• 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

And if you’re complaining about the quality of new workers, increased salary should increase the talent pool applying for those entry level jobs.
 
He said "my dad and other bosses". Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume he used to be in the union but is now a supervisor, which means he can't be in the union. If not, most union contracts I've seen put a premium on seniority, so your dad's experience does not jibe with that.

Thanks for sharing Oblong. I'm pro union and have worked on union issues for almost 15 years of my career, but as with anything, there is good and there is bad. And I understand the frustration your dad must feel.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
And if you’re complaining about the quality of new workers, increased salary should increase the talent pool applying for those entry level jobs.
Click to expand...

Welcome to fantasyland.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
but these demands… were met? And they resulted in material gains that makes your dad’s and coworker’s lives better?

You don’t get concessions from management like that without the real threat of a work stoppage. The “right to work” is less important than the right to work with dignity, the right to work for a fair wage, and the right to work in a safe environment. Without the threat of a work stoppage, management will not provide those things.

Your dad should join the union.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I didn't expect most would understand.

The thing with this situation is, no one expected the demands to be met....and they still weren't met to the level that was being demanded, though I know that's how labor deals and compromises are made. Every single person at the plant was expecting an extended strike. Both sides. Picket line equipment had already been installed, lower-level managers had already been telling my dad about being able to play some more golf while it's nice outside...all of that. The fact that Daimler met them anywhere near halfway was a HUGE surprise....so that's where the anger had already begun on my dad's end.

And I don't know where in my post you got the idea that these workers were being forced to work "without dignity". It's like with most jobs, entry-level talent and entry-level jobs should come with entry-level compensation....or am I wrong in that regard? Of course their compensation was not entry-level the same way McDonald's or retail are "entry-level". They were paid according to the exclusivity of the abilities the job requires. But an entry-level factory worker should not be demanding a six-figure income IMO when they have no history with the company.

Do you think that someone should be able to come into a job, without ever working at the company ever before, and be compensated the same as someone who has worked there for decades and grown with the company and gone from entry-level to more and more progressively experienced titles. [BTW, my dad (who was never a part of the union, at least not at this job) is a handful of levels above most workers, but is not technically "management". He has been offered positions multiple times, but refuses to sacrifice his standing and seniority just for a better job title. If he moves up any levels, he is moved to the back of the line seniority-wise, and when it comes time for layoffs, he would be the first to go, whereas now he'd be one of the last to go...aka the plant would have to be shut down for him to lose his job. He works enough overtime and other hours to make as much if not more than the management jobs he's been offered. Plus he doesn't want to have to spend his entire day dealing with HR and these union issues I mentioned where workers are fired and rehired over and over...he doesn't want that headache.]

My dad is not against certain wishes (or "demands" I guess) of the union. He always is in favor of any safety and insurance increases for everyone....but the last few times a strike has been threatened, it is almost always in regards to pay. Like in this instance, there were no issues with anything other than money. Increased wages, profit sharing and cost of living increases. None of that is incredibly crazy to ask for. It seemed (and I think most would expect) that a 35% raise for thousands of workers would be out of the question and that number would have to come down a lot for anything to be agreed on. My dad had an issue with the fact that almost EVERYONE assumed there would be an extensive strike...and he did not appreciate the fact that he was going to be prevented from working because those who had worked there for a few months wanted to be compensated like those who had decades of experience.

The union there is comprised mostly of new-hires and less experienced workers. There is a lot of turnover at the job because of some of the issues I've mentioned. There are bad apples that take advantage of the system to get away with not doing what they are supposed to do, and it prevents everyone else from being able to do their jobs and it's like a snowball effect. They do their best to recruit better staff/employees, but when you run a factory that demands certain quotas that literally threaten to halt businesses nationwide, you have to sometimes hire those who maybe aren't as qualified as what they'd like. You can't magically create a better crop of recruits to fix all of the problems with the workforce. And it is usually these underqualified individuals who usually lack a lot of experience in that type of environment, come in, get their union cards, and then want to make as much money as the guy who tells their boss's boss's boss what to do.

It's of course not that simple and of course my take is biased and this is not the greatest avenue for discourse on this subject, but I also think there are many many many of you who think this is a black and white issue and make a TON of assumptions about how things like this work. And I'm never as good at explaining myself as I think I am...so yea....I also want it noted that I say all of this as a STAUNCH Democrat/Liberal. It's just one issue where I happen to have seen first hand how it affects ONE place and don't agree with how it has been operated IN THIS INSTANCE. I'm not against all unions or completely anti-labor in every single aspect. I'm also aware of the fact that some of the same arguments I've made can be parroted back at me on things like Student Loan Cancellation/Forgiveness and others. Luckily, aligning with one point of view doesn't lock you into seeing every issue in the same light.

I was just looking to see if anyone could see it from at least halfway and recognize that deals like this can be very difficult....and not just for pro-union workers. And it's not a crime nor does it make you a bad person to come at it from the other side.

I was pretty much dead on with the type of responses I'd get, and that's fine, it's just nice sometimes to talk things out...and try to see it from the other side. Which I still lack the ability or have not been convinced of those justifications.

No ill-will intended toward anyone here, as I hope the same can be said in return. I just thought local citizens would be interested in a very big labor deal that actually happened nearby.

ANDY_DWIGHT.gifDWIGHT_JIM.gif
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Seems crazy that you would gloss over the safety and health insurance benefits your dad has gotten while taking some anecdotal stories of lazy workers and coming to the conclusion “unions bad”

The former is way, way, way, way more important than the latter.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, anything regarding these factors has not been a sticking point in the last few threats of work stoppage, it is almost always just based on wages. I just assume at some point in the past, since the union came to the plant, that someone has argued for some kind of change in safety procedures or insurance benefits.

