Unions: Tool of the Free-Market, or key to it's destruction?

[DocBoCook]

If the only thing Unions did was strive for workplace safety and supporting employment of crippled workers, our economy would be very different.

I've never heard anybody saying, "yeah, the plant may shut down because the union is demanding independent physicians."

Its always about getting pay raises, whether business is up or down.

Exactly the point he keeps ignoring.

 

[Joe Williams]

Really? My place has a doctor you can go to for a second opinion but he also is a payed company doctor. If you refuse to work as you are told you can and in many cases fired immediately. So you are saying that you should get fired and then try and file lawsuit? Also, what if you file the lawsuit and lose? You are out of work still.

What's wrong with going to your own Dr if you aren't happy with what the company doc has to say? That was our plan had we thought Cathy's company doc was trying to shortchange her. Thankfully, we haven't had those issues. He said "this is torn, we're doing surgery, here's your meds." So far, everything has happened very rapidly, with no BS. And she's not even in a union. Wonder if the presense of a union would have created a "us vs them" mentality," which could have resulted in more hassles?

 

[IndyBeerman]

Well then you obviously do not know how injury laws work. If you are hurt on the job and can't work then you can get workmans compensation BUT the doctor who decides you can't work is the doctor paid by the EMPLOYER. IF the doctor says you are able to go back then you have no ground to stand on. If you say you can't do it or won't do it then they can fire you immediately. Indiana has very little protection of workers from harassment or unjustified termination by employers. In both cases I have given there was no option except to do a job one handed or on one foot or leave. Do you really support that? It sounds like it and I hope you are never hurt and needing a job.

If you have been injured on the job there is more than just your so called perception that the doctor is being paid by the employer and can dictate to the doctor when they return to work.

I'm currently doing light duty due to a torn tendon and labrum and after my surgery I will be dealing with a 3rd party workman's comp person that will see help oversee my recovery and return to full time workload status.

The point your are referring to was probably that the employee did not communicate to the doctor regarding restrictions. The doctor must be told of what your job functions are and what is required and if that is not told then the right restrictions can not be given. If a employer violates those restrictions then they are libel.

Just because the doctor is being paid by WC insurance does not mean that the company has the doctor under their wing.

BTW, I'm not a union employee.

 

[semperfi211]

Teamster trucking

I have been in the Teamsters union since mid 1991 working on the dock for Carolina Freight and ABF. I see many pros and cons of the union. We are paid decent wages and have good healthcare and pension. However this makes competing with non union companies difficult. We are protected from personal favoritism by requiring seniority used for things like shifts and vacations.
Negatives that I see are an us and them atmosphere between management and employees. Many seem to take pride in how little they do and what they can get away with and union stewards taking pride in getting pieces of s**t out of trouble. I see young muscle bound guys getting hurt all of the time and I strongly suspect it is for settlements and workmans comp fraud, although I am sure this goes on at non union companies but I am not sure if it is as prevelant.
Since 91, I have seen alot of union trucking companies go under. It is getting a little scary. Yellow Roadway recently voted in pay and benefit cuts to turn their losses around and with ABF loosing around 100 million in 09 we will be voting on something soon.
I see it as a mixed bag. We get better money and benefits than the non union folks, although I don't think we are over compensated I feel they are under payed. I also see alot of waste and abuse.

 

[Bosshoss]

Its always about getting pay raises, whether business is up or down.

Really!! Where did you get this information? I just retired from a union shop and the last TWO contracts we GAVE BACK consessions and after last contract we renegotiated less than a year later, of a four year contract, to give back more.

Unions have their good and bad points just as the management side does.

 

[LEaSH]

Semperfi211 illustrated both aspects probably better than anyone.
When fairplay is the norm, both the union and management can prosper.
Somewhere along the line, people learned to exploit the benefits of union protections and it has never been corrected.
So corporations trudge along, trying to account for costs associated with the small percentage of slackers. It has to be demorallizing for the ambitious worker.

Up in Michigan, I watched families that were ingrained with this idea of union entitlement. They're not the majority, but number enough to drag down a good thing. The UAW is as strong as can be. Sure they can call consessions whatever they want. Maybe they thought ahead of the game and built up a lot of things that weren't so fair.

