Apprenticeship Program = better training = quality work = lower costs.

 

Better training and quality work does NOT automatically mean lower costs. That is a fallacy.

 

Case in point...I bid on, and won a public project where we were bidding against a union general contractor. The project was completely hinging on the schedule: we were going building a new government building to replace an existing one that was being demolished because the right-of-way requirements of a major road project. The job required overtime during several phases of construction as a part of the accelerated schedule. The union general contractor was not able to provide pricing as low as my company's, even with the prevailing wage requirements, seeing as their supervision costs were far above mine because their company's very experienced and very capable superintendents were drawing wages over and above the required wages. As a result, my company was awarded the project and delivered the job on time, 100% complete to plans and specs, and at a lower cost.

All that should matter is the quality of the work and cost.

Wrong. That's the Mitt Romney-big business viewpoint. Other factors also at play here -- local accountability, keeping the wages in the community, giving apprentices a shot at big projects, ensuring that a decent wage is paid to local people rather than hiring some questionable out-of-state contractor whose workers are poorly trained and supervised. When you hire union, you're hiring your friends and neighbors. You're hiring the best.

Wrong. That's the Mitt Romney-big business viewpoint. Other factors also at play here -- local accountability, keeping the wages in the community, giving apprentices a shot at big projects, ensuring that a decent wage is paid to local people rather than hiring some questionable out-of-state contractor whose workers are poorly trained and supervised. When you hire union, you're hiring your friends and neighbors. You're hiring the best.

 

 

I will refrain from putting down unions because there are plenty of good union workers including my two younger brothers. But it is ridiculous to act like non union labor also aren't our friends and neighbors. Non union workers actually are the majority of our friends and neighbors and to make a suggestion otherwise shows lack of awareness.

 

But again you are wrong. Government job is to do what's best for the tax payer. What is best for the tax payer is getting the best quality work for the lowest price. Your utopian ideology in every thread tells me you are either very young or need to grow up, because in the real world so you don't go into the red you focus on cost and quality.

 

You also keep ignoring that Cincinnati is a city losing millions every year and on the cusp of letting go many union firefighters and police officers. There is no way limiting the bidders on the project is what is in the best interest of its citizens.

Wrong. That's the Mitt Romney-big business viewpoint. Other factors also at play here -- local accountability, keeping the wages in the community, giving apprentices a shot at big projects, ensuring that a decent wage is paid to local people rather than hiring some questionable out-of-state contractor whose workers are poorly trained and supervised. When you hire union, you're hiring your friends and neighbors. You're hiring the best.

 

This isn't "giving apprentices a shot"...this is giving apprentices projects by outlawing the competition. And your "ensuring a decent wage" statement doesn't hold water...these projects have required prevailing wage rates. Any subcontractors bidding on the work have to guarantee that they are paying prevailing wages as set by state and/or federal law, and they have to submit the certified payroll reports to prove it.

 

Also, by virtue of their union membership, you're saying a company is automatically the "best"? Meaning open-shops are inevitably inferior? Interesting.

 

Here are a couple of reports on some of the "best" union workers out there you might find a little interesting:

Here are a couple of reports on some of the "best" union workers out there you might find a little interesting ...

Thanks for not disappointing. I kept wondering when the anecdotal union bashing would begin in earnest. Alas, now you've opened the floodgates. We'll be inundated with stories of union malfeasance based on hearsay, reports from brothers-in-law, etc. Perhaps your time would be better spent exploring the role that Big Business played in almost bringing down the world economy in '08.

Your utopian ideology in every thread tells me you are either very young or need to grow up.

Utopian? Young? (Insert laughter here.)

Thanks for not disappointing. I kept wondering when the anecdotal union bashing would begin in earnest. Alas, now you've opened the floodgates. We'll be inundated with stories of union malfeasance based on hearsay, reports from brothers-in-law, etc. Perhaps your time would be better spent exploring the role that Big Business played in almost bringing down the world economy in '08.

 

I'm opening the floodgates? You're the one who led with that "When you hire union, you're hiring... ...the best" blanket statement. I'm supplying facts. You're supplying opinion.

