Are unions becoming obsolete?

Corey Bit Spank · 10-31-05, 07:27

http://www.tonawanda-news.com/story.asp?id=3738

I happened to work at the store that had the UCFW. They took $7.54 (I made a whopping 6.15/hr) A WEEK. My father had never looked at my pay check and he was surprised it was a week.

"Are you sure it's not a month, Corey?" is what he asked. It was kind of funny.

The only thing I can remember is when I was listening to Bob Rich senior talk about the union with my father, and how hurt he actually was when the plant signed in the union. He actually thought he was treating his workers very fairly.

Well the Buffalo Plant is gone now so what does that have to tell you....

Anyway, it just seems like there isn't much a union, especially one at a grocery store, can really do. It seems like they are set up to make money. I'm sure there are some that really do have some interest in the worker's fair share in mind.

I really wish I had that $7.54 and $45 in "initiation fees" they took from me now. Maybe I can go ask for it back since I didn't use it.

Setec Astronomy · 10-31-05, 08:02

Bob Rich? Buffalo plant? Whatchu tawkin' 'bout, Corey? I have worked in a bunch of unions...the ones that took the highest dues were the ones that we saw the least representation from. And oh yeah, one place the president of the union local worked with us...funny how he got an all expenses paid trip to the yearly national union get-together, for him AND his wife, so he could stay in a fancy hotel and get drunk on our dues...wait...I mean so he could talk important union business!

Corey Bit Spank · 10-31-05, 08:05

Bob Rich who founded Rich Products. The Buffalo plant was the original plant, lol.

Setec Astronomy · 10-31-05, 08:10

Are we supposed to know something about Rich Products? I didn't see anything in that article, nor did you mention it.

percynjpn · 11-01-05, 02:34

If it means the demise of the UAW, the group that was one of the major reasons America's auto industry might was almost destroyed in the 70's and 80', I sure hope so!!

Corey Bit Spank · 11-01-05, 05:39

No, it was meant as a reference. A poor one at that.

Setec Astronomy · 11-01-05, 05:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corey Bit Spank

No, it was meant as a reference. A poor one at that.

So that was a local example of unionization having a negative impact on the company?

DaGonz · 11-01-05, 05:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by percynjpn

If it means the demise of the UAW, the group that was one of the major reasons America's auto industry might was almost destroyed in the 70's and 80', I sure hope so!!

I think you are wrong...

The "Big Three produced" crap in those years. It was when the "bean counters" were in charge of the car companies and just about every car was a cookie cutter version of itself to save money. Roger Smith just about destroyed GM while he was the Chairman of the board there.

Look what happened in the late 80's when "car people" took over... a rebirth.
You can't blame the workers for the mismanagement of the company.

I too am a union member.. the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1714. The IAFF has been in the forefront of firefighters safety and training issues.

Setec Astronomy · 11-01-05, 06:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo0903

I think you are wrong...

It was when the "bean counters" were in charge of the car companies and just about every car was a cookie cutter version of itself to save money. Roger Smith just about destroyed GM while he was the Chairman of the board there.

Could it be that everything was about "saving money" because the companies were being strangled by the union wages and benefits? GM is "just about destroyed" now, and Roger Smith is a distant memory...but the UAW benefits aren't. Hostile takeovers, greedy executives, and fickle investors may have sealed the fate of the Big Three, but the UAW started the ball rolling. When Chrysler was going belly up in the early 80's, I almost fell off my chair reading about what the workers were making in salary/benefits.

I'm for everybody making a fair wage, and being protected, but when things get out of whack (executive or union pay alike), everbody suffers.

DaGonz · 11-01-05, 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

Could it be that everything was about "saving money" because the companies were being strangled by the union wages and benefits? GM is "just about destroyed" now, and Roger Smith is a distant memory...but the UAW benefits aren't. Hostile takeovers, greedy executives, and fickle investors may have sealed the fate of the Big Three, but the UAW started the ball rolling. When Chrysler was going belly up in the early 80's, I almost fell off my chair reading about what the workers were making in salary/benefits.

I'm for everybody making a fair wage, and being protected, but when things get out of whack (executive or union pay alike), everbody suffers.

One must remember that negotiations are a two way street.

Both parties sign the contracts.

Corey Bit Spank · 11-01-05, 09:05

Actually, the problem with the UAW doesn't seem to be the benefits or wages, but how many people they have working on any given day. It just seems like many of them are "waiting for work" and being paid fairly nicely for not doing much of anything until they, uhm, find work.

DaGonz · 11-01-05, 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corey Bit Spank

Actually, the problem with the UAW doesn't seem to be the benefits or wages, but how many people they have working on any given day. It just seems like many of them are "waiting for work" and being paid fairly nicely for not doing much of anything until they, uhm, find work.

My father in law is GM retiree, he worked at the Framingham assembly plant. They built Olds Ciera's and Buick Centurys there.

He drove a fork lift "train" carrying engines and transaxles to the assembly area. Drop off a full load, take the empty one and bring it to the rail area, where it would be exchanged for a new train.

I think he would dispute your impression of what a GM employee did at the plant.