In general, do you support unions?

[HRAAB]

I voted yes. Generally, yes. I don't support their abuse of power, nor do I support managements' abuse of power - of which we've on the receiving end recently.

 

Janet

[Bee]

My family has benefited from my going to work at a place that has a union.Prior to that I worked at non-unionized places that paid no set wage so that 2 people with the same amount of experience would be making different salaries.I worked at my last non-union job for 7 years and didn't get a raise until I told them I was leaving because we were told we were not supposed to discuss salaries ever.We were not supposed to discuss the prospect of unionizing.I used to think that at least my employers who didn't have unions looked out for their employees but I don't think that's the case anymore.Times have changed.I don't like having to pay such high union dues when I'm not sure that I've got my money's worth over the years but at least I 've got someone watching my back at least a little because I'm sure that my employer won't.

[pqr]

Yes, I do.

 

My husband is in a union and because of that makes a very good salary. When we lived in North Carolina, he was working as a non-union lineman making $17/hour. He worked long hours with no overtime compensation. That is pathetic! Here in NJ he makes almost triple that. Linemen have one of the most dangerous jobs out there and go through rigorous training to learn their trade and to not compensate someone amply for that is ridiculous.

 

So, yes, I support unions.

 

I may be out of touch, but it seems to me that $17 per hour for a 40 hour week gives 34,000 a year. Now if he is earning about 90,000 in NJ that is wonderful and I am truly happy for you but 90,000 is a lot of money.

 

I would however be very careful with comments such as "most dangerous jobs out there and go through rigorous training to learn their trade and to not compensate someone amply for that is ridiculous." Firemen and policemen also have very dangerous jobs and do not normally receive 90,000 per annum. Further an E-4 in Iraq or Afghanistan also has an extremely dangerous job and base pay for him is less than 25,000. If we compensated everyone who has a dangerous or timesome job "amply" then our taxes would be through the roof, cost of living would be out of sight and 90,000 would not seem like much.

 

The point is that because of unions driving up labor costs, companies have gone overseas or out of business. Look at the auto industry, unions managed to get an agreement that when workers were laid off they still received something over 80% of their salary, is there any wonder these companies are in trouble.

 

Another issue I have with Unions is the concept of "closed shop". Last time I checked this was a free country and it is outrageous that a man can not get a job unless he joins a union. This is an anathema to what all free men should accept.

[Philothea]

No, I don't support unions in general. My husband is in one, I can't stand their political agenda and the constantly try to pressure us to vote their way. His union is weak, but they do keep the workers in his line of work from having benefits taken away, which are really important with the measly pay he recieves for human service work.

 

They make it nearly impossible to get rid of employees who are deadweights that steal and break all other sorts of rules.

 

I think unions today mostly benefit people who want more than they deserve for what they do.

[Peela]

I said yes because I think they have been important for getting rights for workers- here in Australia, anyway- historically speaking.

However, the truth is I just don't know anymore and they seem to be the cause of a lot of problems. Far too hard for me to relaly know the ins and outs and intricacies of whether they really are a good thing anymore. Bit like democracy- seems like a good idea, not sure it works so well in reality. Could be said of a lot of things.

[Elaine]

I may be out of touch, but it seems to me that $17 per hour for a 40 hour week gives 34,000 a year. Now if he is earning about 90,000 in NJ that is wonderful and I am truly happy for you but 90,000 is a lot of money.

 

I would however be very careful with comments such as "most dangerous jobs out there and go through rigorous training to learn their trade and to not compensate someone amply for that is ridiculous." Firemen and policemen also have very dangerous jobs and do not normally receive 90,000 per annum. Further an E-4 in Iraq or Afghanistan also has an extremely dangerous job and base pay for him is less than 25,000. If we compensated everyone who has a dangerous or timesome job "amply" then our taxes would be through the roof, cost of living would be out of sight and 90,000 would not seem like much.

 

The point is that because of unions driving up labor costs, companies have gone overseas or out of business. Look at the auto industry, unions managed to get an agreement that when workers were laid off they still received something over 80% of their salary, is there any wonder these companies are in trouble.

 

Another issue I have with Unions is the concept of "closed shop". Last time I checked this was a free country and it is outrageous that a man can not get a job unless he joins a union. This is an anathema to what all free men should accept.