 

[dross]

Just go back to simple priniciples.

Nothing wrong with unions, if unions are voluntary organizations of workers who decide to join their interests together and seek to bargain with a company collectively. Nothing wrong with that at all.

If that group of workers had skills that were so rare and valuable, the company would have to bargain with them, or lose those irreplacable skills. If those workers struck, and the company was unable to replace them, the company could choose to meet demands or go out of business.

The problem comes when the government inserts itself. The government passes laws that say that employers must negotiate with unions and that make it difficult to replace striking workers.

I say, remove the government interference, then let companies and unions deal with each other freely. If a company doesn't want to deal with a union, let them take the consequences. If the workers strike and the company replaces them, so be it.

Again, no problem with unions or employers. It's the government coming in with the force of law that skews the situation. The government's only proper role is to prevent and punish intimidation or violence by either side.

 

[irishfan]

What's wrong with going to your own Dr if you aren't happy with what the company doc has to say? That was our plan had we thought Cathy's company doc was trying to shortchange her. Thankfully, we haven't had those issues. He said "this is torn, we're doing surgery, here's your meds." So far, everything has happened very rapidly, with no BS. And she's not even in a union. Wonder if the presense of a union would have created a "us vs them" mentality," which could have resulted in more hassles?

Our company does not allow that if you are hurt on the job nor did my last job. If you were hurt on the job you go to their doctor and they say what you have to do whether it is meds, work restriction or whatever. If you don't like that doctor opinion you can then go to another doctor they pay for but that doctors decision is final and you can't appeal it. However you can forfeit you workmans compensation claim and go to your own doctor if you choose but if you need surgery or anything that misses work then you don't get paid either. BTW, one place was union and one was not but the rules were the same.

 

[Joe Williams]

Our company does not allow that if you are hurt on the job nor did my last job. If you were hurt on the job you go to their doctor and they say what you have to do whether it is meds, work restriction or whatever. If you don't like that doctor opinion you can then go to another doctor they pay for but that doctors decision is final and you can't appeal it. However you can forfeit you workmans compensation claim and go to your own doctor if you choose but if you need surgery or anything that misses work then you don't get paid either. BTW, one place was union and one was not but the rules were the same.

Your company cannot stop you from going to your doctor. They won't pay for it, but they can't stop you. So long as you make the appointments and go with the treatment, they can't deny worker's comp, either. Now, if your Dr. says that following that treatment will cause you damage, you let the company Dr know what yours said, and let him/her know that if damage does occur, you will sue them into the frigging ground. They then have to weigh which will cost them more... irritating your company's insurance, or paying for damages for the rest of your life, along with pain and suffering.

 

[Eddie]

Our company does not allow that if you are hurt on the job nor did my last job. If you were hurt on the job you go to their doctor and they say what you have to do whether it is meds, work restriction or whatever. If you don't like that doctor opinion you can then go to another doctor they pay for but that doctors decision is final and you can't appeal it. However you can forfeit you workmans compensation claim and go to your own doctor if you choose but if you need surgery or anything that misses work then you don't get paid either. BTW, one place was union and one was not but the rules were the same.

The employer buys Workmen's Compensation Insurance. When you get hurt at work you are making a claim against that policy. If you don't agree with the payout on the policy then you ask the workman's comp board to review your claim. If you don't like what they say then you start the appeals process. There is no such thing as a doctor's decision that can't be appealed. The doctor at best is a witness. The board is the one that makes a decision and their decisions can be appealed.

 

[irishfan]

Your company cannot stop you from going to your doctor. They won't pay for it, but they can't stop you. So long as you make the appointments and go with the treatment, they can't deny worker's comp, either. Now, if your Dr. says that following that treatment will cause you damage, you let the company Dr know what yours said, and let him/her know that if damage does occur, you will sue them into the frigging ground. They then have to weigh which will cost them more... irritating your company's insurance, or paying for damages for the rest of your life, along with pain and suffering.

