Unions

[Doc]

The 'Can the US auto industry survive' thread reminded me of a bit I saw on 60 minutes last Sunday (Oct 30th).
One employer has crossed the bountry of what a worker is allowed to do at home. He came up with a rule which stated no one in his employ is allowed to smoke / use tobacco, ever (snuff included). He gave a 15 month notice. Offered programs at no cost to the employee to help them quit smoking. He recently had to fire the two women inparticular who after the 15 months were not able to quit. He might have fired more, but the story focused on these two women. I'm not sure how he enforces this, but I think it is a blood test. If your test shows any nicatine in your system your out of a job. (not sure how they handle the second hand smoke issue.)

His reasoning is that smokers loose more time due to health issues. I'm not sure if he gets a break on his group insurance policy because they have no smokers, but that might have been a factor also.

I believe actions like this will be the cause of unions being brought back into the forefront to protect the workers from employers who want to control their private lifes.

On the other hand, the US automakers are suffering because of the union wages and compensation packages the empolyers have to deal with. The unions are part of the reason our auto industry is on the decline (IMHO).

I think we still need unions to help keep employers out of employees private lives as in the above smokers example, but I also see unions as a major pain in the auto manufactorers behind because of the huge salarys and benifit packages they have negotiated for the union workers in the days when the industry was much stronger.

What do you think?

 

[Dargo]

I am the product of a union family. My father and many generations of family members have been coal miners and proud UMWA card holders. However, after a lifetime of supporting unions, my father has finally come to the conclusion that the union has now cost him his job. Take Indiana for example. In 1980, there were over 20,000 union mine workers in Indiana. Today there are less than 100!!

The unions made it impossible for the employers to enforce any sort of conduct or work standards. A true story, about 15 years ago a mine in S. IN hired a minority female because they had to. They couldn't find any qualified for any union position, but they still had to hire one. So, around 1990, they hired a minority female to simply clean up around the wash area. She was paid 62k per year then for that job. She then filed complaints that the job was below her and she didn't want to clean up the nasty sinks (remember she made 62k a year to do so). The union said that she was right and that she shouldn't have to do that. So, the mine then hired a cleaning company to clean, and paid her to simply clock in and "stay out of the way". She then only came in an average of 2 days per week. When the mines wanted to fire her, she filed a complaint with the union; and won. She finally accepted some large monitary award to quit.

There are hundreds of similar stories from the mines ranging from destroying equipment, stealing equipment, not working, not being able to perform the job they were hired to do, to not showing up to work. The UMWA was so strong that the employers did not want to cross them at all. The option? Close. And close they did. Non-union companies then bought the mines and they are back up and running. However, if a union miner takes a non-union mine job, they forfeit all of their retirement benefits. So, the workers are forced to work outside the mine industry or they give up their union benefits for life.

The UMWA has succeeded in killing it's host, and therefore itself. I only mentioned a very small part of what caused the demise. We all know about corruption within unions. That is rather a moot point with the UMWA now.

I think the UAW is on the verge of doing the same thing. If they make companies produce a vehicle that is not competitive, whether it is due to the price of the vehicle or the lack of quality of the vehicle, the manufacturer will not be able to stay in business, and the union will kill it's host. If you kill your host, you also die. Based on the comments of several dozen auto dealers, I think the UAW is right on the verge of doing that. I have seen more new vehicle franchise dealers close, sell, or just fade away lately than at any time in the last 20 years.

I am not anti-union, but I feel, from personal experience, that many unions have simply outlived their usefulness. Let's face it, coal mining (for example) was a very dangerous occupation and the union has likely saved thousands of lives by demanding safer working conditions. However, society as a whole in the U.S. likely would not allow such conditions to exist today on a widespread basis, such in a particular industry. We have too many attorneys for that. The next 10 years will be very interesting in the auto industry because of the unions. Many of the auto dealers I know blame the unions on allowing import (non-union) manufacturers to surpass domestic manufacturers in quality and customer service.

This is just my view. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Melensdad]

I've got a friend in Terre Haute, IN which is in the area of some of the coal mines that Dargo referred to. He is filled with very similar stories about the abuses of the union.

In my area STEEL is king. Or at least it WAS king. In the 1950s or 60s you could get a job at a steel mill and be set for life. Something like 13 weeks of vacation, full health benefits, sick days, and starting wages for kids getting out of high school were something like $10/hour way back then, and that was good money back then. So vacations alone equaled 1 week a month. That alone required having an extra employee on hand for every 4 full time employees just to make up for vacations! Stories of workers sleeping on the job (actually sleeping), drinking, drug dealing, etc were too common, and the union protected them from being fired.

To make a very long story short, the economy of N.W. Indiana and South Chicago collapsed (as did Pittsburgh, etc) when we could no longer compete with foreign steel. We are now a very large steel producing region again here in N.W. Indiana. I believe all the steel mills in Chicago are gone. I don't know about other regions like Pittsburgh.

