MORE Propaganda the ABC and the right . It is STILL about fair wages and working conditions .

If that was the case then the pensions and insurance etc. wouldn't be putting companies out of business. Auto Industry and Airline industry wasn't about fair wages and working conditions, it was the pensions and insurance that was so outrageous it crippled many companies.

If that was the case then the pensions and insurance etc. wouldn't be putting companies out of business. Auto Industry and Airline industry wasn't about fair wages and working conditions, it was the pensions and insurance that was so outrageous it crippled many companies.

And it takes 2 sides to negotiate a settlement that was considered fair and equitable at the time it was agreed upon.

MORE Propaganda the ABC and the right . It is STILL about fair wages and working conditions .

Funny you use the word fair after insightful first post you made about the author of the letter.

And it takes 2 sides to negotiate a settlement that was considered fair and equitable at the time it was agreed upon.

 

I never said it wasn't agreed upon. Most times these contracts are agreed upon usually end strike or threatened strike etc. that the company may not be able to survive in the first place.

 

Hey, like I said earlier, the philosophy behind unions are great but unfotuntaely many times the unions themselves forgot the basic principals and ask for way too much.

 

I will give you just an example of my personal experience with a union. The company I work for (and I won't tel you what company it is or what I do) is not unionized, although a union has tried to come in etc. Another company that does the same type of work we do that is located in Covington KY is part of a union. This other company would pay so much more for the exact same type of work to their employees because of a direct result of the union. It was to the point that many of my co-workers and myself when needed extra money would go to Covington to work several hours a day when we wanted to because the union had their employees forced to take 90 minute lunches a day. Now I'm not saying they shouldn't get lunch, we got our lunch etc. but the difference is we work a job that many times you eat your lunch there at work. Covington's union made it mandatory to leave and take your lunch which meant that positions needed to be manned everyday while people took their lunches which resulted in us going there to make big bucks for covering lunches everyday we wanted to. If we didn't cover lunches then their own people who may be off or work a different shift would come in to cover lunches which in the end would result in a ton of overtime having to be paid each and every week. You see, even if you worked a 40 hour week there, if you simply came in to cover lunches for a couple hours a day before or after your shift or even on your day off it would amount to 10 hours of overtime a week paid by time and a half, and that is just 1 person.

 

Multiply that by at least 6 people and the company ends up paying a salary at least an additional 90 hours a week if not more per shift. This is a 24 hour a day 365 day a year job, so there are a lot of shifts to cover each and every day.

 

So yes, both sides had to agree to the contract, but that doesn't mean the contract the union presents actually looks out for the best of both sides.

 

BTW, this job is paid for by tax dollars, so it ends up causing taxes to go up etc. to pay for what the union is doing.

 

Now this union is no longer part of this company due to Covington's business merging with another company and their union is no longer. But that happened just recently and for the past 20 years up until a couple months ago this was the way things were done there.

And it takes 2 sides to negotiate a settlement that was considered fair and equitable at the time it was agreed upon.

 

Unions aren't about "fair". Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to pass laws and ordinances that make it impossible for non-union companies to compete with them for work. Unions are about serving themselves...plain and simple. Read the response from one of the Cincinnati City Councilmen, below.

 

 

Thank you for contacting the office of Councilman Christopher Smitherman. This legislation was quietly pushed through the Rules Committee and then added to the Council agenda by 2:00pm the same afternoon. Only the council members supporting it and their union backers even knew that it was coming. Smitherman and Winburn did vote ‘no’ on this surprise legislation, and I believe some firms are considering some sort of legal action before the new legislation can be implemented. Councilman Smitherman is just as disappointed in the secretive way this was pushed through as he is in the bad legislation it represents, and he will continue to stand against it at every opportunity.

 

Thank You,

Elizabeth Sanford

Legislative Aide

Office of Councilman Christopher Smitherman

Unions aren't about "fair". Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to pass laws and ordinances that make it impossible for non-union companies to compete with them for work. Unions are about serving themselves...plain and simple. Read the response from one of the Cincinnati City Councilmen, below.

 

 

Thank you for contacting the office of Councilman Christopher Smitherman. This legislation was quietly pushed through the Rules Committee and then added to the Council agenda by 2:00pm the same afternoon. Only the council members supporting it and their union backers even knew that it was coming. Smitherman and Winburn did vote ‘no’ on this surprise legislation, and I believe some firms are considering some sort of legal action before the new legislation can be implemented. Councilman Smitherman is just as disappointed in the secretive way this was pushed through as he is in the bad legislation it represents, and he will continue to stand against it at every opportunity.

 

Thank You,

Elizabeth Sanford

Legislative Aide

Office of Councilman Christopher Smitherman

Couldn't of said it better!

