that means I had to pay the agency fee. If my wife got a job with a local public school, she would never join the union. We both hate it, and we both believe it harms students, harms public education, and is detrimental to our children and our country's future.

I do NOT have such strong feelings about other unions, and it would therefore depend on the situation. I'd probably not join the teamsters or other similar unions, and pay the agency fee, because that $5 I'd save would be $5 less spent on political ads and lobbyists I disagree with. Again, it would be in principle, because 95% of the time, unions support candidates I do not.

My family has been in Education for decades and they laughed out loud when I asked if they felt Unions were in any way to blame for the sorry state of education today. Government mandates, lack of funding, teacher/student ratios, meddling and misguided administrators, changing attitudes of the role of education in our children's lives, and most of all lack of parental involvement ranked highest for sources of harm to students and education. None of them had ever been in any Union by the way.

 

[hypocrisy]

I've addressed this... about ten times, or so. Maybe list a list form will help.

I believe unions tend to actually harm their members for the following reasons:
1) Unions tend to make it difficult or impossible to promote exceptional workers.
Workers are promoted based on seniority and other qualifications in a Union workplace. There is no doctrine to suppress the exceptional.

2) Unions tend to make it difficult or impossible to fire deficient workers.
Job security is a definite Union benefit. However, the bad apple eventually does him/herself in and usually it's Management laziness that lets them stay on. Union's have no interest in having a bushel full of bad apples. We do vigorously protect workers from the ever changing definition of "deficient".

3) Unions tend to suppress wages for new and/or inexperienced hires.
Interesting that you suggest this when most companies will not start out new or inexperienced workers at a high wage and some invoke the lower-than-minimum "training wage". I see no real Union disadvantage here although perhaps you are mistaking the Union value of dedication to a career. We aren't here for the fly-by-nights although that seems to be a value for your generation. Trade Unions have "apprenticeship" programs where a new hire gets valuable on-the-job training for a reduced wage, hardly a trade off.

4) Unions tend to suppress raises for new and/or inexperienced hires.
Untrue as every contract I've ever seen has a defined raise after a probationary period.

5) Unions tend to promise benefits that, in the long term, they cannot actually afford.
I assure you that our benefits are much more stable than anything you can provide yourself or the Government will. Sure, there are some lackluster pension plans but those pale in comparison to the eventual demise of Social Security and the corporate thieves that forced employees to buy company stock that we eventually worthless, for example.

6) Unions tend to demand no pay cuts, and end up with more people laid off instead. Union's don't operate in a vacuum. During the negotiating process Union's are entitled to privileged information about a company's financial status and make their demands accordingly. It isn't in anyone's benefit to have layoffs or an unhealthy company.

7) Unions can demand fees from employees whether or not the employee appreciates the union.It's our job to educate you so that you'll appreciate what we have negotiated for you.

This list is non-exhaustive. It's only what comes to my mind at the moment. However, there's a couple major points I'd like to add: the effect of unions on laws and monopolies.

On laws: Union lobbyist support laws which severely harm the economy. These laws, I believe, actually make it difficult to get a job, bankrupt companies, reduce competition, and slow the economy. These lobbyists end up increasing unemployment, and decreasing wages of the economy as a whole.
As with your education argument, you are making the Glen Beck argument that Union's are to blame for all of the economy's ills. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Show me where a large percentage of bankrupt companies are Union. Show me where unemployment is the Union's fault. Show me where Union's are reducing competition or where a Union company doesn't compete against a non-Union one. As for wages, look to none other than the Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics where you will see that Union workers on average make 28% more than their non-union workers. In fact, Women, African Americans, and Latino's all average better than 29% more in wages over their non-union counterparts.

On monopolies: Unions within monopolies, such as government employees, are extremely harmful. Because they have no competition, there is no check or balance. If UPS becomes inefficient, then FedEx will crush them. Therefore, the UPS union must be reasonable in its demands to management. Government employee unions have no such competition, and so can make all sorts of ridiculous demands, and get them. They get benefits and wages at the cost of everyone else who pays taxes, regardless of economic downturn, efficiency, or positive outcomes.
This would seem true until you look at the wages of Government administrators and department heads in comparison to the workers. Government is the problem, not Government unions.

So, again, to summarize: I think unions tend to harm the economy and employee in general, so I would not appreciate their "help," so I would not be a hypocrite by any definition.