 

Also, you'll note that I've not bashed on union workers (apart from supplying two very perfect examples of how union workers are not always "the best", in direct response to one of your statements). As a matter of fact, if you'll read back in my response in post #77, I spoke in praise of union workers. I've also said that there is value in the apprenticeship programs that unions offer. My effort here isn't to bash on unions - it is to point out the clearly unfair favoritism being displayed toward unions by Cincinnati City Council, as well as the financial irresponsibility on Cincinnati City Council's behalf.

This isn't "giving apprentices a shot"...this is giving apprentices projects by outlawing the competition. And your "ensuring a decent wage" statement doesn't hold water...these projects have required prevailing wage rates. Any subcontractors bidding on the work have to guarantee that they are paying prevailing wages as set by state and/or federal law, and they have to submit the certified payroll reports to prove it.

 

Also, by virtue of their union membership, you're saying a company is automatically the "best"? Meaning open-shops are inevitably inferior? Interesting.

 

Here are a couple of reports on some of the "best" union workers out there you might find a little interesting:

 

Those videos are misleading IMO. It's almost like saying only union employees do things like drink and smoke pot on the job and they do it because they are union employees.

Those videos are misleading IMO. It's almost like saying only union employees do things like drink and smoke pot on the job and they do it because they are union employees.

 

The only reason I used them was to prove a point...union workers are not necessarily the best workers, contrary to what Twotoplace's post pretty clearly stated.

 

You're correct, though. Union workers are not the only employees that do things like that on the job. I will say, however, that it's a lot harder to fire a union employee for drinking and smoking pot on the job than it is to fire a non-union employee.

The only reason I used them was to prove a point...union workers are not necessarily the best workers, contrary to what Twotoplace's post pretty clearly stated.

 

You're correct, though. Union workers are not the only employees that do things like that on the job. I will say, however, that it's a lot harder to fire a union employee for drinking and smoking pot on the job than it is to fire a non-union employee.

 

I do agree with your last statement. It is harder to fire them but I have seen quite a few still manage to get fired. Where I work at if the person admits they have a problem and voluntarily goes to rehab then their job is protected by law. If they don't voluntarily go to rehab then they will be fired on the spot. We see people that have been off for 6 months or longer come back and fail their drug test moreso than people drinking and smoking on the job. The last instance of someone being impaired on the job resulted in that person losing their job. I have been here 14 years and we have only had a handful of documented incidents of people drinking, smoking or abusing drugs on the job just saying that people either haven't been caught impaired and fortunately hasn't hurt anyone or themselves.

 

 

Pain pills are the new epidemic that are extremely hard to police and keep tabs on. It's really scary.

Wrong. That's the Mitt Romney-big business viewpoint. Other factors also at play here -- local accountability, keeping the wages in the community, giving apprentices a shot at big projects, ensuring that a decent wage is paid to local people rather than hiring some questionable out-of-state contractor whose workers are poorly trained and supervised. When you hire union, you're hiring your friends and neighbors. You're hiring the best.

 

 

No more so than a good non union shop, and there are plenty of them out there. Nothing else in your post would not also apply to non union shops.

I will say, however, that it's a lot harder to fire a union employee for drinking and smoking pot on the job than it is to fire a non-union employee.

In order to fire a union worker, management has to have cause. In order to fire a worker at a non-union shop, management doesn't have to have cause. Management can fire based on how management got out of bed that morning. Or, as I've seen, management can ax a worker because the worker was just diagnosed with cancer.

In order to fire a union worker, management has to have cause. In order to fire a worker at a non-union shop, management doesn't have to have cause. Management can fire based on how management got out of bed that morning. Or, as I've seen, management can ax a worker because the worker was just diagnosed with cancer.

 

You're right...firing a worker in open shops does not have to be based on any real cause. However, if someone is fired because they were diagnosed with cancer, that's clearly justifiable grounds for a discrimination suit. If the person you saw fired was truly fired because of that, you should have informed him that he could sue, and that he would very VERY likely win if what you allege was actually the case.

In order to fire a union worker, management has to have cause. In order to fire a worker at a non-union shop, management doesn't have to have cause. Management can fire based on how management got out of bed that morning. Or, as I've seen, management can ax a worker because the worker was just diagnosed with cancer.

 

Not true again showing your lack of understanding on Federal law. Is it easier to get fired from Non-Union job, yep. But with the amount of labor laws and protections even non-union workers have a lot of protection. I can go down the list if you like?

I think because non union employees don't have that union protection that sometimes their rights that are protected by labor laws aren't as easily known like they are in a union setting.