Vitriolic Rhetoric in Wisconsin

[Jerry Lundegaard]

I don't pay much attention to the news, so I clicked on this thread hoping for another Brett Favre scandal thread.

Here's my take on the whole issue for the hundreds who PM'd me requesting it:

The public education system was, is and will be crap - especially in urban areas across our great country. Regardless of the outcome in Wisconsin, and regardless of what/if any precedent is set, it will remain that way.

Of course the issue underlying everything is the idea of unions and their role in society. To that regard, I offer insight from someone who hasn't ever been part of a union. I don't watch the news, haven't read enough about the significance of particular unions in history and not friends or family with any union members. My wife's co-worker Rob is in a union, but it's with Greg.

So if the Teachers get their way in Wisconsin, perhaps it will inspire Rob and Greg to from a union with others in the same type of union called Gay Unions Union. Newscasters can refer to them as GUU (pronounced Goo). Who knows, though. Maybe teachers will go the way of Rob and Greg and start seeking out smaller unions that include 2-8 people depending on location and state law.

In closing, I would not be surprised if in the future of America (ballparking 50 years) it will be all Charter Schools. Whether that's sparked by a ruling in Wisconsin, or not, that's just my prophetic hunch.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree with a lot of what you posted Viny, but you need to keep in mind that you are in a generally high-dollar industry. Very few unionized workers in other industries have anything beyond average benefits let alone benefits they don't have to pay for. Also your dues are pretty steep. Most union dues are about 1/3 that and I know many workers who have a hard time paying that, and still the benefits they get from their union are far less than what you are getting out of it. To make things worse, all the negatives still apply, but in spades. In one plant where I worked the union staged a walkout during CBA negotiations. They kept workers out of work and out of a paycheck for 5 days (one work week). This was all over extra sick leave when management had already conceded on benefits, vacation and personal time. The budget just could not handle more than that, and as it was I knew we would have a hard time hitting our cost targets (I had intimate knowledge of the budget). We were offering what amounted to 2 weeks of sick pay accrued over the year, non-rollover (use it or use it yearly). They wanted 3 weeks and wanted it to accrue for a 3 year period. That was on top of 2 weeks of vacation and 2 weeks of "personal" time, which went up to 3 weeks vaca after 3 years and 4 after 7 years. We just couldn't absorb any more so we held firm, they walked out. We finally settled on rolling the sick time over for 2 years instead of 3 and keeping 2 weeks of sick accrual.

I had many employees contacting me during the walkout - I gave out my cell as the GM so I could stay connected to my employees, I regularly spent time with folks on weekends, evenings etc. I knew my workforce. The employees contacting me said they were worried about not getting paid for this week. That one week made a difference to most of them. My hands were tied by the limits of the CBA. Now for the kicker. When they came back to work they found the union was raising their dues, which the CBA gave them the right to due during negotiations for a new CBA. They raised dues 20%, and listed as one reason the walkout. So they cost their people a weeks pay and then charged them for it. Before I left for another opportunity I saw many employees roll their sick time over and max it out over the 2 year rollover period and there it stayed. We had provided more than enough time off in vacation, personal, and the initial 2 weeks of sick time. They didn't need the rollover. A few did but they were a very small minority. So for a very dubious benefit the union cost the employees quite a chunk.

That is pretty standard from what I have seen from unions. I am glad you are in an industry where the unions function better and the money is there to get you such great benefits and pay. Unfortunately in most industries the unions hamper more than they help - look at the auto industry where the unions unwillingness to budge when the big 3 were failing was a substantial part of the cost crunch that almost brought down the biggest employer in the country. I am by no means saying that management had nothing to do with it, but it is borderline impossible to account for a payroll that is seriously skewed and a payroll policy that is so flawed that is just does not justify the lack of productivity.

When it comes to the teachers union I think there is another factor to be taken into account. My brother-in-law is a principal in a junior high. He has teachers he knows are sub-standard that he has told me about. They teach math and science and english and he wishes they did not teach at his school. He had the data and the evidence that they just were not doing their jobs (one of them had missed something like 2 months, one day at a time here and there) and he went before the union to fire them. He was roadblocked to the point where it just wasn't worth the effort. The only thing that got anyone to budge was the declining test scores in his school as a result of the critically assessed areas being taught by basically unqualified or uncaring teachers. The decline in test scores prompted a decrease in funding. This meant lower salaries or fewer teachers. Rather than run that risk the union conceded and they got rid of 2 of the 5 teachers causing issues.