 

[hypocrisy]

You know, some people here, (such as yourself), have argued that I'm misled. Not thinking straight. Wrong.

I applaud mindsets such as yours. You actually argued against my position. Others just questioned my sincerity. I suppose they cannot comprehend that anybody could disagree with them. I'd prefer that they just disagree.

Anyway, I'm not going to go point-by-point in my response. I just noticed a consistent mindset throughout your responses: UPS and management are the enemy. I don't fully understand this mindset. The people who employ and manage you are your enemy? Why?
The relationship is, by it's nature, adversarial. It doesn't have to be so and in fact, a true leader can and will transcend this adversarial relationship and produce amazing results. One Union advantage is that we aren't afraid to speak out against draconian managers and demand the company replace them with Leaders.

In a good company, management wants to make money and be successful. (Being successful is more than money, by the way.) The owners and managers want good, productive employees. They pay according to scarcity, so talented workers get paid more. They don't want unhappy employees, because such people are worse workers. In addition, and this is important, the management and owners are people, such as yourself. Therefore, they do not like making others miserable and unhappy. Do you get satisfaction from making others miserable? Well, I doubt your boss does either. Very few people are sadistic like that.UPS seems to have actively recruited all of the sadistic ones. It's not a rarity in this company as even a brief perusing of these boards should assure you. It's a militaristic culture gone wrong. It's part of the reason the Union will always be a part of UPS because it's necessary.

But, like others in this thread, you speak of management like they're "out to get you." They're just itching to fire good employees. What utter nonsense.
In your vast experience of 2 months as a casual you could not be more wrong.

No, I think the greatest enemy to economies and businesses are inefficiencies. And unions create bureaucracies, and bureaucracies are the greatest inefficiency I can imagine. Dues and agency fees pay for people to talk and negotiate within the company, which produces no product whatsoever. I can think of plenty of systems which would serve employees better, and cost a lot less.
If a Union is a bureaucracy, then more bureaucracies should be like Union's for they are so much more streamlined and efficient. The product they produce is the Contract which we all enjoy and work under. Please share your ideas.

 

[hypocrisy]

This may be somewhat true. However, while markets allow for differences in the short term, the long term is a different matter. One competitor cannot provide superior benefits while its opposition does not, in the long term. Here again facts are getting away of your opinions. Fedex has been providing inferior benefits for more than two decades now. Are they still around? How are they doing? It's a lot different out of the classroom.

A point I made earlier was that unions often promise benefits that, in the long term, they cannot actually afford. Of what do I speak? Retirement plans, usually. I've seen many pensions go under, become unfunded, go broke, etc. In every case that comes to mind, it was a union-promised pension.
Lets hear a few, but go ahead and leave out the Central States since we all know the story and they are currently "rescued" under the last contract. While you're at it, lets hear about some 401k plans that Company's set up with requirements to buy company stock; used management companies that charge exhorbitant fees; and a comparison between the paltry match most employers will contribute vs. a defined benefit pension contribution.

Now, in some of these cases, the government bailed out the pension plans. So, in those particular cases, yes, the union members got huge pensions, while others did not. And, the non-union workers actually got to fund those people's pensions. How's that for fairness and equality? Guess they should have joined the Union huh?

Anyway, imbalance also happens if a company does extremely well. Again, this tends to not last very long. For example, Starbucks gave full benefits to all part-time employees. I know people who worked there, and the pay/benefits were fantastic. And then, a couple years after, the CEO stated that benefits for part-timers was soon going to be "unaffordable" for the company. Sure enough, Starbucks' massive growth slowed down shortly thereafter, and some stores even closed. The market always adjusts, and thing even out. (As long as the government stays out of it, that is.)

Starbucks overreached on their expansion and overcharges for their product. Of course, I'd say it's also a problem of the whole part-time work thing. It seems to me that if you offer a part-time workforce full benefits you just doubled your costs than if you had a full-time workforce. How smart is that?

 

[hypocrisy]

In a competitive market, I don't agree that union jobs pay more or give better benefits. You seem to have missed this point, even though I've made it about a dozen times now. Others have even provided examples of FedEx vs UPS pay scales. I haven't done my own research on this particular comparison, as it would surely be a lot more complicated than $/hour. However, I am confident they are competitive.
Facts again, sorry. They pay 28% more in average median weekly earnings. 53% more have employer-provided health insurance. (U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in the United States 2009

To answer your earlier question, right now I'm going to college full time, so I'm not actually considering a union job right now. I actually quit my last job, and am working on my B.S. in engineering. It is conceivable that I could get a union job, but it is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all.

