Union ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We have a book that say what we are specifically responsible to work on as union electricians. Id imagine the state electricians are union and in that case I would know what we are responsible to do or not. If its electrician work do it, if not then I would respect the ironworkers wishes. Anything beyond that would involve too many higher ups and slow the job down.
 
Fulthrotl said:
except on thursdays, when the cafeteria made chocolate chip cookies, then we went on
"cookie patrol" and had cookies and milk.

the chocolate chip cookies were not part of the working agreement. we resolved that on
the jobsite.

try bringing the ironworker cookies and milk, and suggest he shup up and quit whining.
Click to expand...

Forget the iron worker, I want cookies and milk.:D
 
First, I want to thank everybody for keeping this relatively civil. Second, I want to thank the moderators for keeping this thread open.

I think in a lot of ways, some of these "small" grievances are still important to all of us. Sure, I think gummy worms should be a right, not a privilege. And yes, if there are "laborers" on the job, they should move all stock from truck to ground. I also think an electrical contracting company should be allowed to hire union laborers for this very purpose.

The problem most people have with unions has nothing to do with the workers in the union, and every thing to do with the leadership. And problems with the leadership are what created the need for unions in the first place.
 
cadpoint said:
Can you clear up this exact process of what is being done? If the clamp is assoicaiated to the equipment that gets wired then no the iron worker is incorrect. But this is just my opinion. FATW...
Click to expand...

Very simple, the electricians are full time employees of the state and work in the traffic signal dept. They are not in a trade union but rather a state workers union. It is part of their daily job duties to erect traffic signal poles and arms. The contracted iron workers were there to assemble and attach two steel platforms that support the traffic signal structure. This comment was made while the electricians were doing something they would normally, erecting the arm of the traffic signal structure.
 
jaylectricity said:
First, I want to thank everybody for keeping this relatively civil. Second, I want to thank the moderators for keeping this thread open.

I think in a lot of ways, some of these "small" grievances are still important to all of us. Sure, I think gummy worms should be a right, not a privilege. And yes, if there are "laborers" on the job, they should move all stock from truck to ground. I also think an electrical contracting company should be allowed to hire union laborers for this very purpose.

The problem most people have with unions has nothing to do with the workers in the union, and every thing to do with the leadership. And problems with the leadership are what created the need for unions in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
Wrong Words

Wrong Words

lucky1974 said:
"Much depends on the state laws. Michigan is a 'right to work' state "


I am not trying to nitpick you but Michigan IS NOT a right to work state. I am sure that this legislation will be coming soon. I would tell you my thoughts on it, but doesn't seem right on here. Sounds like you are an IBEW guy, if Michigan was right to work you could opt out of paying union dues.( Which is bad in my opinion).
Click to expand...

Mark (K8) just used the wrong words. Michigan is an "At will" state, not a "right to work" state.
 
jaylectricity said:
First, I want to thank everybody for keeping this relatively civil. Second, I want to thank the moderators for keeping this thread open.

I think in a lot of ways, some of these "small" grievances are still important to all of us. Sure, I think gummy worms should be a right, not a privilege. And yes, if there are "laborers" on the job, they should move all stock from truck to ground. I also think an electrical contracting company should be allowed to hire union laborers for this very purpose.

The problem most people have with unions has nothing to do with the workers in the union, and every thing to do with the leadership. And problems with the leadership are what created the need for unions in the first place.
Click to expand...

I could not have said this any better!!!!!!
 
jaylectricity said:
......The problem most people have with unions has nothing to do with the workers in the union, and every thing to do with the leadership. And problems with the leadership are what created the need for unions in the first place.
Click to expand...

??????? The union leadership, or the company leadership?
Click to expand...

I wondered about that myself...

I think the company people are usually referred to as "management" .... but ....I don't see how problems with the union leadership could possibly be "what created the need for the unions in the first place"
 
Sorry for the long reply as this is a complicated subject which has its pros and ocns.
I do find it interesting that I know a lot of people who don't want to belong to a union but they have to.

But the interesting thing is that the discussion it limited to the "union members" and not the union as a business entity itself. People forget about the fact that the union is a business and, yes, it supposed to organize and represent the union members, but the union builds buildings for itself and actually hires people to work for it including the union hierarchy. These people don't work for nothing. They have a salary and benefits as they are the real union employees. When a union losses members there is less money to support the "union employees." It is to their advantage to keep the union members paying their dues to them or they will become unemployed. It?s job security.

