I'm not sure. It'd be a very interesting scenario to say the least. It depends on what options the company has and how they choose to act. It'd be very interesting.

To my knowledge RTW doesn't really change the companies options, only the workers.

Interesting hearing such a cavalier attitude about things... I agree with your stance, but it also makes me scratch my head a little. It's a different discussion for a different thread, but I find that position to be somewhat contrary to the attitude of the construction unions who are fighting for all public jobs to require 100% unionized labor. Nobody is forcing union companies to bid on those jobs. If they don't want to bid a project at non-determined wages, nobody is forcing them to. Why do they make such a stink?

 

 

 

I think that may that false sense of entitlement that some people get from being in unions. That every job similar to theirs should be theirs. The situation you describe is just one of the many that unions tend to take that make us all look bad. I agree with what you said. I wonder why that is.

 

It's funny meeting presidents from other locals and seeing the different attitudes from different people involved in the union. Especially as you get higher up the ladder. There's some I wouldn't mind being like and there's some I will never be like. :lol: My main concern is my local first and foremost regardless of what our district and national reps say or tell us. I work for my members and the reps work for me is the way it is supposed to be.

To my knowledge RTW doesn't really change the companies options, only the workers.

 

It'd be very interesting. I wonder what the company would offer to sway people to leave the union.

 

I may have to have some off the record conversations with the brass one day.

Great conversation today with a company person here at work.

 

Shared thoughts:

 

Kentucky will never be RTW.

 

Corning would have RTW employees and Union Employees.

 

Huge headache for Human Resources. They would prefer it one way or the other. Not both. Too much of a headache.

 

No grievance process for RTW employees. You could be fired on the spot without due process.

 

Wages could change. Unsure if RTW would be better, equal to or less than union employees. Too many unknowns for a concrete answer.

 

RTW would adopt company benefits, vacation plan, attendance policy, etc. and the unions would remain the same.

 

In the result of a layoff the RTWs affected would be permanently let go while the union employees would be laid off and brought back when the climate calls for it.

 

Would see a sizable percentage of union employees go to RTW(generally believed to be most of the younger and newer employees).

 

It would be an interesting dynamic to see take place once all of the facts would be laid out for people to weigh the pros and cons of RTW and Union.

 

 

 

 

If these shared thoughts came to fruition I'd likely stay union but I am always open to listen and see. The layoff situation and the vacation plan are the two most important to me. All indications are that the wages wouldn't change much if any change at all.

PP2, question do you a tiered wage scale?

Great conversation today with a company person here at work.

 

Shared thoughts:

 

Kentucky will never be RTW.

 

Corning would have RTW employees and Union Employees.

 

Huge headache for Human Resources. They would prefer it one way or the other. Not both. Too much of a headache.

 

No grievance process for RTW employees. You could be fired on the spot without due process.

 

Wages could change. Unsure if RTW would be better, equal to or less than union employees. Too many unknowns for a concrete answer.

 

RTW would adopt company benefits, vacation plan, attendance policy, etc. and the unions would remain the same.

 

In the result of a layoff the RTWs affected would be permanently let go while the union employees would be laid off and brought back when the climate calls for it.

 

Would see a sizable percentage of union employees go to RTW(generally believed to be most of the younger and newer employees).

 

It would be an interesting dynamic to see take place once all of the facts would be laid out for people to weigh the pros and cons of RTW and Union.

 

 

 

 

If these shared thoughts came to fruition I'd likely stay union but I am always open to listen and see. The layoff situation and the vacation plan are the two most important to me. All indications are that the wages wouldn't change much if any change at all.

I think this illustrates perfectly why those who support RTW do so. It gives the worker a choice. There is obvious pros and cons to be in the union or not. You have to look at both sides and decide what is better for you.

 

Some of the things listed are true regardless of RTW for non union jobs.

I think this illustrates perfectly why those who support RTW do so. It gives the worker a choice. There is obvious pros and cons to be in the union or not. You have to look at both sides and decide what is better for you.

 

Some of the things listed are true regardless of RTW for non union jobs.

 

I'd be very intrigued and would listen intently to what they had to say.

PP2, question do you a tiered wage scale?

 

I believe so. Forgive my ignorance and explain to me what a tiered wage scale is. I know how our wage system works but don't know the title of it.