If I got two job offers, of similar quality, but one was union and one was non-union, that would mean I'd likely take the non-union job. However, why would I consider the union job? Because I'm rational, and that's not my only consideration. That would be crazy. Of course I'd consider a union job. No job is perfect.Look into Boeing. Their Union engineers do quite well.

And, since I'm a curious person, I wanted to know what it would be like to work for a union company, and what rights/responsibilities I would have. Which is why I signed up on this forum, and why I've asked so many questions.Since you are headed toward Engineering, almost all of the responses you have received here are not valid. UPS has one of the strongest Union's in the country, the Teamsters, and one of the most adversarial relationships due to the militaristic culture. UPS will make hate fueled decisions that make no business sense simply to spite the Union, both on a small and extremely large basis. UPS' payout in grievance settlements annually could bankroll a small country.

So, have I answered your questions?

 

[hubrat]

over9five, I admit I got angry. However, my words were precise, if inflammatory. I didn't curse or falsely accuse. I reacted to people calling me a liar, which after the dozenth time, started to get to me.

You are supposed to get a saddle after 10.

This thread started with me asking questions about how unions work.

Maybe next time you could try the library or google.

Local804guy: Your manager is probably out on "stress leave" which means UPS is paying him to basically look for a new career. We see that a lot around here.

We've got 5 out of 3 centers.

Starting pay non-union Fedex Express Package handler ~ 10.20
Starting pay union UPS package handler 8.50

"pays better..." ?

Not by my math.

just sayin.

In 1982 the company started part-timers least $10 per hour.

What benefits do fedex part-time package handlers get in addition to 10.20 an hour? Do they provide health and dental insurance? How about tuition reimbursement. Oh, and hours worked go toward the pension if you stick around a while.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

My family has been in Education for decades and they laughed out loud when I asked if they felt Unions were in any way to blame for the sorry state of education today. Government mandates, lack of funding, teacher/student ratios, meddling and misguided administrators, changing attitudes of the role of education in our children's lives, and most of all lack of parental involvement ranked highest for sources of harm to students and education. None of them had ever been in any Union by the way.

You covered a lot of stuff. It is clear, still, that you aren't interested in discussing ideas. Your words and attitude are far too condescending for that.

So, just for fun, I thought I'd address this little point: Teacher's Unions
The #1 problem with education is our culture. Simply, the culture, media, entertainment, families, and people as a whole don't respect education or educators like they used to.

The #2 problem is teacher's unions. The union is utterly selfish. They put teachers first. This shouldn't be surprising, as it's a teacher's union. What they want is almost universally against the best interests of students and parents. They want more pay, better benefits, and better working conditions for teachers, and that's it. They also want utter job security.

This has created an utter monstrosity. It is practically impossible to fire bad teachers. You pretty much need to molest a student to get fired nowadays. Want new education methods? Union won't have it. Non-education majors? Union won't have it. Parental control over schools? Union won't have it. They want money.

If you think funding is the issue, you are wildly dreaming. Education funding has increased MASSIVELY over the past few decades. Many times faster than inflation. The number of teachers per student is far less than it used to be. Pay for teachers had increased steadily, much faster than the US employee in general. The benefits for most teachers are exponentially better than the average employee.

Money is not the problem.

What alternative do I propose? A full voucher system. Allowing poor students to send their kids to private schools. The parent gets the money, which can be spent on any school. This would introduce competition, the absolute best solution to the problem. Who is the biggest opponent to parental choice? Unions.

 

[hubrat]

You covered a lot of stuff. It is clear, still, that you aren't interested in discussing ideas. Your words and attitude are far too condescending for that.

So, just for fun, I thought I'd address this little point: Teacher's Unions
The #1 problem with education is our culture. Simply, the culture, media, entertainment, families, and people as a whole don't respect education or educators like they used to.

The #2 problem is teacher's unions. The union is utterly selfish. They put teachers first. This shouldn't be surprising, as it's a teacher's union. What they want is almost universally against the best interests of students and parents. They want more pay, better benefits, and better working conditions for teachers, and that's it. They also want utter job security.

