I have managed a business now for a number of years that is unionized. I maintain a great relationship with the Union and in return, we are able to make decisions together to continue to keep our business competitive. However, if I was starting a business, I would not put out an ad looking for unions to come represent my employees. Because: every x years there is a significant non-value added cost in negotiating a bargaining agreement (contract); every x years there is a completely new leadership from the union and they may know exactly zero about my business and my businesses needs, but they have a major controlling interest in what should be one of the company's biggest assets, its human capital; and next among what could be many, the union is seldom called upon to represent the employees who show up to work everyday and do their jobs and those who strive to excel...they are forced..not even that they want to...represent all workers, even those who are known to be troublemakers at the expense of both the company and the union. I challenge a single person on this board to tell me that they are or they know of a single manager of a business who would choose to work with a union over working directly with the people they hire and pay! Until someone can, you will have time convincing me or any other business person that right-to-work is a bad move for the state.

 

I absolutely agree that no business would want to get started by working with a union. What business would? They're in it to make money, but so are the employees.

 

I'll agree with you that a union is often forced to take up for employees it wishes it didn't have to defend. I've seen that one first hand. But I'll also disagree that the union never has to go to bat for people that show up on time and do their job and work hard. I've seen and heard of some insane things at UPS between management and labor and the Teamsters are always on top of it.

It's a tricky situation but the contract actually allows it and in an effort of togetherness we allow it sometimes. We currently have a really good relationship with the company. We are not a prototypical union in how we operate.

 

You can't be, LOL. If Corning was in Louisville, the UAW guys at Ford and BEW at GE would come protest at your plant over your union's unjust (in their opinion)union labor practices LOL. My biggest gripe with unions in Louisville is that there is NO attempt by them to work with the company. A hostile relationship is almost encouraged. My brother's father in law ran for union steward position at UPS under the guise of improving working relationships with the company. The guy who destroyed him in the vote's platform could basically be summed up as screw the company. He agrees with the idea of unions, it is in practice where he is borderline against unions despite being in one, not his choice though. If KY went right to work, he would probably look into leaving it immediately.

Edited September 3, 201412 yr by PurplePride92
Rule 8

I have worked for that kind of company as well unfortunately. I believe a vibrant growing economy is the best situation for the employee as then companies must compete for employees. And, I encourage employees, union/non-union doesn't matter, to take their careers in their own hands and develop their skills and education. The biggest boost for wages in the Lex. area was when Toyota built the plant in Georgetown and sucked up all the skilled labor resources right away at very high wages.

 

It is extremely important for people to always continue to develop their skills and education. It is essential in today's workplace. Have to keep opening doors.

It's a tricky situation but the contract actually allows it and in an effort of togetherness we allow it sometimes. We currently have a really good relationship with the company. We are not a prototypical union in how we operate.

 

This sounds familiar with our relationship. As mentioned, I wouldn't go out and advertise to get a union if I was starting the company. But, by the same token, we have a mutual understanding and mutual respect which is based upon the fact that a healthy company is a win/win. We have a contract that allows us to manage the business effectively, and we have an obligation to follow it and respect our employees. When there are gray areas, and they happen, we always try to make the decision that is in the best interests of the business.

 

There are things, such as contract renegotiation, that could be done more easily and less costly if the NLRB was not involved and the bargaining requirements were not so structured and stringent.

I'll agree with you that a union is often forced to take up for employees it wishes it didn't have to defend. I've seen that one first hand.

 

Funny story. Friend of mine and cousin of another poster on here used to be a manager at Kroger. Any time management had to discipline a female employee, they would usually try to get a female manager to call the meeting. This time my friend was the female manager on duty and the employee who needed to be met with was a woman from a culture where bathing daily is not the norm and people were complaining about her body odor. So my friend calls in the employee and decides to grab one of the female union stewards to represent the employee. Normally during one of these meetings it is a back and forth game between the manager and the steward. However, this time the steward never opened her mouth to defend the employee. After the meeting was over, the employee was dismissed (and I think instructed to go home and bath) and my friend straight up asked the union steward, "What was up with that? You never said a word." Her reply was classic, "I didn't say a word in there because I couldn't breathe sitting next to her" LOL

I absolutely agree that no business would want to get started by working with a union. What business would? They're in it to make money, but so are the employees.