So in essence it took a gross failure to teach our children to remove a low performer. So ok now that teacher is gone, what about the kids that receive a sub-standard education before he left? That is my biggest concern in education. In your example of the firing issue it just meant the other workers had to carry the freeloaders. In the school system it means kids don't get the education they need. And all the while it is the union leaders who are pocketing obscene sums of money that keep the system in place.

No wonder we are falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in education.

 

[candrew]

I am not arguing that Unions are a major issue in America today, and not just public sector but private sector as well. In my experience all a Union buys anyone is someone else to pay something to out of pocket. In nearly 20 years of management in both unionized and non-union environments I have yet to see a union that really gains the employees anything but taking their dues.

.

Either you're lying or you're working with a very low-skilled pool of workers.

My Dad was a skilled union worker his whole life and I can tell you for a fact that our family had medical insurance, dental insurance, vacations, etc because of unions. Comparable non-union, jobs to what my Dad did were always for less pay and less benefits.

 

[candrew]

The public education system was, is and will be crap - especially in urban areas across our great country. Regardless of the outcome in Wisconsin, and regardless of what/if any precedent is set, it will remain that way.

I went to an excellent public school. My son goes to an excellent public school. That's because I grew up in and currently live in an area where the parent's care about the quality of their child's education. My son's school is packed on open school night and PTA Meetings. The parents are contantly in the ear of the faculty and the administration.

The fact is, in many areas, as a whole, the parents don't care about nor have any involvement in their kid's school. It's quite obvious that when few people care about the quality of a product, that product is going to be of very low quality. Of course, no poliitician is going to stand up and say "Hey, maybe your schools suck because you suck." And it's virtually impossible to inject quality into a school on a city, state or national level. It has to start at the community level from the ground up.

As for your prediction about Charter Schools - you may be right. But guess what? When that happens many of those schools will be crap too. There is no easy fix.

 

[GVC]

Either you're lying or you're working with a very low-skilled pool of workers.

My Dad was a skilled union worker his whole life and I can tell you for a fact that our family had medical insurance, dental insurance, vacations, etc because of unions. Comparable non-union, jobs to what my Dad did were always for less pay and less benefits.

+1. I was a member of the sheet metal workers union, and we cleaned up compared to sheet metal workers in non-union shops.

And were, mysteriously, still competitive...

 

[VINYLONE]

I agree with a lot of what you posted Viny...

My post was not about arguing for or against unions, it was just stating my experience.

I dont consider my union dues steep at considering what I make an hour and that I dont pay for benefits. I will wholeheartedly agree that some unions dont realize how good they have it and that sometimes, the math, the calculations of pensions and benefits will not allow the contracts to continue.

I realize how good I have it and would definitely make concessions if need be. Maybe not getting a raise every year, but every other year. But that is neither here nor there. As is with everything, there is good and there is bad. My union, in my opinion, just happens to be one of the good ones.

The auto unions were definitely one of the bad ones as they definitely contributed to the problems the car manufacturers had...Among other things. I can definitely agree with you there. And in regards to the teacher unions, I agree again. It needs to be easier to get rid of crappy teachers. Hell, those "suspension rooms" they have in NYC are a complete and utter joke.

 

[LogGrad98]

Either you're lying or you're working with a very low-skilled pool of workers.

My Dad was a skilled union worker his whole life and I can tell you for a fact that our family had medical insurance, dental insurance, vacations, etc because of unions. Comparable non-union, jobs to what my Dad did were always for less pay and less benefits.

Can you prove that if your dad was not in a union that he wouldn't have had those benefits anyway?

Besides that, you obviously haven't worked in industrial jobs much yourself in the past 15-20 years. I realize I didn't make it clear above, as I was not really talking directly about the unions in that particular post. But I never meant that people in unionized jobs don't get any benefits at all. And I wasn't talking about actual "health insurance" benefits. What I meant was that unions in America rarely get their constituents anything more than the companies would offer anyway. Competition for talent has been steep, and most companies provide solid benefits and decent pay as a means to compete. The company I work for now just went through a salary restructuring, raising the pay of warehouse workers $2 an hour across the board, even in the down economy when we have tons of applicants. This is because many people are turning to education or other industries to find work as the going gets tough. So we need to offer a solid benefits/pay package to acquire and retain talent.