Though another "anecdote" is that there are workers that still don't comply with current safety regulations such as wearing safety goggles or gloves, and there is nothing that can be done about it. It's just one in a long line of contradictory issues that have been relayed to me before. (And I don't know how to make an argument from a specific point of view without anecdotal evidence to support it, but I'll try that next time.)
 
Members of unions have to vote on actions such as work stoppages, usually multiple times. If your dad feels so strongly about preventing them, the best way for his voice to be heard is by joining the union.

Gotta say, I also don’t understand why you and presumably your dad are so hung up on how newer employees are compensated. Why is that your concern?
 
It doesn’t really sound like you want a discussion when your first response is “yeah I knew y’all wouldn’t understand”
 
I’m kind of struggling to understand your broader point. Are you saying that in most cases you are fine with workers organizing and having a voice in how their workplace is run, but that in THIS SPECIFIC CASE, they should just shut up and not unionize? Or is your point that the union is asking for the wrong things?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Gotta say, I also don’t understand why you and presumably your dad are so hung up on how newer employees are compensated. Why is that your concern?
Click to expand...
wage compression is an important consideration in many industries, particularly those with (so-called) low-skilled workers
 
wakephan09 said:
wage compression is an important consideration in many industries, particularly those with (so-called) low-skilled workers
Click to expand...
It’s a consideration for whom, how? Its upon high skilled workers to organize on their own behalf, not begrudge the lower skilled workers for doing so. It’s not a union’s responsibility to represent the workers who refuse to join and participate.
 
My grandfather was a member of the steelworkers Union and then after he started his own business he became anti union, which I figured is how it works for a lot of people.
 
I’m not in a union but “newer” employees making wages close to experienced workers is a problem. I agree that wages can be better but the reality is different than what many here think.
 
Mt. Olive said:
I’m not in a union but “newer” employees making wages close to experienced workers is a problem. I agree that wages can be better but the reality is different than what many here think.
Click to expand...
How is it a problem besides sour grapes/resentment? In my field, salaries get better over time. It's just how it is. That's fine with me, though, because I was living in pretty significant poverty when I was getting paid peanuts and I generally like for humanity to thrive (rather than experience hardships that I experienced to make me feel better about myself). Pull up your big boy pants and realize that you live in a society.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
It’s a consideration for whom, how? Its upon high skilled workers to organize on their own behalf, not begrudge the lower skilled workers for doing so. It’s not a union’s responsibility to represent the workers who refuse to join and participate.
Click to expand...
Idk, people like us interested in how the economy works? And want it to work for everyone?

You asked why someone in a more senior position might be concerned that new hires are entering to the workforce or industry or company at wages near to those workers with more seniority. I gave you one answer to that question.

And you responded with an (actual) straw man argument by misinterpreting my question to be "begrudg[ing] lower skilled workers" or how high skilled workers should "organize on their own behalf". Ok, not what I said or what I was responding to
 
Strickland33 said:
How is it a problem besides sour grapes/resentment? In my field, salaries get better over time. It's just how it is. That's fine with me, though, because I was living in pretty significant poverty when I was getting paid peanuts and I generally like for humanity to thrive (rather than experience hardships that I experienced to make me feel better about myself). Pull up your big boy pants and realize that you live in a society.
Click to expand...

I’m the same way. I was the lowest paid person and now I’m in charge of the Plant. Last year I pushed hard to have 2 ladies (more than 20 years experience) get $1.50 raises and they were grateful. A week later they found out that newer folks were making a dollar less. They were pissed and unfortunately I don’t blame them and there is nothing I can do. The 2 ladies are way more valuable than the other employees but if we cut thru the BS they are being penalized for working over the past twenty year. In current times the employee is being paid for being hired instead of what they can do.
 
wakephan09 said:
And you responded with an (actual) straw man argument by misinterpreting my question to be "begrudg[ing] lower skilled workers" or how high skilled workers should "organize on their own behalf". Ok, not what I said or what I was responding to
Click to expand...
The opinion about salary “compression” you are intending to interpret for me is begrudging and resentful, whether or not that’s your personal feeling. Your ability to interpret that opinion for me is contingent upon you acknowledging the resentfulness as well - you can’t remove the statement from the context in which it was made, nor can you ignore the greater economic context of higher skilled workers begrudging entry level workers salaries rising while theirs stagnate
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
The opinion about salary “compression” you are intending to interpret for me is begrudging and resentful, whether or not that’s your personal feeling. Your ability to interpret that opinion for me is contingent upon you representing the resentfulness as well - you can’t remove the statement from the context in which it was made, nor can you ignore the greater economic context of higher skilled workers begrudging entry level workers salaries rising while theirs stagnate
Click to expand...

It’s ok to not be a dick.
 
Mt. Olive said:
It’s ok to not be a dick.
Click to expand...
I often consider pedantry to be dishonest. Responding to the question of “why are you concerned with x?” with “lots of people who follow the economy are concerned with x” isn’t an answer to the question, it’s a rhetorical condescending dismissal of my question. I don’t appreciate that, and you interpreted my lack of appreciation as my being a dick.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The opinion about salary “compression” you are intending to interpret for me is begrudging and resentful, whether or not that’s your personal feeling. Your ability to interpret that opinion for me is contingent upon you acknowledging the resentfulness as well - you can’t remove the statement from the context in which it was made, nor can you ignore the greater economic context of higher skilled workers begrudging entry level workers salaries rising while theirs stagnate
Click to expand...
what are you talking about?

It has nothing to do with resentment. It's about keeping the economy working by ensuring workers at all levels feel valued and that each worker is fairly compensated for their experience and tenure.

Also, why is "compression" in scare quotes? I didn't make this up; its basic economic stuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top