Unions aren't about "fair". Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to pass laws and ordinances that make it impossible for non-union companies to compete with them for work. Unions are about serving themselves...plain and simple. Read the response from one of the Cincinnati City Councilmen, below.

 

 

Thank you for contacting the office of Councilman Christopher Smitherman. This legislation was quietly pushed through the Rules Committee and then added to the Council agenda by 2:00pm the same afternoon. Only the council members supporting it and their union backers even knew that it was coming. Smitherman and Winburn did vote ‘no’ on this surprise legislation, and I believe some firms are considering some sort of legal action before the new legislation can be implemented. Councilman Smitherman is just as disappointed in the secretive way this was pushed through as he is in the bad legislation it represents, and he will continue to stand against it at every opportunity.

 

Thank You,

Elizabeth Sanford

Legislative Aide

Office of Councilman Christopher Smitherman

What does the ordinance say or do? Specifics please.

What does the ordinance say or do? Specifics please.

 

I've been working on finding it, but I'm not sure that they have it published anywhere online yet, since it was just voted in 6 days ago.

What does the ordinance say or do? Specifics please.

 

If it is like legislation in Louisville, certain projects require atleast xx% of the work but done by union labor. While I would not be considered either pro or anti union (in the middle), I have found it somewhat unfair that a companies union status could prevent a qualified company from having a fair shot to bid on work.

 

When I was in public accounting, one of my clients would get around this requirement by setting up two companies, one for the employees that wanted to be unionized that they would use for jobs requiring union labor and one for the employees that did not want to be unionized that did jobs that didn't require a % of union labor. I always wondered what would happen if the non-unionized employees were to decide to unionize or the non-unionized employees were to decide to kick out their union? That would screw up the arrangement management had set up.

 

On the flip side, if a city says all employees must be paid at or above that city's living wage, I am OK with that.

What does the ordinance say or do? Specifics please.

 

Here is the exact item from the city council meeting minutes:

 

Item #: 201300608

ORDINANCE, submitted by Councilmember Chris Seelbach dated 05/01/2013 from John P. Curp, City Solicitor, MODIFYING the provisions of Title III, "Financial, Personnel, Procurement and Real Property Procedures," of the Cincinnati Municipal Code by amending Sections 320-1-A, "Apprentice," 320-1-B1, "Bidder," 320-1-C1, "Construction Contract," 320-1-C2, "Contractor," 320-1-D, "Director," 320-3, "Factors in Determination of Lowest and Best Bidder; Breach by Contractor," 320-5, "Apprenticeship Requirements," 320-7 "Pre-Apprenticeship Training Fund," of Chapter 320 "Compliance Guidelines for Construction Contracts Issued by the Department of Sewers," for the purpose of revising apprenticeship requirements and contract compliance guidelines applicable to certain City construction contracts, and extending those requirements and guidelines to certain construction contracts entered into by Greater Cincinnati Water Works and the stormwater management utility division; and further MODIFYING the provisions of Title III, "Financial, Personnel, Procurement and Real Property Procedures," of the Cincinnati Municipal Code by enacting new Sections 320-1-A1, "Apprenticeship Program," 320-1-P2, "Primary Apprenticeable Occupation," 320-1-R, "Registration Entity," and 320-1-S, "Specialized Trade," of Chapter 320 "Compliance Guidelines for Construction Contracts Issued by the Department of Sewers," for the purpose of revising apprenticeship requirements and contract compliance guidelines applicable to certain City construction contracts, and extending those requirements and guidelines to certain construction contracts entered into by Greater Cincinnati Water Works and the stormwater management utility division.

 

***Status/Recommendations: PASS

***PASSED 0114-2013

 

MR. YOUNG Y

MS. QUALLS Y

MS. QUINLIVAN Y

MR. SEELBACH Y

MS. SIMPSON Y

MR. SITTENFELD Y

MR. SMITHERMAN N

MS. THOMAS Y

MR. WINBURN N

 

Here is the current city municipal code that the amendment they passed will change: Municode

 

The amendment uses language about apprenticeship programs to clearly create an environment in which only companies with established apprenticeship programs (unionized companies) are qualified to bid on MSD work.

So, they want the contractors to use apprentices? Wouldn't that reduce the costs of labor for each job, journeyman make more than apprentices?

 

Are unions the only ones that have apprenticeship programs for pipefitting or what ever type of worker it is for MSD?