 

 

You mis-quoted me. I said, "One of the most dangerous jobs." (Check fatality statistics.) My husband works for an electric utility and handles 13,000 volts in his hands daily. Yes, he makes a good salary, but he works in the freezing cold, the rain, the sleet, the hurricanes, the heat, etc. but it's his choice to do this work.

 

You can't make blanket statements about unions. The unions are there to mediate between the workers and the companies. My husband can resign from the union and still work for the utility, or work for a non-union company. He has experienced both and prefers to have the union mediators establish a pre-determined agreement, i.e. contract.

 

The jobs you mentioned are civil service, government jobs chosen by the employee with full knowledge of income potential. And, firemen and police officers in metropolitan areas, such as where we are, do make close to 100K a year.

 

I am totally baffled by this statement, "The point is that because of unions driving up labor costs, companies have gone overseas or out of business. Look at the auto industry, unions managed to get an agreement that when workers were laid off they still received something over 80% of their salary, is there any wonder these companies are in trouble."

 

Driving up labor costs simply means that they were keeping up with inflation. The auto industry is not in trouble because of unions, people have stopped buying cars.

[Elaine]

Unions=legalized mafia.

 

When dh and I were *squeaking* by on grad assistantships just after dd was born, he took a job playing in a musical. He wasn't informed until after the performances that he would have to join the musicians' union. We thought it would be a way for him to earn a little extra so that we didn't have to borrow so much from family to keep our expenses covered. The dues ended up costing us WAY more than what he made, and he was NEVER offered another playing job. There was also some MAJOR bullying involved. I was terrified that physical harm would come to us or dd (then 6 months old.) Unions are the epitome of evil.

 

-Robin

 

 

 

He really paid more in union dues than he earned? I'm sorry, that just sounds too exaggerated to be true.

[fivetails]

I was actually surprised to see the stats on this poll...I've always thought of unions as good things because they make sure that workers get certain pay rates, raise when appropriate, proper working conditions, all that stuff...my dh is in a union, as is my mother. I don't know, I voted 'yes' ....I guess if there were bad things going on, I wouldn't like that...My mother has been in one for 20-some years, dh just joined his last year when he took his new job....

[Mommyof4ks]

No! Unions were great when they were first set up, but they have outlived their usefulness. Of course I am on the outside looking in. My hubby has a wonderful employer who goes above and beyond for their employees with no unions necessary.

[I talk to the trees]

He really paid more in union dues than he earned? I'm sorry, that just sounds too exaggerated to be true.

 

It was a sub job. Yes, he did pay more than he earned. Yes, the individuals I dealt with were absolute jerks who care nothing about the individuals they supposedly serve. And yes, if it was your intention to completely insult me by insinuating that I am incapable of basic math, you have succeeded.

 

-Robin

[brehon]

 

You can't make blanket statements about unions.

 

The jobs you mentioned are civil service, government jobs chosen by the employee with full knowledge of income potential. And, firemen and police officers in metropolitan areas, such as where we are, do make close to 100K a year.

 

 

You're right in that police, fire, and EMS workers choose their respective professions with full knowledge of income potential.

 

I'm not sure where you live; but, I thought I'd comment on the police/FF aspect. Where I live and work it is only within the past 5 or so years that FDs have become civil service; it is more normal for the bigger PDs to be civil service. And none of the EMS services are civil service (all EMS systems where I am are third service, government systems, i.e. I work for a county agency. The other big system in this area is a city service). And, with the exception of one PD, no one makes close to $100,000/year. And, yes, I do live and work in a metropolitan area.

 

Just as one shouldn't make blanket statements about unions (a statement I agree with, by the way, even though I am philosophically against many of today's unions), one also shouldn't make blanket statements about public servants. My agency is not civil service and I wish I made in the (distant) neighborhood of $100,000/yr. Alas, the county commissioners have not seen fit to vote to give us that kind of money. :tongue_smilie:

[Kate CA]

I think we are channeling each other or something (if I believed in that of course :)) because I was just thinking about unions with regards to the whole auto makers crisis. I could have posted this poll myself!

 

I am a very strong ANTI union person. In my admittedly limited opinion, I think much of the problems stem from all the "rights" the UAW have stated as "must haves" for their workers. I have never in my life, in any job I have ever held, been given the kinds of things many of the UAW have - the kinds of pensions, etc. they offer. I am not talking about health care or reasonable pay, but the extras that no one I know in the 20 years of jobs I have had have ever offered me. Why do the unions get all the perks that are truly not affordable to the auto companies? I am not so sure the unions are not just as much to blame for the bankruptcies as the auto companies themselves.

