Union vote - Page 4 - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum

RIVETER · 11-04-2009, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJSMITH1

My "service"??

I didn't realize owning an American car is considered a "service" to the Union

...Hmmm...maybe it is...Maybe I inadvertently contributed to the corporate greed...

Maybe I am just patriotic!

Actually, its called giving the customer what they want. I wanted those cars, they fit within my budget, and they served me well (for the most part)...but I learned a long time ago that all dealer service is a ripoff and a joke. So I do all my own work except for warranty issues...I guess that makes me a hack....

Doing your own work, in my opinion, makes you a smart person...I do the same.

Peter D · 11-04-2009, 10:52 PM

So is a Honda or Toyota assembled in the USA with non-union labor and majority domestic parts better than a domestic nameplate assembled in Mexico or Canada? I really can't figure that one out with typical union logic.

EDM · 11-04-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

So is a Honda or Toyota assembled in the USA with non-union labor and majority domestic parts better than a domestic nameplate assembled in Mexico or Canada? I really can't figure that one out with typical union logic.

You still want to be union, don't you? I could help you join, I told you that I'll give you my book.

Peter D · 11-04-2009, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDM

You still want to be union, don't you? I could help you join, I told you that I'll give you my book.

Well, I can either make the big money in the union or make the big money being self employed. Which would you choose?

EDM · 11-04-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

Well, I can either make the big money in the union or make the big money being self employed. Which would you choose?

Depends.

The same money and the same hours?

Peter D · 11-04-2009, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDM

Depends.

The same money and the same hours?

Of course not. Being self employed means way more hours than punching a clock. But, I don't think you can compare being an hourly worker to owning a business. Apples to oranges really.

EDM · 11-04-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

Of course not. Being self employed means way more hours than punching a clock. But, I don't think you can compare being an hourly worker to owning a business. Apples to oranges really.

I like a big paycheck for 40 hours a week. Damn the man.

RIVETER · 11-04-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

Of course not. Being self employed means way more hours than punching a clock. But, I don't think you can compare being an hourly worker to owning a business. Apples to oranges really.

Oddly enough, I've been on both sides, and agree with both of you. But I sure do miss those 11;00 P.M. calls to people who I trusted to pay me YESTERDAY.

brian john · 11-05-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

Well, I can either make the big money in the union or make the big money being self employed. Which would you choose?

I do not think I could work for someone else again. 24 years of doing what I want to. Coming late 5:00-6:00 AM leaving early 7:00-8:00 PM long vacations (at one point I went 4 years without missing a day and that included most saturdays and a few Sundays), working all the holidays.

I WOULD NOT trade this for nutin.

RIVETER · 11-05-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian john

I do not think I could work for someone else again. 24 years of doing what I want to. Coming late 5:00-6:00 AM leaving early 7:00-8:00 PM long vacations (at one point I went 4 years without missing a day and that included most saturdays and a few Sundays), working all the holidays.

I WOULD NOT trade this for nutin.

Most people would agree that it is truly rough to be on your own, in your business. Sometimes, employees think that you must be rolling in the dough because you pay them their wages every week.

IRMAN · 11-06-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVETER

Oddly enough, I've been on both sides, and agree with both of you. But I sure do miss those 11;00 P.M. calls to people who I trusted to pay me YESTERDAY.

OK there is a BIG difference......It is call responsible ....

IRMAN · 11-06-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVETER

Most people would agree that it is truly rough to be on your own, in your business. Sometimes, employees think that you must be rolling in the dough because you pay them their wages every week.

I could reach thorough the screen and slap you but wait you may slap me back??? Are U band it is my name

LawnGuyLandSparky · 11-07-2009, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJSMITH1

(Disclaimer: The following opinion is not meant to be disrespectful. It's a point of view...possibly shared by others..)

This is an eternal, capitalistic issue...Let's say I feel I am worth $1M a year. However, no company wants to hire me at that salary - no matter what my resume says. So, I guess I just go and picket outside every company that turned me down - right? I am "entitled" to what I think I am worth, and if a company won't pay me, I will make it very challenging for them to stay in business..... Sounds a little like "extortion" to me...

You could say that, but I wouldn't. Because if everyone refuses to work, strikes, and the company caves - then it was the company who was bluffing all along about not being able to meet the worker's expectations.

Quite simply, IF a company cannot afford to pay the demands, it could NEVER hire the striking workers.