I believe so. Forgive my ignorance and explain to me what a tiered wage scale is. I know how our wage system works but don't know the title of it.

 

A tiered scale is simply a wage scale that brings in new employees at a lesser rate to perform the same task as the veteran employees.

A tiered scale is simply a wage scale that brings in new employees at a lesser rate to perform the same task as the veteran employees.

 

Gotcha. I'm not sure. Here's how ours works.

 

If I start as an SGO(entry level job) today I am making 18.00/hour. Someone who has been there 35 years and is an SGO is making 20.00/hour. After 90 days I am given a raise to 19.00/hour. After 180 days I am making 20.00/hour so after being at Corning 180 days I am making the same hourly wage as someone who is an SGO and has been there 35 years.

 

This holds true in all labor job classifications here at the plant. If take a mechanic bid I'll go through the 3-4 year apprenticeship. Once that is completed after I am out of the apprenticeship and I am Class A mechanic for 180 days I have 'topped out' as a mechanic and make the same hourly rate as all of the other Class A mechanics.

You do have a choice...nobody makes you or forces you to work at a particular company. If a condition of employment is to join the union and you do not want to join the union go somewhere else to work.

 

Why should a worker have to be part of a Union to work for a company when neither the worker or the company want the worker to be in the Union?

Gotcha. I'm not sure. Here's how ours works.

 

If I start as an SGO(entry level job) today I am making 18.00/hour. Someone who has been there 35 years and is an SGO is making 20.00/hour. After 90 days I am given a raise to 19.00/hour. After 180 days I am making 20.00/hour so after being at Corning 180 days I am making the same hourly wage as someone who is an SGO and has been there 35 years.

 

This holds true in all labor job classifications here at the plant. If take a mechanic bid I'll go through the 3-4 year apprenticeship. Once that is completed after I am out of the apprenticeship and I am Class A mechanic for 180 days I have 'topped out' as a mechanic and make the same hourly rate as all of the other Class A mechanics.

 

The above was one of my main issues with the union when I was a member. I just didn't think a newbie off the street should be making the same wage I was. A tenured employee. There is no merit in that system. That was the major issue that put us on the street many years ago. I questioned the union president on this, as was otld point blank that as far as wage my tenure and experience had not merit as to my salary. We are all the same. Well that did not sit well with myself and a majority of the membership. We had been on the street for 7 weeks, losing money that would never be regained, and being told that as individuals we had no say in the process. This lemmingmentality that persists in the union atmosphere in this day and age is really quite dumbfounding.

Sounds like you needed an Apprenticeship program like my Union has . It's for 5 years during which you go to apprenticeship school ( mandantory ) and have on the job training to learn the many aspects of our trade ,at the end of the 5 years you take a final test on what you have learned and if you pass then you make a journeyman's wages . You start out at around $12.00 an hour + benefits and top out at around $30 an hour + benefits . Raises are determined once a year on how well you score on the many tests that you take in apprenticeship school , also you do not stay with one company but are moved around once a year so that you get to work with many different people and companies .

The above was one of my main issues with the union when I was a member. I just didn't think a newbie off the street should be making the same wage I was. A tenured employee. There is no merit in that system. That was the major issue that put us on the street many years ago. I questioned the union president on this, as was otld point blank that as far as wage my tenure and experience had not merit as to my salary. We are all the same. Well that did not sit well with myself and a majority of the membership. We had been on the street for 7 weeks, losing money that would never be regained, and being told that as individuals we had no say in the process. This lemmingmentality that persists in the union atmosphere in this day and age is really quite dumbfounding.

 

Different strokes for different folks. When I started at Corning I loved knowing that in 180 days I'd top out. Doesn't bother me any at all. It would bother me more if I was leaps and bounds better at my job than someone who has been there 35 years but they make more than me because they were born before I was. This way everyone is equal. Seems fair to me.

 

Does that have to do with a union though? Do all non union plants pay based on tenure or performance?

Different strokes for different folks. When I started at Corning I loved knowing that in 180 days I'd top out. Doesn't bother me any at all. It would bother me more if I was leaps and bounds better at my job than someone who has been there 35 years but they make more than me because they were born before I was. This way everyone is equal. Seems fair to me. Does that have to do with a union though? Do all non union plants pay based on tenure or performance?

 

But everyone is not equal. If I am more productive in my job than you, why should you make the same amount of money that I do? I don't see that as being fair at all.