 

I tend to think unions are outdated in the US. OSHA and the most state laws regarding employment rules/regulations/health care/disability insurance I think tend to have the kinds of concerns unions used to bring covered. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't know anyone with a pension who is my age - not a single person I know is expecting a pension when they retire. Who does that anymore? Many companies have 401K programs and people have individual savings for retirement, but I tend to think pensions are a thing of the past. I am quite willing to admit I am wrong if someone chooses to offer valid reasons for unions, but it seems to me that unions have served their purpose.

[Jumping In Puddles]

I may be out of touch, but it seems to me that $17 per hour for a 40 hour week gives 34,000 a year. Now if he is earning about 90,000 in NJ that is wonderful and I am truly happy for you but 90,000 is a lot of money.

 

I would however be very careful with comments such as "most dangerous jobs out there and go through rigorous training to learn their trade and to not compensate someone amply for that is ridiculous." Firemen and policemen also have very dangerous jobs and do not normally receive 90,000 per annum. Further an E-4 in Iraq or Afghanistan also has an extremely dangerous job and base pay for him is less than 25,000. If we compensated everyone who has a dangerous or timesome job "amply" then our taxes would be through the roof, cost of living would be out of sight and 90,000 would not seem like much.

 

The point is that because of unions driving up labor costs, companies have gone overseas or out of business. Look at the auto industry, unions managed to get an agreement that when workers were laid off they still received something over 80% of their salary, is there any wonder these companies are in trouble.

 

Another issue I have with Unions is the concept of "closed shop". Last time I checked this was a free country and it is outrageous that a man can not get a job unless he joins a union. This is an anathema to what all free men should accept.

 

Companies are not going over seas because of our unions driving up labor costs. If a clothing maker decides to use US labor, it may cost them $10 hour, that still can't compete with $10 week!

 

The automakers are in serious bind because their most profitable cars are no longer the most popular. When they were, the auto industry made a lot of money and I think we should look at the benefits and perks of the guys (non union) running the company. Greed.

 

That being said, when a company is failing, cuts may have to be made all around (including salaries) but that will not save a company that is making a product that no one wants.

 

 

 

You're right in that police, fire, and EMS workers choose their respective professions with full knowledge of income potential.

 

I'm not sure where you live; but, I thought I'd comment on the police/FF aspect. Where I live and work it is only within the past 5 or so years that FDs have become civil service; it is more normal for the bigger PDs to be civil service. And none of the EMS services are civil service (all EMS systems where I am are third service, government systems, i.e. I work for a county agency. The other big system in this area is a city service). And, with the exception of one PD, no one makes close to $100,000/year. And, yes, I do live and work in a metropolitan area.

 

 

 

I'd like to add that soldiers are woefully underpaid for the job they do. Police and Fire in NJ, however, make 6 figures easily. My brother retired from a small town (35,000 residents) department in Bergen County at $125,000 year. This is very common in NJ especially in Bergen and Morris County. NYC cops on the other hand probably make only a fraction of that at much higher risk.

 

My husband is Union and works very hard and earns a decent living with pretty unbelievable benefits (free, 100% college tuition/we don't contribute to heath benefits at all - it is paid by the company), has a job that can not be outsourced (someone has to physically replace downed or new wires on the poles, can't phone that one in from India!) and works for a company that brings in 24 BILLION per year. However, the company strives to stay relevant: They move out of areas that are losing money and customers and they invest in technology to bring them into the future. Everyone wins.

[brehon]

I'd like to add that soldiers are woefully underpaid for the job they do. Police and Fire in NJ, however, make 6 figures easily. My brother retired from a small town (35,000 residents) department in Bergen County at $125,000 year. This is very common in NJ especially in Bergen and Morris County. NYC cops on the other hand probably make only a fraction of that at much higher risk.

 

 

WOW! Methinks I should move to NJ! Although I imagine that the cost of living in NJ v. where I live/work is much higher. Yes, I didn't mean to imply that no PDs or FDs make that kind of money, just that it isn't the norm for the whole country and certainly not in my neck of the woods. The bolded statement simply does not occur here (and by here I mean the entire state, not simply my immediate area). And, you're absolutely right that our soldiers are woefully underpaid. As a Marine brat and the granddaughter and niece of career military men I certainly agree with that statement!

