|
| Ek's Home | Forum | Chat | Electrical Links | |
| Subject - general union question | |
| unsaint34 |
I am graduating from a local tech school with 2 yr electrical diploma. I believe union is a way to promote workers' rights. I just have a general question about the union operation. I am not dissing union or anything. I know the administrators get pretty sensitive about that. the other day I checked out the website of my local union. And it had a webpage that showed a list of internet sources where laid-off workers can look for jobs. It confused me becase... I thought union-contractors cannot hire non-union workers (I'm 90% sure). And the union workers cannot work for non union-contractors (I'm 100% sure). Why does a laid-off worker need to look for jobs on their own? Doesn't union contractors go through their local union to find people to work? and therefore if there was any job for a union laidoff-worker could work, the union would be the first to know? |
| JimmyDee | quote: I would like to take issue with this statement. We have not discouraged this area of discussion. As long as it remains on a civil level, go for it, if you wish. I don't think there is any sensitivity to this being discussed. When allegations of criminal acts with identifiable cities or locals are talked about or other such things that could draw a law suit toward this site, it will be removed or locked. This subject can get out of hand very quickly and so if you or others do want to discusses it, feel free but use some discretion. Jim |
| denny3992 | i think it probably was a list of other local unions looking for help. when you work outside of ur own local its called traveling. Or maybe it was a list of contractors to salt- applying for a non union job, getting to know the workers trying to get them to go union or trying to get them to organize the contractor they work for.thus making a bigger union= more money comming in to the union and the more members the more power a union has. I have worked both and dont begrudge someone for working non-union everybody is working for the same reason$$$$$$$ Personally i would try both so you can make the decision for yourself! Which you prefer! Now being an employer i stayed with the union and only use union labor. I compare a union to like being in the military very stong bond between members ie. a marine brother would do anything for another marine. its the same in a union (if its a strong union) A bit long winded but i like to speak my mind good luck with whatever you do Denny |
| mahlere | Now to throw a wrench into the topic. We have been both a union and non-union contractor. My main issues with the union: 1) the union bosses are not for the union men anymore. I firmly believe that too many BA's are in it for themselves. 2) The basic union worker does not/can not or will not understand that the contractor they work for is not the enemy. One of our customers recently built a new building. We did not do the work (we do all their service and maintenance - no construction) it was done by a large, reputable union shop. The job is beautiful, great pipe work, superb workmanship. Here is the problem, this project should have been 30-35 men tops, there were 67 men on the job for nearly 2/3 of it. Of them, (this is according to the GC's project supervisor) 15 pulled along the other 50. But due to collective bargaining, the contractor could not send anyone back to the hall to be replaced. They could only send them back as the work ran out. This brings me to my next point. 3) I firmly believe that the union system really benefits the under achievers. There is not nearly as much leeway to compensate the productive employee better than the slug. As a result, in our area the unions are finding problems getting work. Not due to the rates paid, but due to the lack of productivity. Why should I bust my ass when the guy sitting on his bucket next to me is getting the same rate? As a result, our nearest local has over 35% sitting the bench. Some locals in the state have over a 1 year wait. I describe it like this, if I pay someone $50/hr, they better produce $150/hr. If they are only producing $45/hr, what is the point. If I can only get $1/ft to install conduit and wire, that $50/hr mechanic better install 150 feet per hour. Otherwise, I need to find a guy for $30/hr - he only needs to install 90 feet per hour. I'd like to say, I'll raise my rate to $2/ft, but then I have no work and my union men are sitting on the bench. It's a vicious cycle. In the end, in this day and age, the contractors need the employees as much as the other way around. It's a shame that we still look at eachother as the enemy. Without good employees a contractor is doomed, without producing for the contractor you are with and making them a profitable business, the employee is doomed. Just my thoughts. |
| sparkie2170 | Here is the problem, this project should have been 30-35 men tops, there were 67 men on the job for nearly 2/3 of it. Of them, (this is according to the GC's project supervisor) 15 pulled along the other 50. But due to collective bargaining, the contractor could not send anyone back to the hall to be replaced. They could only send them back as the work ran out. This brings me to my next point. Is this Union math? 
|
| mahlere | actually it's 7:30 in the damn morning math. i need a calculator to add 2+2 these days. |