• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Labor/Workers movements thread

not paying for beer for years was a huge perk. and I disagree, I think the beer is excellent. but yes will have to get another source. though I plan on cashing in all my beer bucks before leaving.
 
to each their own

torpedo just tasted like an indiscriminate stuffing of hops into a beer to me -- pretty fungible
 
to me it has a sweetness that separates itself from its peer beers like ranger ipa. which i also like
 
Yeah, Sierra Nevada isn't my favorite beer to begin with. Way too many other local choices have surpassed it at this point imo.

I used to chug that Pale Ale back in the 90's though.
 
damn, was just thinking I could probably give up sierra nevada and was trying to remember the last time I had one. Then I opened my koozie and i am literally drinking a hazy little thing. Whoops. Sorry, barca

I guess I was thinking of those iconic glass bottles...can't remember the last time I had one of those
 
BarcaDeac said:
not paying for beer for years was a huge perk. and I disagree, I think the beer is excellent. but yes will have to get another source. though I plan on cashing in all my beer bucks before leaving.
Click to expand...
I knew an infosec guy at the miller brewing hq when it was in miliwaukee. I used to walk past hallways with a bar top and taps in the middle. They were unused at that point.
This story helps you not at all.
 
Big deal here in our little part of NC.

Some of you may remember my posts about the union at my Dad's workplace. My dad works as a (non-union) member in one of the Freightliner plants in NC and was truly dreading this expected strike.

Really surprised they came to the 11th-hour agreement. 25% wage increase (over four years), cost of living increases, and profit sharing, which is a first for them.

For those that aren't "in-the-know" on issues and just see labor deals as a black and white issue, I'm interested in some thoughts on some of the things the UAW was wanting in their agreement. (I fully expect every word I say to be taken incorrectly or out of context, particularly by the same folks that did it last time, but here goes):

First, they were seeking like a 33-35% raise...for everyone...immediately. I'm all for raises for almost anyone and everyone....BUT....do you all think it would have been fair for someone like my Dad, who isn't in the union, to be denied his right to work because people were wanting what seemed like an unrealistic raise? I felt for sure that was going to be the overall dealbreaker, because that's a pretty crazy amount to me, but hey...25% ain't nothin to sneeze at.

Another thing was, they wanted all new hires to come in and make the same 35% raised salary as the rest of the workers, (and I think maybe everyone in the plant, not sure about that detail, I'm pretty sure my dad said equal pay across all tenures). They wanted a 20 year old kid to walk in the place, with no experience whatsoever on the job, without being sure that he would be able to function in the environment (who were previously making like $18-$20/hour), to come in and make the same amount as my Dad when he has 34 years experience on the job and has progressed higher and higher in the company. This was my big issue with it, and one of my biggest issue with the way the union was run specifically at the plant my Dad works at (have no clue if it's the same everywhere, so I can't speak to that).

The thing is, workers tend to abuse the system there and it becomes almost impossible to deal with it in a peacefully coherent manner. Firing or suspending workers that do not follow the rules would just end up with them getting their jobs right back because their union reps would come in and...idk...threaten them? No clue what it is that keeps people that don't work or follow rules in a job that requires work to be done and rules to be followed. So the rest of the workers suffer because they are without one of their teammates while they are out of work, and then have to adjust again when they come back right after, and sometimes to new job assignments, as there have been a few examples of people complaining that they couldn't work the specific job and duties that they applied for and ultimately getting let go over it, only to be rehired or brought back because of the union and transferred to another area in the plant to completely disrupt that area, and the other areas that people get shifted around to as a result. It's one huge chain reaction.

One particular instance of this, I mentioned before I think, was a woman who applied for, interviewed for, was hired for a role in a specific area of the plant on a part of the line that adjusted bolts and other fittings manually...and one day she decided to get an expensive manicure and had those crazy long fingernails that girls think look good for some reason, and started to complain that she couldn't do the job anymore and wanted to be transferred. The only problem was, they were staffed at every other position and didn't want to disrupt everything and the entire line because of a completely voluntary and unnecessary adjustment to her appearance...long story short, they had to let her go because it became too much of an issue and they had something like....idk....a company to run I think?...and she goes to the union rep, there's arbitration, more time wasted, disruptions, etc etc....and they are forced to hire her back and move her to a different location within the plant and completely change multiple teams and their assignments. Maybe it seems petty to some of you, but it's completely ridiculous if you ask me...and it's just scratching the surface of some of the stuff some workers try to do.

And this is going to sound completely the wrong way than I mean it...but a lot of the workforce feels entitled to things that people like my Dad and other bosses had to work for and earn. It took him 34 years to get to his current salary and job level. SOME union workers want to come right in and make the same, or have him brought down to their level (let's be realistic, they would rather earn his salary than bring him down to theirs). Sometimes there are cases where it's just plain wrong. These union workers I've mentioned (PLEASE BE CLEAR I AM NOT REFERENCING ALL UNION WORKERS AS IF I'M ANTI-UNION FOR EACH AND EVERY REASON AND AM SOME SHILL FOR THE MAN) want to complain that it's not fair for them...if that's the case, why don't people like my Dad get to claim the same thing?

I am not denying that there are benefits that come with the union, and my Dad has certainly shared in those with safety, insurance, and salary upgrades occasionally....there's no denying that the union can be a useful tool in some cases. And I would not argue that some sort of raise wouldn't have been reasonable...but 35% seems insanely large to me, and preventing someone from working over that seems cruel. But at some point you should have to earn upward mobility instead of striking for it every couple of years. Why should it be different for them than it was for him? Not saying it should be exactly the same, but certain perks should be reserved and awarded to actual work and specific milestones IMO.

I understand that this stance and way of thinking completely conflicts with similar stances on other matters, and that I sound like a hypocrite. But seeing things close up for years can do that to you. Every issue doesn't have to be viewed through the same lens every time.

In the end, I don't think my dad will be complaining about the benefits that were agreed to today....but I feel pretty damn sure he'd be complaining if he couldn't work at all for 6-8 weeks because there wasn't a large enough workforce to manage his duties because they were outside grilling burgers and brats on the picket line while demanding they be able to come into the job, get their union card, and then double their salary immediately. I guess my Dad gets the last laugh though...he sticks to his guns, earns what he gets, and on top of that, gets everything the union threatened to strike over without having union dues removed from his check lol.

Now lay into me like I kicked your puppy in the face. (Or IDK, maybe convince me that someone's right to work is always less important than exorbitant demands that are typically not likely to be met.) I'm not being obtuse here. I WANT to understand. I want everyone else to understand where I'm coming from...and to be able to tell me WHY I'm not seeing the issue from the correct place....hopefully without just resorting to name calling and reductive arguing over the minutiae of my examples. I'm here to learn and here to share. Thanks and goodnight (Not sure when I'll check this again because The Tunnels is a black hole of misery).

PS - I fully expect to delete this post within 24 hours after I'm ripped a new one for thinking differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top