[Jean too]

I don't believe China sells any cars in the US. Hyundai is a product of South Korea. I would think that most, if not all, of the Japanese cars sold in this country are made in this country as well. I don't know if Hyundai has automotive plants within the US or not.

[lynn]

Look at the mess that was made of the auto industry. They demanded to be paid X to have XYZ benefits etc. It seems they were paid so well and so many great benefits but put out a poor quality product. Did having the union help make a better company. I guess unions had their place and time but probably are past their prime.

[nmoira]

 

I don't believe China sells any cars in the US. Hyundai is a product of South Korea. I would think that most, if not all, of the Japanese cars sold in this country are made in this country as well. I don't know if Hyundai has automotive plants within the US or not.

I don't think Chinese cars are currently sold here. However, Oregon is lobbying heavily to bring distribution and eventually manufacturing jobs from a Chinese electric/hybrid automaker, BYD. They are hoping to start selling cars in the US by 2010.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

If he was forced to pay a years dues, and then wasn't given any work, I can see how the dues could be more than his pay.

 

Robin, I'm sorry this happened to you.

[Parrothead]

I have to say that I support what the unions should be. I don't like what they have become - the political machine.

 

I was okay with dh joining when he started with his current employer, I'm okay that he is now management.

[Shenan]

I can't vote my answer because my answer is BOTH!

 

My husband worked for a company many, many years ago that paid low wages but had incredible benefits! They had pension plans for their employees, excellent health insurance coverage ($0 copays), etc. They were constantly having to fight the Union guys who would come into the stores and harass the employees, the Union would leave pamphlets in the restrooms and even manage to get them into the employees breakroom. One time they even called several employees at their personal residences (many wanted to know HOW they got that personal info, surely it was an inside job) and harassed them. They were even known to picket the companies Christmas parties. Which were wonderful parties with plenty of bonuses for the employees and their children/families. Sadly, the company eventually went bankrupt (and the employees lost their pensions) because, IMO, the Unionized big box stores drove them out of business with their cheaper prices and lack of customer service. In this instance, we DO NOT support unions!

 

After the loss of that job, dh made a career change. He has been an HVAC man for more than 14 years now. He now wishes he had begun with a Union company and hopes, when/IF the economy turns around, to change over to one. In order to do so, he would have to take a big pay cut. Yes, you heard correctly, he would have to take a BIG paycut to transfer into a Union company! Why would he want to do this you ask? The reason he would like to do so is because the Union company offers better healthcare plans, plus perks, a pension, and these benefits will continue long into retirement and will continue even if his wife outlives him. He has been working in the non-union HVAC field for more than 14 years, we have lousy health insurance benefits (we pay $1080 a month and have $40 co-pays AFTER a $2000 deductible), and hardly enough to live off of in our 401k plan (due to all our medical bills). So in these instances we DO support Unions!

 

I think the majority of the opinions here are based on the disappointment in the UAW and teachers Unions. We do not support those unions. You have to realize that many other unions exist and truly are for the benefits of the employees and their families. I do not believe they are outdated as many have voiced their opinion in.

 

I just recently read a story (and I wish I could recall every detail of it) about some Union workers who were given pink slips and they immediately sat down on the job in protest and would not leave until they were given reasonable severance packages. I know if my husband was about to lose his job I would hope that he would be given a decent severance package to hold us off until he found another job. Which, btw, would not be offered with his current company who just laid off 3 employees a month ago WITHOUT severance pay.

 

So I vote BOTH! We do not support some of the unions but do support many others!

[pqr]

Companies are not going over seas because of our unions driving up labor costs. If a clothing maker decides to use US labor, it may cost them $10 hour, that still can't compete with $10 week!

 

The automakers are in serious bind because their most profitable cars are no longer the most popular. When they were, the auto industry made a lot of money and I think we should look at the benefits and perks of the guys (non union) running the company. Greed.

 

That being said, when a company is failing, cuts may have to be made all around (including salaries) but that will not save a company that is making a product that no one wants.

 

Let’s be serious. Yes, companies move overseas to places where they can expect lower costs, less regulation and greater profit margin. However, many try to stay in the US, if only for the PR benefit. When unions take a company that is on the edge of solvency and demand unrealistic wages they drive up costs; these costs are then passed to the consumer who then frequently looks elsewhere and thus sales slump. This is reality. When an autoworker gets over $100,000 in compensation; when he can not be fired for incompetence without a drawn-out union hearing; when standing with the union is more important than performance then companies fold, or if able move!