 

I'll agree with you that a union is often forced to take up for employees it wishes it didn't have to defend. I've seen that one first hand. But I'll also disagree that the union never has to go to bat for people that show up on time and do their job and work hard. I've seen and heard of some insane things at UPS between management and labor and the Teamsters are always on top of it.

 

I will agree, especially to the last statement. And this happens, sometimes even with the best intentions management and the company make mistakes. In 90+ percent of the cases which are usually with the good employees, these are resolved early in the process, and most likely would have been resolved with or without a formal grievance process. The ones that aren't solvable when I think back are practically 100% with employees that the union didn't even want to represent. When these go to arbitration...luckily there have not been many...it is costly for both parties, and the our experience with arbitration is practically a joke. It is not clear the arbitrationist :clap: read a single bit of the documentation.

Because big business supports Republicans, and Republicans support big business. Corporate America outspends unions roughly 9-1 in national elections. Probably more than that now thanks to recent Supreme Court decisions. Where unions really make a difference is in get-out-the-vote organizing. No substitute for shoe leather and grit.

 

You're actually 100% wrong.

 

The money big labor has forcibly taken from workers against their will and then used in 2012 alone was over a billion.

 

They are pledging to spend $300 million in just five states this election year. That's not counting money they'll be donating to candidates, PACs and parties at the national and state level.

 

Also, since 1984, the largest contributors, vast majority from unions, went to Democratic candidates, parties and leadership PACs.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

 

I hear being in a Union is great, tho. So great, you have to be forced into joining.

LOL I gotta ask twotoplace, where did you come up with that 9-1 number?

I believe there is a need for and a place for unions. Yet, individuals should be given a choice as to whether they want to join or not.

I belonged to the Ky. Education Association for about a year and a half. I dropped out due to their support of so many non-education issues that I dropped out. If they had stuck to educational issues only, might have stayed.

No argument there. But they've gotten away from actually serving workers, first and foremost. Now, they've put those workers in the back burner and serve as political banks for liberal democrats who will in return vote to give Big Labor more money and power.

What percentage of total union members in the USA work for a government or a governmental agency, for example, Jefferson County Public Schools?

You're actually 100% wrong.

 

The money big labor has forcibly taken from workers against their will and then used in 2012 alone was over a billion.

 

They are pledging to spend $300 million in just five states this election year. That's not counting money they'll be donating to candidates, PACs and parties at the national and state level.

 

Also, since 1984, the largest contributors, vast majority from unions, went to Democratic candidates, parties and leadership PACs.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

 

I hear being in a Union is great, tho. So great, you have to be forced into joining.

 

Nobody forces anyone to join a union. If you want a union job you have to join the union. If you don't want a union job then apply for a non-union job. Pretty simple concept.

LOL I gotta ask twotoplace, where did you come up with that 9-1 number?

 

Thin air???

 

If a job is created by a union then you will need to join that union to get that job. That doesn't make sense. "I want this great job that was created by a union, maintained and reaping the benefits of being in a union but I don't want to join that union."

 

You mean a job "Created" by a business, right? With workers represented by a Union.

Nobody forces anyone to join a union. If you want a union job you have to join the union. If you don't want a union job then apply for a non-union job. Pretty simple concept.

 

Yes, most states, even ones that are not Right to Work, will usually allow you to "opt out."

 

However, you are still forced to have a decent chunk of your paycheck ripped out and there's a big chance you will lose your job. Who wants a "scab" around?

 

But that wasn't the main point of my post you replied to. My point was that Big Labor uses the forced-dues cash they collect to elect politicians who will in return vote to give them more power. The amount of money that Big Labor spends on these elections far outweighs Corporate America and Big business, which twotoplace claimed.