What determines someone's salary/benefits? I'll tell you...the product's market price - and the CUSTOMER. Indirectly, the price that a product sells for must cover the cost of sales and manufacture. The manufacture of a car has a sizable amount of manual labor built into the cost. The employee pensions and other benefits also add up into the cost of the product. If the cost of the product is out of line with the consumer expectations, then the consumer will not purchase the product. If the product doesn't sell, the employees lose jobs and the company fails.

You can talk all day about how the multi-million dollar salaries of the top execs are unjustified - and some might be. However, you cannot run a company the size of Ford without people that have experience managing. Is the shop steward qualified to be the CEO, CFO, or COO? Why not? Just like your point, the market value of these execs is what it is - you and I have no control over that - the market does.

Actually, it is the board that controls the CEO/CFO salaries, and if you look into "who's who" you will find that the boards of directors and the CEO's of most major corporations are all intertwined and related to each other either by blood, or by marriage, or close friendships, college buddies, etc...

And for the past couple decades, CEOs have had bonuses tied to stock value - and most have made very poor decisions IN THE LONG RUN in leiu of short-sighted "tricks" that inflated stocks right before they bailed.

You can say "I Deserve More" all day long, but if you can't justify it to the employer with your increased productivity & quality metrics, perfect attendance and improved skills, then you should be denied more. With the collective bargaining system, you are rewarding everyone for either doing a mediocre or poor job individually.

IS it your position that because you can get someone else who is better and more productive to work for less, that all the rest who are less productive are overpaid?

Is the name of the game for workers titled: "Race to the bottom?" Is that the name of your game too, or, is it just the employees who have to partake in that folly for the benefit of an employer?

What's next? Are the unions going to protest against their fellow Americans for not purchasing the product that they built? Picketing in front of your neighbor's house because he bought a Subaru instead of a Ford?

The bottom line is that organized labor's current goal seems to be a labor cartel. An exclusive club that employers are forced to use under threat of protests, bad PR, or worse - business shutdowns.

I would hardly describe all workers banding together a cartel, thet's be 85% of the country.

Before you go accuse me of being anti-American or supporting un-documented, illegals, I am not talking about anyone breaking any labor laws. I am only talking about American workers legitimately competing against each other for a job. SOME will work for less, SOME will want more. In the end, you need to justify the higher salary with better skills & productivity.

The issue at hand is really, who gets to be the judge. I think you think it's you.

That would be your mistake.

The customer is always looking for a better deal, and why should employer - employee relationship be any different? This is capitalism.

Of course, for the employer they want that competition between employees. But for employees - the best route is to organize together and tell the employer to f off. And it works!

LawnGuyLandSparky · 11-07-2009, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miller_elex

The planes lifted-off from europe, flew over the Atlantic, flew over the good old USA, and touched down in Guadalajara.

Can't compete with Mexican labor, and no trade barriers. Isn't most of a Ford truck made in Mexico anyway? What, are you so proud that you get to put all the Mexican parts together into the finished product?

Get real. Does seniority mean much when they shut-down the whole plant? You might be a great worker, but when it comes to paying the top-notch health benefits of yourself, all those retirees, and guaranteed pensions, we can't compete with workers down south (the US south as well,) the UAW is as much to blame for lost american manufacturing jobs as much as Nafta is.

How is the UAW to blame? You think cars would cost the American consumer less all these years if the UAW never demanded 1/2 of what they're getting now?

So much is manufactured in Mexico and those workers earn less in a day than a UAW worker earns in an hour. So.. where is the price break for consumers? NAFTA is the CAUSE of these problems - NO COUNTRY with standards like the USA can compete on labor with a 3rd world hellhole like Mexico - the bigger question is, WHY should we?

Just because we can (have NAFTA) doesn't mean we should. (Have free trade.) Nobody "gained" except corporate profits, and those were NOT folded into new business or opportunities in the USA (as promised...)

What the US needs to do is CLOSE the borders and end free trade and get the jobs back into this country.

IRMAN · 11-07-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

So is a Honda or Toyota assembled in the USA with non-union labor and majority domestic parts better than a domestic nameplate assembled in Mexico or Canada? I really can't figure that one out with typical union logic.

So what was the last time u got a check from a foreign country?????Stupid .......shoot yourself in the foot...........

LJSMITH1 · 11-07-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGuyLandSparky

Of course, for the employer they want that competition between employees. But for employees - the best route is to organize together and tell the employer to f off. And it works!