But while we are now producing 300% more steel than we did when the steel mills drove our N.W. Indiana economy, we are producing that output with only 33% of the original number of workers. So each worker is now producing 900% (if my math is correct) more steel per employee. Safety is also better. And the companies are actually able to again compete in the global market. To be fair, the problems of the steel industry were not all related to the unions, however the unions were a large and overwhelming problem.

There comes a time when unions lose sight of the fact that manufacturers MUST BE ABLE TO COMPETE with companies that operate under different rules, different costs, different taxes and different labor rates. When unions actually become counter-productive to the health of the business, then you will see the begining of the death of that business/industry.

 

[Doc]

I agree with the aspect of the unions going to the extreme and crippeling their respective industries. But what about the non smoking company mentioned in the first post? Don't you think companies taking that kind of stance will cause those employees to unionize?

The 60 minute report did mention other companies that tried the no smoker policy, but not quite as extreme. They would not hire smokers, and you could not smoke on the job. Some of those companies had to relax their rule because they could not find enough non smoking qualified employees. So, it can backfire on the company, even if unions do not get involved.

 

[Melensdad]

Doc, remember that only 25% of the US population smokes, and that number is declining. Also remember that non-smokers generally don't side with smokers on most issues. Also consider that in some states the smoking rate is lower than 25%, and in some types of businesses the smoking rate is lower.

So when you factor all those things in, and since I have no clue about the particular business you mentioned or the other related factors, it is possible that the other employees will support the business decision. It is also possible, given the correct circumstances, that the employees will revolt and consider a union. I would suspect that smoking is not enough of an issue to get people to consider a union. Most folks look at things like 'fair treatment' as a very large factor in deciding upon a union, in fact it ranks higher than wages as a reason. So when you look at the smoking issue, if that is the ONLY issue, then I would say it is not enough.

JMHO

 

[keybal]

I think that I am in a very unique position. I am a 35 year member of a construction local in the Philadelphia area, which is still a strong union town. I served a four year apprenticeship as a Sheet Metal Worker starting in 1970. After I became a journeyman, times were bad for construction in the Philly area so I got to warm the bench for a few years. I the meantime I took courses at night (sponsered by the local and contractors association) to learn air and water balancing, which is part of our trade.

A short course in balancing: we go into a commerical / industrial buildings, set up the fans and pumps and dirtribute the air and warter flow throughout the building. Fairly technical and getting more complicated with computerized building autonatiom systems.

In 1980, I started working for company that did nothing but balancing. I worked seventeen years for them. In 1997, for a variety of reasons, I started my own business.

As with any business, as it grew, I needed to hire people, which all are union sheet metal workers. Our core business has always been in the pharmaceutical industry. Things were great for the first seven years, but then things started to happen in the industry. More mergers, biotechs shutting down, Fen-Phen, Vioxx, and the worry about goverment cost controls. My core business has dropped off.

The bottom line here is: I am now considered an "Owner-Member" of the union. I can still work in the field if I want to, but more of my time is spent chasing after work and trying to collect money. At one point I had four union people working for me. As of this morning, I down to one (the guy I just laid off hopefully will be back in a week).

The people that work for me a extremely talented, hard working and dedicated. I could not ask for better employees. They have to work by themselves, troubleshoot, solve problems and interface with the clients.

The only problem, between the money in the envelope, the union benifits, the trucks that I supply and the cost of the instrumentation the each one carries, my cost per employee per hour is somewhere in the $70.00 to $80.00 range. For a 2000 hour work year, my guys make about $75,000 in the envelope and another $40,000 in benifits, not including the trucks.

I am a very strong supporter of the union movement, but as an employer, I also see that my cost per employee is hurting my ability to be the low bidder on a lot of projects. There are a few "merit shop" balancing companies in the area with kids running around without the proper training, but most companies that contract the work out only look at the bottom line, not the quality of the company or the technicians.

Simply put, I straddle both sides of the union fence, I support the union movement but as an employer I also have the problems of trying to stay competitive while paying the amount of money that I do.

 

[Cityboy]

There is a major difference between trade unions and industrial unions. The trade unions sponsor training and apprentice programs. Industrial unions do not and represent primarily unskilled workers. I too have been on both sides of the fence as a skilled HVAC/electrical maintenence worker in an industrial union company. I was a member for 15 years, and a steward and elected officer in the local for 5 years. Now I'm a supervisor in the same company.

As to Doc's original subject and question, I say if you own the company you can make the work rules. As far as I know, there is no constitutional right to smoke at work, and employers do not have to employ you if you are a drug user. Why not extend that to smokers as well as dopers? Will the smoking issue lead to unionization of that mans company? I doubt it, if the company otherwise treats its people good. The smokers at my company tend to be less productive and we have even given them an outdoor smoking area which they proceed to trash on a daily basis. They throw their butts on the ground and flick them into the parking lot, despite the numerous butt cans throughout the area. Then they are the first to complain about the condition and smell of their own smoking area. Go figure.

If I were the plant manager, I would tell the smokers to smoke at home, not at work. There is no provision for smokers rights in our labor agreement, so go ahead and file a grievance. It's just a fantasy. It'll never happen.