Doesn't work that way at our place....you go to their doctor and that doctor has to send you somewhere else or they will not pay workmans comp. It is in our employee handbook and has been argued before and the company always wins as it is their policy. If their doctor does not say you need off for workmans comp or the doctor they send you to then you don't get paid. It has happened here before

 

[Eddie]

Doesn't work that way at our place....you go to their doctor and that doctor has to send you somewhere else or they will not pay workmans comp. It is in our employee handbook and has been argued before and the company always wins as it is their policy. If their doctor does not say you need off for workmans comp or the doctor they send you to then you don't get paid. It has happened here before

Yeah, when you make a claim agaisnt their policy, they have a right to have their own doctor check you out, but unless your workplace is outside of Indiana you still have the ability to ask for an adjustment of claim. It sounds like your employer has everyone intimidated. Do a search for law firms that take workcomp cases in your area and go get a free consult.

 

[T-rav]

The Union Im in is pretty lame our contract is full of loopholes and the non union workers bet the same health coverage we do and they get more vacation time and some of the non union do less work that the union workers and make more. Thats how sweet our union is!!!

Oh there is a section in the contract our union rep agreed to which is titled "management rights" Which basically states the company can do what they want by stating it is a direct benifit to the company.

Im a union member and Im not a fan of MY union at least. Are there places that need them YES! There are alot of places the union is doing more harm than good though to both the company and the people working there.

 

[Bosshoss]

So corporations trudge along, trying to account for costs associated with the small percentage of slackers. It has to be demorallizing for the ambitious worker.

I agree that is one of the things I hated, BUT is it the unions fault that their are slackers?, or is that a management problem? (they tend to give the tough jobs to the people with the skill and are not afraid to work, thus feeding the slackers)
I was sent on the road several times to help other factories with a die problem and I was in several shops that were non-union and I can tell you that slackers are everywhere not just union shops. You can go to any bussiness and find people that are lazy.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I agree that is one of the things I hated, BUT is it the unions fault that their are slackers?, or is that a management problem? (they tend to give the tough jobs to the people with the skill and are not afraid to work, thus feeding the slackers)
I was sent on the road several times to help other factories with a die problem and I was in several shops that were non-union and I can tell you that slackers are everywhere not just union shops. You can go to any bussiness and find people that are lazy.

I agree that there are lazy people everywhere, but I have worked union jobs where the union protected the lazy. They would negotiate unrealistic job performance minimums, to the point that someone could meet the minimums and only work half a shift. The one was a machine operator job, we were supposed to get 5 boxes of caps in a 8 hour shift. I usually got about 12-15 and I wasn't working hard. All the other operators couldn't understand it because they could only get maybe 7. I found out later that the union had management investigate me because of it, they "knew" I couldn't be getting that kind of production.

I have also worked as an outside contractor in the steel mills a few times and seen the same, there was one contract a company I worked for had with a mill to provide a vacuum truck and two operators. We weren't allowed to do any work other than run the truck, their labors did all the work. If they put in more than 2 1/2-3 hours in an 8 hour shift I would be amazed.

My dad worked in the mills most of his life as either a union member or a supervisor and told me the same, one of his last jobs was keeping track of the coils coming into the warehouse, he told me he spent about 1-2 hrs on that a shift and wasn't allowed to do anything else, otherwise another employee could file a grievance for lost wages and have the company pay them also. My brother works as an outside contractor in them and he's seen the same.

 

[Bosshoss]

I agree that there are lazy people everywhere, but I have worked union jobs where the union protected the lazy.
Unions don't protect the lazy they protect everyone. They spend most of their time fixing management errors on overtime and job assignments not getting workers out of work. Unions are getting wiser and realize that it is a business and if the company dosen't make money they are going out of business also.
They would negotiate unrealistic job performance minimums, to the point that someone could meet the minimums and only work half a shift.
The company sets the minimums that they need to make a profit, not the union. This is something the company agreed to so how is this the unions fault? (for what it is worth I never agreed with piece work and our factory did away with it 25 years ago)

The one was a machine operator job, we were supposed to get 5 boxes of caps in a 8 hour shift. I usually got about 12-15 and I wasn't working hard. All the other operators couldn't understand it because they could only get maybe 7. I found out later that the union had management investigate me because of it, they "knew" I couldn't be getting that kind of production.