 

From 2006 according to Forbes.

 

Transformational UAW Deal? Accept Professors' Pay

 

According to Forbes:

 

Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

 

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

 

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

 

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)

 

Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)

 

According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).

 

Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. (see graph above, click to enlarge), and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

 

Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, and especially Ford, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.

 

What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about: "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school degree, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a Ph.D.

 

Additionally, I was wrong, laid off workers did not get 80% of working salary they got 95%. There is no way to slice this but to admit that the cost of salaries, especially inflated ones such as in Detroit, adversely impact the parent company. What the unions have done is outrageous!

 

The discussion has also not hit on corruption and organized crime within the unions.

 

How about the fact that many unions want open voting so that you have to publically state who you are voting for in union elections? This is so un-American that it defies belief, yet, apologists for the unions will undoubtedly find a justification for this policy.

 

I referenced "closed shop" before. How can anyone support a system that would deny a man a job simply because he will not join a union?

 

Unions had their place, they did wonderful things in a time when they were sorely needed, but they have outlived their usefulness.

 

BTW I am not defending CEOs, their greed was only rivaled by that of the unions.

 

So far the main reason that has been given for supporting unions is that a friend/family member received more pay because of the unions, the next sentence will then reference corporate greed. This is not always a good argument especially in times of economic distress.

[sunshine]

Let’s be serious. Yes, companies move overseas to places where they can expect lower costs, less regulation and greater profit margin. However, many try to stay in the US, if only for the PR benefit. When unions take a company that is on the edge of solvency and demand unrealistic wages they drive up costs; these costs are then passed to the consumer who then frequently looks elsewhere and thus sales slump. This is reality. When an autoworker gets over $100,000 in compensation; when he can not be fired for incompetence without a drawn-out union hearing; when standing with the union is more important than performance then companies fold, or if able move!

 

From 2006 according to Forbes.

 

Transformational UAW Deal? Accept Professors' Pay

 

According to Forbes:

 

Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

 

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

 

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

 

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)

 

Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)

 

According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).

 

Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. (see graph above, click to enlarge), and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

 

Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, and especially Ford, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.

 

What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about: "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school degree, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a Ph.D.

 

Additionally, I was wrong, laid off workers did not get 80% of working salary they got 95%. There is no way to slice this but to admit that the cost of salaries, especially inflated ones such as in Detroit, adversely impact the parent company. What the unions have done is outrageous!

 

The discussion has also not hit on corruption and organized crime within the unions.

 

How about the fact that many unions want open voting so that you have to publically state who you are voting for in union elections? This is so un-American that it defies belief, yet, apologists for the unions will undoubtedly find a justification for this policy.

 

I referenced "closed shop" before. How can anyone support a system that would deny a man a job simply because he will not join a union?

 

Unions had their place, they did wonderful things in a time when they were sorely needed, but they have outlived their usefulness.

 

BTW I am not defending CEOs, their greed was only rivaled by that of the unions.

 

So far the main reason that has been given for supporting unions is that a friend/family member received more pay because of the unions, the next sentence will then reference corporate greed. This is not always a good argument especially in times of economic distress.

 

 

I cannot believe they are allowed to misinform the public. There is not one laborer making 141,000 a year in any auto industry. Management maybe but not a laborer. My husband is a union Journeyman (meaning he went to school for 4 years to learn how to weld & fit pipe, that is the difference between a Skilled laborer and a laborer, 4-5 years training)

and after 23 years in the union he is making $24.00 an hour. 19 on the paycheck the other 5 pays for benefits. Benefits are not taken out of the owners pocket, they are taken mainly out of the workers check. The contractor is required to pay unemployment compensation and 1/2 of social security like every business owner in America is forced to pay for union and non union jobs.

 

If you truly believe that a laborer in a union is making over 100,000 a year then you need to interview the laborer and ask why his kids are in public schools and his wife has to work full time and he has to take alot of extra shifts to make ends meet. I guess the price of living must be through the roof in Ohio perhaps on the scale of New York City.

 

I do wholeheartedly agree that Unions are corrupt starting with the business agents on up. But most of the negotiators and Union bosses are company owners and do whatever they can to keep their bonuses, expense accounts, and high (and they are high) salaries going. It is sickening that my husband if he works a full time year (most laborers are going to be laid off from work for several weeks a year) will max out at around 40,000 a year but the business agent is making 60,000 with a car, expense account and travel budget. Then the region agent starts at 150,000. But it takes 7 years to get a dollar payraise for the laborers.