We are also seeing large companies moving plants out of the country or even state to state, partly to avoid the impact unions have on the bottom line. I am familiar with the situation Cummins Diesel Engines is in and I know of at least one plant that organized under a union about 6 years ago. The benefits actually got worse and the pay structure changed so, yes, immediately all got a raise, but the raises after that came less frequently than management had already planned for their budgete salary. It was also one of the first plants to experience the layoff as part of their 20% worldwide reduction in force 3 years ago. It was just too costly to operate so the lower-profit plants go first. Obviously all costs were not the labor pool, but labor is the single largest cost category on most industrial companies' budgets.

Everyone seem to view companies as evil but that is where the jobs come from. Companies pay the wages that drive the economy. And when profits are scarce and wages are at risk, unions do not help matters. Especially when some unions are raising dues to provide more money for their leadership right when financial situations for those paying the dues are getting worse. Anymore the unions just do not have the best interest of the workers in mind. And yes union leaders typically make a ton of money off the dues of the workers. I have talked to people in the industrial sector who tried to actually negotiate lower dues to help retain employees and the union walked out of the negotiations. They did not want to cut into their 6-figure salaries.

I just think the day and age of unions has come and gone. There was a time when they were necessary to provide a decent working environment and salary for workers. Anymore that is forced by competition. Right now in America I think unions do more harm than good.

By the way, take a guess the percentage of all workers in unions today then click on this link. It might surprise you.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

[GVC]

Companies pay the wages that drive the economy.

So amazingly slanted. Do workers not make the products that are sold for the profits that drive the economy?

 

[LogGrad98]

So amazingly slanted. Do workers not make the products that are sold for the profits that drive the economy?

Wow talk about slanting it yourself. Of course it is reciprocal, give me a break. Excellent way to take 8 words out of a much longer post and put it out there as sum of the whole. Even though I am in management I am still a worker. I work for a wage. I help the company be profitable. I have a stake in it all as well.

And you do not understand economics if you think it is company profits that drive the economy. It is directly the wages paid and the amount of those wages that people choose to spend. A profitable company can pay higher wages. Workers help to make the company profitable. There are plenty of companies out there that do not turn a profit and still provide a wage, mostly start-ups and companies in new industries. Amazon.com took over 10 years to have their first profitable quarter and they still paid decent wages (actually on the upper end for warehouse workers, really well for software engineers).

And so the economy goes 'round. Spend more and the economy grows, spend less and the economy contracts. That is pretty simplified but it is the crux of it.

I pointed out that companies are providing better benefits and generally better wages to compete for talent. People are the greatest asset a company has. But you are incredibly slanting it if you think that companies have nothing to do with the wages people make. A poorly managed company will pay no wages no matter what the workers do to make anything or provide services or simply work hard. A company forced to close it's doors and/or move out of the country due to rising costs and shrinking revenues pays no wages. Rising taxes, costs of raw materials, labor costs, cost of capital all play into a company's ability to turn a profit and in turn provide a wage to workers.

But in the end the companies have the larger impact on this dynamic, as there are so many factors that impact a company beyond what the workers produce or the services they offer.

 

[Qman]

First of all there are two separate debates.

Public Unions and Private Unions

IMO Public Unions should be illegal. They lack the same cost pressures that a private union and private company has.

The Private Union debate is a lot more complicated.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I have never in my life seen anyone try to make the claim that unions only get their members what the company would be willing to offer anyway.

That is complete BS.

I have worked several union jobs, and every single one of them paid better, with better benefits, than the non union jobs in the same field.

Funny that the sticking point in Wisconsin is the right to collective bargain. The union workers have already agreed to accept whatever cuts the governor wants to impose, they just want to keep the union intact.

If the union is worthless, why is that a sticking point for either side, let alone both sides?

Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[franklin]

So amazingly slanted. Do workers not make the products that are sold for the profits that drive the economy?

Does cheaper production raise the consumer's standard of living? Don't lower production costs and economic advancement go hand in hand? The money doesn't just vanish. Factoring only one side of the equation is amazingly slanted.