I have also worked as an outside contractor in the steel mills a few times and seen the same, there was one contract a company I worked for had with a mill to provide a vacuum truck and two operators. We weren't allowed to do any work other than run the truck, their labors did all the work. If they put in more than 2 1/2-3 hours in an 8 hour shift I would be amazed.

My dad worked in the mills most of his life as either a union member or a supervisor and told me the same, one of his last jobs was keeping track of the coils coming into the warehouse, he told me he spent about 1-2 hrs on that a shift and wasn't allowed to do anything else, otherwise another employee could file a grievance for lost wages and have the company pay them also. My brother works as an outside contractor in them and he's seen the same.
All of your examples above sound like a management problem. Why were workers not told to get busy? Refuseing to do your job was grounds for dismissal. The unions would fight to keep your jobs not get you out of work.
As I said before their are lazy people in all walks of life, even non-union shops and yet they still have jobs because someone doesn't have the guts to put them to work.

.

 

[rambone]

Unions are getting wiser and realize that it is a business and if the company dosen't make money they are going out of business also.

How that fact regularly eludes unions all over the country, for the last century, is beyond me.

 

[9lock]

You can go to any bussiness and find people that are lazy.

Funny I have worked both sides of the fence and STILL see the same old myths, misconceptions & propaganda being parroted over and over again on how bad unions are by people who have never been in one or believe whatever the media tells them by using a FAMOUS industry as a whipping boy and covering nationally to prove a point to get you to work for less, If they are getting $70 an hour ask yourself what the cost of living is in that area, it's different everywhere, try buying a pack of smokes in NY on IN wages.

 

[Bowling_R]

Just wanted to say this........I am a union Ironworker out of Local 44, Cincinnati,OH. and I can't really relate to how some people are defining unions............

I don't know about shop unions, but I DO know that in my trade , if you are lazy and not motivated, you are not working.....When you are on the job you are busy and productive, if not, you are hit in the ass with a check by lunch....your name is everything in our trade, if you are a good worker you will work, if you are a slug you will not, period.
We have our own definition of these lazy idiots..."hall trash".

Once upon a time you could get by being a lazy dirt bag sponging off the union, eating up their benefits, staying laid off all the time, waiting for the easy jobs, I can tell you that this just isn't possible anymore, times have changed....

We just went through contract negotiations, we asked for nothing, and actually worked with the contractors with a new idea to take a 20% pay cut on small pre-engineered building jobs so they could compete against non-union and get some of the market share back...... and to get some members working again.



In all, I just wanted to share that not all unions should be grouped together, I know mine knows better than to bite the hand that feeds them....that is all.

 

[88GT]

You have never had your workplace "hide" or have something overlooked with an OSHA inspection?

You are not understanding anything....the UAW was created a LONG time ago and gained ground in the auto industry when jobs were deadly and employers abused people just as the USW tried to stop the slave labor in the steel mills. As time went on things evolved in the workplace and rules were put into place to protect workers and employers. I know from my own experience I seen a woman be forced to stand on one foot to do her job with a busted ankle she hurt at work. They gave her the choice of work standing on one foot or let her go. What could she really do in this state without some kind of protection? A relative ground part of her finger off at a foundry and had tendon damage and later a skin graft to fix the area. When she returned to work the next day from the injury she was put on the same job and told to grind one handed....that place WAS A UNION SHOP!!! The union and company response was that if they give you a job order you have to do it or you can be fired. Obviously, a lot of people such as the OP do not like unions but the facts about them have been stretched to make them seem evil.

Well, to use your own argument, the employees had to agree to those working conditions, didn't they? Seems kind of dishonest to take a job with known conditions and then demand after the fact that the company change it. Wonder how a similar act by the company would be taken? "What, you want to lower my wages because your costs are increasing? Hell, no. I was hired on at $x/hour and that's where I'll stay."

If it was truly so dangerous that no one wanted the job or was willing to take the risk, the company would either have to offer higher wages or reduce the danger to attract employees. If someone is willing to work for the offered wages and accept the risks, the free market says leave well enough alone.

Union strikes are dishonest and deceitful. It's like signing a blank contract and then negotiating terms. Do you do that with everything else in your life? It's also extortion.