 

I do support unions for 2 reasons:

 

1. I know that they require the members to be trained and schooled in their profession. Not just 10wks, but 4-5 years.

 

2. I see what the contractors that hire non union do to the non union laborers: no insurance, no representation. There is no one to negotiate a fair wage for them. They get paid peanuts for a job most people won't do.

and work harder than most men in poor conditions.

[laylamcb]

We're a union family, and we are grateful for the strong firefighters' union and its benefits to us. But...

 

* We are against their involvement in politics. (Honestly, we must've gotten 20+ robocalls from the union in the course of the 2008 elections. Grrrr....)

 

* We live in a right-to-work state and believe that no one should be coerced into joining the union.

 

* We believe that when unions keep the pendulum of power "in the middle"--so to speak--between corporate bosses and workers, they're a good thing. When that pendulum swings to one extreme or the other, it's a bad thing.

 

That's my take on unions, for what it's worth. :001_smile:

[pqr]

If you truly believe that a laborer in a union is making over 100,000 a year then you need to interview the laborer and ask why his kids are in public schools and his wife has to work full time and he has to take alot of extra shifts to make ends meet. I guess the price of living must be through the roof in Ohio perhaps on the scale of New York City.

 

 

Sunshine you make good points, I can only base salaries on what is reported in the press, on union web sites and on this board. Elaine stated that in NJ her union family member makes in the neighbourhood of $90,000. Jumping in Puddles speaks of police (who have unions) making over $100,000

 

To be fair to Forbes the total was for compensation not full wages.

 

A question I have is how much are union dues?

 

As to your issue with no one to negotiate a fair wage, I am afraid I do not buy it. In open shop states the disparity between union and non-union wages is not great. Non union plumbers, for example, earn as much and in some cases more than their union counterparts.

 

As a union supporter, how do you justify "closed shop"?

[Valerie in Chicago]

DH is a teacher in the Chicago Public System. And while the union is just short of worthless, especially to the people who should ultimately be served by it -- the students. You want to hear more? Stop by Chicago sometime. We'll go out for an adult beverage and a loooong talk. You'll come away furious, I promise.

 

On the other hand, my sister is a police officer for a department that is likely going to go union soon. And I can see how they very much need it.

 

So in general? I'm leery. But I'm willing to hear out specific industries.

[Shenan]

The $70+ is what the UAW employees entire union 'package' is worth with benefits, etc.. They make around $55 an hour give or take depending on the job type and years of service. Out of their wages they have to pay their dues.

 

Dues not only cover union issues/workers, but it also includes medical, retirement, pay if they have to go on strike, plus possibly many other items that vary according to unions, etc.

 

A friend of ours is in a HVAC union. He pays approx. $200+ a month for their union dues. His 'package' is worth $45-$48 an hour. He gets paid $32 an hour. His dues come out of his hourly wages along with taxes, etc. We have another friend who belongs to an electrical union (I can't recall the names of these unions but dh could if I asked him):D

He makes $28 an hour but his package is worth, I thhiiinnnk, it was $40-$45 an hour. His dues come out of his $28 an hour earnings minus taxes too. I can't remember what his union dues are. Union dues VARY widely!

 

I think many peoples opinions here are swayed because of the recent bailout hearings and the UAW and teachers union issues. There are MANY great Unions who truly benefit the workers. I do not believe for one second that they are 'outdated' as you stated. As I said in a previous post, we support SOME of the Unions, NOT ALL of them. People shouldn't let the negativism of one or two unions convince them that they ALL are bad or outdated. Just because there is one bad apple in the barrel doesn't mean it has to spoil the entire barrel. They should just remove THAT bad apple. We as homeschoolers should understand this statement very well. :)

Edited December 15, 2008 by Shenan
typos and clarity

[sunshine]

Sunshine you make good points, I can only base salaries on what is reported in the press, on union web sites and on this board. Elaine stated that in NJ her union family member makes in the neighbourhood of $90,000. Jumping in Puddles speaks of police (who have unions) making over $100,000

 

To be fair to Forbes the total was for compensation not full wages.

 

A question I have is how much are union dues?

 

As to your issue with no one to negotiate a fair wage, I am afraid I do not buy it. In open shop states the disparity between union and non-union wages is not great. Non union plumbers, for example, earn as much and in some cases more than their union counterparts.