Here is the exact item from the city council meeting minutes:

 

Item #: 201300608

ORDINANCE, submitted by Councilmember Chris Seelbach dated 05/01/2013 from John P. Curp, City Solicitor, MODIFYING the provisions of Title III, "Financial, Personnel, Procurement and Real Property Procedures," of the Cincinnati Municipal Code by amending Sections 320-1-A, "Apprentice," 320-1-B1, "Bidder," 320-1-C1, "Construction Contract," 320-1-C2, "Contractor," 320-1-D, "Director," 320-3, "Factors in Determination of Lowest and Best Bidder; Breach by Contractor," 320-5, "Apprenticeship Requirements," 320-7 "Pre-Apprenticeship Training Fund," of Chapter 320 "Compliance Guidelines for Construction Contracts Issued by the Department of Sewers," for the purpose of revising apprenticeship requirements and contract compliance guidelines applicable to certain City construction contracts, and extending those requirements and guidelines to certain construction contracts entered into by Greater Cincinnati Water Works and the stormwater management utility division; and further MODIFYING the provisions of Title III, "Financial, Personnel, Procurement and Real Property Procedures," of the Cincinnati Municipal Code by enacting new Sections 320-1-A1, "Apprenticeship Program," 320-1-P2, "Primary Apprenticeable Occupation," 320-1-R, "Registration Entity," and 320-1-S, "Specialized Trade," of Chapter 320 "Compliance Guidelines for Construction Contracts Issued by the Department of Sewers," for the purpose of revising apprenticeship requirements and contract compliance guidelines applicable to certain City construction contracts, and extending those requirements and guidelines to certain construction contracts entered into by Greater Cincinnati Water Works and the stormwater management utility division.

 

***Status/Recommendations: PASS

***PASSED 0114-2013

 

MR. YOUNG Y

MS. QUALLS Y

MS. QUINLIVAN Y

MR. SEELBACH Y

MS. SIMPSON Y

MR. SITTENFELD Y

MR. SMITHERMAN N

MS. THOMAS Y

MR. WINBURN N

 

Here is the current city municipal code that the amendment they passed will change: Municode

 

The amendment uses language about apprenticeship programs to clearly create an environment in which only companies with established apprenticeship programs (unionized companies) are qualified to bid on MSD work.

How big of a deal would it be for your friend's company to set up an apprenticeship program? How does the company presently train new hires?

So, they want the contractors to use apprentices? Wouldn't that reduce the costs of labor for each job, journeyman make more than apprentices?

 

Are unions the only ones that have apprenticeship programs for pipefitting or what ever type of worker it is for MSD?

 

No, they aren't asking for contractors to use apprentices on their jobs...they are requiring contractors to have apprenticeship programs for their employees to participate in. There's a difference there.

 

And almost across the board, yes - unions are the only skilled labor contractors that offer apprenticeship programs to their employees. Participation in apprenticeship programs is expensive, to the point where an individual, open shop contractor cannot afford the cost of participating in them. Union shops are able to afford them because of their participation in the local, and because of the union-dues paid by to that local by their union employees. However, the fact that they have to pay dues to these locals makes their rates, as a rule, higher than the rates of non-union workers. Those higher rates get passed on to the MSD and the city in the form of higher bids from union companies.

How big of a deal would it be for your friend's company to set up an apprenticeship program? How does the company presently train new hires?

 

Not my friend's company. Just a company that I have worked with in the past.

 

It would be a big deal for them to set up the program. As a general contractor, I've never had to price up an apprenticeship program. However, I've talked to a non-union plumbing contractor in the past who was researching apprenticeship programs for his employees. He told me he would have to send each of his apprentice employees to class for a full day in each work week, and he would have to pay for it - at a cost essentially the same to paying his worker for the full day of work, only he would losing the day's labor while he paid essentially the same cost. That would force the employer to charge proportionally more for his services to cover the cost of paying for employees to sit in a classroom instead of having them doing work on his jobs. And again, those costs fall back on the buyer (MSD, City of Cincinnati).

 

I have no idea what his current training is for new hires. My guess would be that the new hires are responsible for arranging their training.

No, they aren't asking for contractors to use apprentices on their jobs...they are requiring contractors to have apprenticeship programs for their employees to participate in. There's a difference there.

 

And almost across the board, yes - unions are the only skilled labor contractors that offer apprenticeship programs to their employees. Participation in apprenticeship programs is expensive, to the point where an individual, open shop contractor cannot afford the cost of participating in them. Union shops are able to afford them because of their participation in the local, and because of the union-dues paid by to that local by their union employees. However, the fact that they have to pay dues to these locals makes their rates, as a rule, higher than the rates of non-union workers. Those higher rates get passed on to the MSD and the city in the form of higher bids from union companies.

 

So, the non union shops want the unions to train them to be journeyman and them hopefully come to work for them? The way you describe, how else would one become a journeyman?

 

 

I know that there are several non- union electrical contractors in NKY/OH that have apprenticeship programs, they are members of the IEC, Independent Electrical Contractors. I went through that program myself many moons ago.