Who or what do you think determines the market value of labor?? You, your union, some board of directors somewhere?

What you fail to realize and accept is that labor is a commodity. You won't accept it because you probably equate it with "pork rhinds" or "grain futures". Sad as it may seem, our labor is the only thing we have to sell that is truly ours. So, if the employer is offering $X/hr, and you want $Y/hr, there is no deal. If all of your competition wants the same $Y/hr, then the employer is going to realize that the going rate is not $X/hr but $Y/hr. and then there will be a deal. We don't live in a "one price fits all world".

What you also fail to recognize is that TWO parties need to agree for employment to occur. If your tactic is to hold the employer "hostage" to get what you want, then don't be surprised if the employer goes out of business rather than sign up for something that they can't sustain. I'm sure that you wouldn't care anyway because you probably believe in a "scorched earth" policy. That is, if the company does not give into your demands, put them out of business by striking and severely disrupting the business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGuyLandSparky

IS it your position that because you can get someone else who is better and more productive to work for less, that all the rest who are less productive are overpaid?

Uh...yes. I believe that compensation is tied to contribution to the company. That's how most people are paid. My employer only owes me for what I have worked for. I only owe them my continued labor "product".

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGuyLandSparky

Is the name of the game for workers titled: "Race to the bottom?" Is that the name of your game too, or, is it just the employees who have to partake in that folly for the benefit of an employer?

It's not "MY" game, nor is it a "race to the bottom"...Let me explain again...its the market that determines the cost of labor. If all candidates are in a salary range, than that range becomes the market price. EVERYONE has a price, some are higher or lower than others. There will be no "bottom" as you put it because even those that value their services less than you have a limit on what they can live on. Just like you won't want to overpay for something, employers are in the same boat with materials, services, and of course, labor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGuyLandSparky

I would hardly describe all workers banding together a cartel, thet's be 85% of the country.

Definition for Labor Cartel:
It is a formal organization of trade labor that agrees to coordinate and control wages and labor resources for those that require the trade labor. The aim of such collusion is to increase individual members' wages by reducing or eliminating competition.

Here's an article that goes into detail.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009052...e-economy.html

Couple of quotes from that article:

Quote:

"A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price.Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities. "

"Unions' role as monopoly cartels explains their opposition to trade and competition. A cartel can charge higher prices only as long as it remains a monopoly. If consumers can buy elsewhere, a company must cut its prices or go out of business. "

Now, I am sure you will want to bash me repeatedly about the head, neck and face, but there are plenty of folks that are of the same opinion. In your mind, we are all wrong - and that's fine. You go on and believe what you want, and I'll do the same.

What you need to realize and accept is that the bottom line is competition is EVERYWHERE. From your kids school, to the local grocery store, to the world economy. Unions despise competition in a competitive world because it interferes with their growth and sustainability.

I am not trying to change you, just explain a different point of view.

Peter D · 11-07-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRMAN

So what was the last time u got a check from a foreign country?????Stupid .......shoot yourself in the foot...........

I was responding to Riveters comment of "Buy a Ford." It's not as cut and dry as simply imploring someone to buy an American nameplate anymore but I think that went over your head.

LJSMITH1 · 11-07-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

Ouch. "U" got me. :roll:

I was responding to Riveters comment of "Buy a Ford." It's not as cut and dry as simply imploring someone to buy an American nameplate anymore but I think that went over your head.

This thread is so entertaining I could scream.

Peter D · 11-07-2009, 10:41 AM

To expand this a little further: In the late 90's I owned a Ford F150 - assembled in Canada. My dad has owned two Dodge Ram trucks in the past 10 years, both of which were assembled in Mexico. My parents owned a Crown Victoria - assembled in Canada.

Just this past weekend I was at Ford dealership looking for a new car. The two models I was interested in were assembled in the cities of Oakville and Hermosillo. If you're a geography buff, then you'll realize that neither of those cities is in the United States.

Point being - it's all well and good to say "Buy an American vehicle." Read the fine print to see if the American-brand vehicle you're buying is indeed an American vehicle. There's a good chance it may not be.

PhatElvis · 11-07-2009, 12:11 PM

Its funny how if a few business owners get together and agree to set their rates is called collusion, but when a few electrician get together to set their rates its called organizing.

Practices that facilitate tacit collusion include:

Uniform prices
A penalty for price discounts
Advance notice of price changes
Information exchange

Sound familiar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Its amazing what PAC money can get you...