Years ago it was extremely important for the workers to unionize because they were abused by their employers. However, are the employers abusing the workers today? Some employers would because they could. But again is the tail wagging the dog, the union running the company, holding their employer hostage?

I worked as a sales engineer for a manufacturer and the company was most awesome. Every aspect was great. The only person in that whole facility that was a complete jerk was the plant manager. He was the ruler and king, nobody crossed him or you got his wrath. He had the ability to make a grown man cry, chew him up, degrade him, and spit him out making him feel lower than dirt. He would be easily described as a tyrant. The facility is a prime example of a shop where the workers need representation. But the workers are scared to death as they needed their jobs. Yes, there are still places that could still use union representation.

A company is in business to make a profit and the cost of labor affects its ability to acquire jobs and stay competitive which is a bit of a balancing act. How does a union member keep the contractor/employer in business? Are you working for the union who assigns you to a contractor or are you employed by the contractor? I?ve always have been loyal to the one who signs my paycheck myself. If the union signs your paycheck that?s where your loyalty belongs.

As has been eluded to in this thread there are all sorts of different mixes and no sure answers. There are both positives and negatives with some areas being more balance than others I?m sure.
It can not be forgotten that it is you who make up a major part of this economy by adding value and not an overhead expense without producing anything. I love this industry because we make a difference. Do you realize the value added that we contribute to. If you?re in maintenance you keep the machines running, in construction you are adding to the value to the materials that you are installing, etc? Have you ever considered the cost of lost production when a machine goes down and you repair it and get it back up and running? You do make a difference and are contributing to helping this struggling economy grow. I would probably say the most here are employed in the private sector and are self employed and are responsible to make a profit or work for an employer who needs to make a profit in order to keep you as an employee.
So, how can unions be beneficial in making this all work out?
 
realolman said:
I wondered about that myself...

I think the company people are usually referred to as "management" .... but ....I don't see how problems with the union leadership could possibly be "what created the need for the unions in the first place"
Click to expand...

What created the need for unions was management taking all the credit, and more importantly all the money for themselves. The union of workers exists to show who deserves the spoils of the labor. When anti-union people complain about unions they aren't talking about the workers, they're talking about the union leaders who get drunk with power.

Ask anybody you know if anything would get accomplished without the worker and they'll tell you no. The problem society has with unions has nothing to do with the workers. It has to do with the union "leaders" trying to rip off the "job creators."
 
What I have come to know as being quite common is that those that are competent in their profession often tines have no interest in being promoted into management because they don't want the grief. And quite often they may even take a pay cut. I bet you know who some of these people are.
As such, it the qualified people have no interest in going into management who does that leave to be promoted. It's a fact of life.
One has to love to be a manager and not because they dislike their job and the only way out of it is get promoted into management. I'll bet everybody knows someone who has also.
I have been blessed some excellent managers for the first 10 years in the electrical industry, ones that taught me about the business and let me be creative in cultivating business. I was never micromanaged. They I was managed by those who didn't have a clue about what I was doing, they didn't know a breaker from a fuse and one wonders how they got where they were. A good manager will hire good people to work under him/her that don't have to be baby sat. A good manager is a coach, a leader, a teacher, who cultivates those working under them to help them do their respective jobs better. A good manage does not use his authority because he has the authority as some just love to control, the love the power. And I know you know people like that also.

This whole mix is a good study in humanity. And this has been an excellent thread.
 
jaylectricity said:
I'm sorry, moderators. I hope you don't take my post to mean I'm supporting one side or the other.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot to add, I know exactly what you're talking about, I have had managers who weren't aftraid to give me credit while others wouldn't say a word because they were intimidated. As an inside sales engineer one time I outsold my outside salesman who bragged about my conquest at his retirement party while working with other they wouldn't have said a word. The sad think about know being aknowledged is that one will make less of a effort in the future which more often that not will not be noticed. What a manager wants to cultive is that the people he manages will be working to the max f him because they want to.
A good manager is not intimidated by the skill and knowledge of those he manages. He will understand that his success is based upon those he manages. It's all about people. There always has to be leaders and there are also all sorts of personalities and egos.
 
At this point the OP has gotten info on his question and we seem to be going into other areas.

I am going to close this now and thank all for their cooperation in keeping this civil.



Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top