This has created an utter monstrosity. It is practically impossible to fire bad teachers. You pretty much need to molest a student to get fired nowadays. Want new education methods? Union won't have it. Non-education majors? Union won't have it. Parental control over schools? Union won't have it. They want money.

If you think funding is the issue, you are wildly dreaming. Education funding has increased MASSIVELY over the past few decades. Many times faster than inflation. The number of teachers per student is far less than it used to be. Pay for teachers had increased steadily, much faster than the US employee in general. The benefits for most teachers are exponentially better than the average employee.

Money is not the problem.

What alternative do I propose? A full voucher system. Allowing poor students to send their kids to private schools. The parent gets the money, which can be spent on any school. This would introduce competition, the absolute best solution to the problem. Who is the biggest opponent to parental choice? Unions.

Fun? Get a life dude.

 

[soberups]

To answer your earlier question, right now I'm going to college full time, so I'm not actually considering a union job right now. I actually quit my last job, and am working on my B.S. in engineering. It is conceivable that I could get a union job, but it is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all....
....And, since I'm a curious person, I wanted to know what it would be like to work for a union company, and what rights/responsibilities I would have. Which is why I signed up on this forum, and why I've asked so many questions.

So, have I answered your questions?

Yes, you have.

You asked some questions, and those questions have been answered. It is pretty obvious that you signed up on Brown Cafe for the sole purpose of criticizing unions.

You aren't a UPS employee; by your own admission you probably never will be; and nothing that you learn or hear on this site will ever change the bias you have against labor unions. Your mind is already made up and you arent about to let the facts change your opinion.

I hope that someday you are able to find something better to do with your time than to join Internet forums for companies that you dont even work for in order to get into meaningless debates with people you dont know and will never meet or work with.

 

[soberups]

You covered a lot of stuff. It is clear, still, that you aren't interested in discussing ideas. Your words and attitude are far too condescending for that.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[hubrat]

Re: What happens if you don't HAVE a union?

I am truly grateful for all that I have.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

You asked some questions, and those questions have been answered. It is pretty obvious that you signed up on Brown Cafe for the sole purpose of criticizing unions.

Seeing as my first post was a question about how union companies treat non-members, and I've repeated many, many times that this is why I signed up, how is it "pretty obvious" that I signed up for some other reason?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Seeing as my first post was a question about how union companies treat non-members, and I've repeated many, many times that this is why I signed up, how is it "pretty obvious" that I signed up for some other reason?

You came here with an agenda.

 

[Jones]

Seeing as my first post was a question about how union companies treat non-members, and I've repeated many, many times that this is why I signed up, how is it "pretty obvious" that I signed up for some other reason?

You came in here long on talk and short on facts (and that's being generous) and got your clock cleaned by people for whom work is a reality, not a hypothetical. Most of us here have been going to work every day for a lot of years, we're not "thinking about maybe getting a job". Your responses to the afore mentioned clock cleaning have been particularly telling. You've cried wolf about being called a liar, you've been evasive, dodged questions and equivocated. When Crowbar took the time to go through your latest ill informed post and demolish it point by point with nothing but the facts, your response was to accuse him of "not being interested in discussing ideas". You're a joke. Grow up, get a job (and a life), and come back when you actually have something of value to tell us. I won't hold my breath.

 

[brownmonster]

I run into alot of anti-union people. They have one thing in common. Jealousy.

 

[hubrat]

I run into alot of anti-union people. They have one thing in common. Jealousy.

What he said, plus ignorance usually.

 

[Lockie]

Really? wtf U r a scab already and you don't even work for UPS yet?
Work Union Live Better....It's not an option !

Angel. I don't understand why everyone is so worked up about it. I see things from his point of view and our point of view. I use to think the Union was pretty worthless when I wasn't being saved by it. Since I had a month or so where I sucked and misloaded a LOT, the Union saved my ass and have since then grown to like the Union.

But seriously, there is no need to call someone a scab. You don't know his situation as he doesn't know yours.

To the origional poster, You might think of this, seniority is really nice. without being a member, they can tell you to go home for the night and you can't say anything about it. as a member you can tell them to off, you are guarenteed 3.5 hours work. Either they pay 3.5 hours and send you home, or you work that night. Probably the latter. Yea, the fees suck, but it is worth it in the end.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

You came here with an agenda.

No, I did not. You cannot read minds.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

No, I did not. You cannot read minds.

Perhaps not but even Helen Keller could have read between those lines.