 

As a union supporter, how do you justify "closed shop"?

 

ok, I have to find out what a closed shop is before I comment. I am shocked at the reported wages of those union members. I wish my husband was a member of those unions they obviously are earning their negotiation pay!! Wait til I yell at our business agent.

By the way, why are people not mad at other 4 yr educated in their field people making 90,000 a year?? Is it because one is physical labor and the other fields are generally white collar? a little class snobbery? Is it because blue collar workers are usually dirty and smelly because they are doing a job no one else will? And they think that because they do the yucky hard labor jobs they don't deserve high pay? I have seen my husband 1000ft in the air, hooked to a line going in and out of a boiler that was 180degrees in the middle of August in South Georgia (think 100degrees with 98% humidity) and the owners of the company saying they couldn't use their drink machines. It was for company employees only. NOT contract labor. I, being the peace loving person I am wanted to smash a banana in his face.

:rant:

Edited December 15, 2008 by sunshine
WHY OH WHY CAN"T I SPELL?????

[MgoBlue]

You have to remember that what you read in the press is *what the press wants you to read* and if you don't believe that...just stop reading.

 

when you're comparing the uaw wages to a college prof's salary, you're not comparing apples to apples. The uaw wages take into account their pensions, retiree health care, (which they will probably end up NOT getting), their social security wages, etc. Their actual wages top out at $28/hour. And they don't have easy jobs at all. Their bodies break down from the repetitive motion, etc.

 

Univ profs get sabaticals (years off with full pay...how about figuring that into the mix, have cushy jobs which they love, etc). I just don't think that's a fair comparison.

 

Dh said it takes 20 man hrs to build a truck so even if you use the top wage of $85/hr...that's only $1700 in labor costs for a $20,000 truck. The need to cut is in the top heavy salaried folks.

 

My sister in metro det said she went to target and they only had like one isle of wrapping paper and christmas stuff. NO ONE is BuYING ANYTHING because everyone is out of work! Michigan is tanked. Very sad...and the sadder thing is that the rest of the country is not far behind...but we listen to the news & don't go beyond that.

[Peek a Boo]

Univ profs get sabaticals (years off with full pay...how about figuring that into the mix, have cushy jobs which they love, etc). I just don't think that's a fair comparison.

 

I have a problem w/ that type of payscale if it's at taxpayer expense. And I know there are some like that...:glare:

 

As someone w/ strong capitalist leanings, my issue w/ unions isn't the pay, it's the power grabs and lack of choices for employees that are usually associated w/ them. But that's also my problem w/ gvts too, lol!

 

I guess my most accurate statement would be that I don't mind people organizing to handle specific issues as they come up, but a fullscale Labor Union doesn't appeal to me.

[LilyK]

He really paid more in union dues than he earned? I'm sorry, that just sounds too exaggerated to be true.

 

Why? He was forced to pay union dues, whether or not he had work. It sounds to me like he didn't get any further work, therefore, it seems easy to see how dues could exceed earnings.

 

Here is my .02 on unions. If they are fighting for safe working conditions and fair compensation, I'm all for it. If I get called a "b&tch" because I cross a picket line where grocery store clerks don't want to contribute to their health insurance premiums, I turn around and call them a bunch of primadonna's and walk out with a cart load of groceries. My dh and I are both college-educated, highly skilled professionals. We have invested a tremendous amount of years and money into our careers. If we have to pay hundreds of dollars a month on insurance, why would we support people with less education and skill getting insurance for practically free? If their company will pay for it, great. But if their company refuses, I can't see any reason to boycott that company for refusing what I see as unreasonable demands. I am talking about the grocery store strikes here in California a few years ago.

 

So, my answer to the poll question is yes, and no. As someone else mentioned, not all unions are the same. If people come together to work for fair (not outrageous) wages and safe working conditions, it is their right, and I am all for it. If people come together and use bullying tactics to impose closed shop policies and make absurd demands that have no basis on economic reality (UAW anyone?), then no, I am against unions.

[MgoBlue]

For the record; professors on sabbatical can't go on vacation for a year to the south of france or something. A sabbatical is something to help them keep current on their research. I don't know how often they get to take them...when I was in college my prof went to somewhere in europe for a year to study stuff over there. They have to keep up on being published, etc. Very political...but not at all comparable to uaw auto workers.