goemaw.com
General Discussion => Essentially Flyertalk => Topic started by: EllRobersonisInnocent on April 03, 2013, 03:02:08 PM
-
Good? Bad? Talk to me people
My idiot co-worker says they're the greatest thing ever and every non-union contractor that does work in Manhattan are pieces of crap (also some racial slurs that I won't post)
-
I think they are both in some industries.
Construction wise, they are good because you get a ready pool of labor that all have a good level of training. That said, they are fucks sometimes too as they drive the cost of work up like crazy both on union jobs as well as on public money jobs because the Prevailing Wage rates very closely shadow union rates.
Too difficult of a question to answer without a whole lot of DNR length posts.
-
Depends on your POV I guess EllRobersonisInnocent.
-
I'm pretty sure we have have this thread before but my general thought is anti union because I believe that I am more valuable to my employer than the majority of the employees.
-
I think they are both in some industries.
Construction wise, they are good because you get a ready pool of labor that all have a good level of training. That said, they are fucks sometimes too as they drive the cost of work up like crazy both on union jobs as well as on public money jobs because the Prevailing Wage rates very closely shadow union rates.
Too difficult of a question to answer without a whole lot of DNR length posts.
She kept rambling about prevailing wages, her husband is a union worker in Junction.
I have a low union iq but why shouldn't a company be able to hire whoever they want at whatever bid they choose? She thinks union workers should do every construction job
-
I think they are both in some industries.
Construction wise, they are good because you get a ready pool of labor that all have a good level of training. That said, they are fucks sometimes too as they drive the cost of work up like crazy both on union jobs as well as on public money jobs because the Prevailing Wage rates very closely shadow union rates.
Too difficult of a question to answer without a whole lot of DNR length posts.
She kept rambling about prevailing wages, her husband is a union worker in Junction.
I have a low union iq but why shouldn't a company be able to hire whoever they want at whatever bid they choose? She thinks union workers should do every construction job
In many states, if something is funded by public money, they open the bidding up to both union and non union companies but use prevailing wage requirements to level the playing field. Otherwise, no union would win any public money job ever. For example. Most non union laborers get somewhere in the low $teens/hr while many prevailing wage rate classifications pay laborers in the $thirties/hour. The state requires the latter of non-union shops so that the union companies that pay laborers a similar wage can compete for the job.
I don't agree with the practice, as all it does is ensure you and I pay more for what we get at the government/municipality level, but thems the rules.
-
how about yards? complete rough ridin' bullshit or pretty boss?
-
my neighbor was going on and on about how being in a club was awesome but I don't know. Worth it or a complete waste of time?
-
She hates non-union ppl because her bf is a union guy. I didn't read that part of your post until now.
It's just something union guys do. they call non-union ppl "rats" and spend a bunch of time hating on them. They basically treat "rats" like #BID treats oscar, only they believe that the rats are also taking food off their table.
Your co-worker is probs a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) without a brain of her own and her bf(also probs a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) that believes whatevs the union tells him to believe) probs rails about non-union guys at home all the time.
-
my neighbor was going on and on about how being in a club was awesome but I don't know. Worth it or a complete waste of time?
Like the Lions Club?
-
I think they are both in some industries.
Construction wise, they are good because you get a ready pool of labor that all have a good level of training. That said, they are fucks sometimes too as they drive the cost of work up like crazy both on union jobs as well as on public money jobs because the Prevailing Wage rates very closely shadow union rates.
Too difficult of a question to answer without a whole lot of DNR length posts.
She kept rambling about prevailing wages, her husband is a union worker in Junction.
I have a low union iq but why shouldn't a company be able to hire whoever they want at whatever bid they choose? She thinks union workers should do every construction job
In many states, if something is funded by public money, they open the bidding up to both union and non union companies but use prevailing wage requirements to level the playing field. Otherwise, no union would win any public money job ever. For example. Most non union laborers get somewhere in the low $teens/hr while many prevailing wage rate classifications pay laborers in the $thirties/hour. The state requires the latter of non-union shops so that the union companies that pay laborers a similar wage can compete for the job.
I don't agree with the practice, as all it does is ensure you and I pay more for what we get at the government/municipality level, but thems the rules.
Thanks for explaining CNS :cheers:
-
how about yards? complete rough ridin' bullshit or pretty boss?
Boss as a hobby. If not a hobby, pud, but never complete rough ridin' bullshit unless poorly maintained.
-
how about yards? complete rough ridin' bullshit or pretty boss?
Fence or no fence is what really should be discussed
-
They are pretty important for jobs that have a high risk of injury/death.
-
better trained, but whiney as eff.
-
better trained, but whiney as eff.
So are about half of the construction workers in the world, union or no.
-
Baseball Players Union is annoying.
-
better trained, but whiney as eff.
So are about half of the construction workers in the world, union or no.
relative to non-union, they are whiney as eff.
-
What's a union?
-
in a union because I have to be. it's not that great. have never been to any special meetings or anything. also costs a lot.
-
If you love Unions and are butthurt about mom unioners ks is a tough place to live i guess
-
I thought this was going to be SQL thread.
-
When i was in college, i had a roomate who's dad was a union lawyer and landed him a summertime job pushing a broom for a union shop. I was working in the same part of town, just landed my first internship at an engineering firm that i worked my ass off to get... he made $1/hr more than me. Never been a big union fan.
-
I thought this was going to be a set theory thread.
-
Thought this was going to be a gay marriage thread.
-
Unions are socialist's wet dream. In reality, they are a collection of inefficient individuals banding together to wreak havoc on the capitalist system.
Take a look at any successful Fortune 500 Business. The vast majority are non-union. You'll find a few here or there, but everyone knows Unions simply reduce productivity and increase the wage rate. As you can imagine, the rest of us suffer in the long run.
-
Unions possess both good and bad qualities. What I do love is the people who say unions are the worst thing to ever exist and are useless all the while enjoying benefits of a workplace that unions help to make possible.
-
Thought this was going to be a gis thread (tobias bait post)
-
Thought this was a railroad thread
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
Thought this was a post antebellum America thread.
-
I think they are both in some industries.
Construction wise, they are good because you get a ready pool of labor that all have a good level of training. That said, they are fucks sometimes too as they drive the cost of work up like crazy both on union jobs as well as on public money jobs because the Prevailing Wage rates very closely shadow union rates.
Too difficult of a question to answer without a whole lot of DNR length posts.
She kept rambling about prevailing wages, her husband is a union worker in Junction.
I have a low union iq but why shouldn't a company be able to hire whoever they want at whatever bid they choose? She thinks union workers should do every construction job
In many states, if something is funded by public money, they open the bidding up to both union and non union companies but use prevailing wage requirements to level the playing field. Otherwise, no union would win any public money job ever. For example. Most non union laborers get somewhere in the low $teens/hr while many prevailing wage rate classifications pay laborers in the $thirties/hour. The state requires the latter of non-union shops so that the union companies that pay laborers a similar wage can compete for the job.
I don't agree with the practice, as all it does is ensure you and I pay more for what we get at the government/municipality level, but thems the rules.
a lot of trades even out though....carpenters for instance. We are a union shop, and our guys make just under $30/hr base rate, and prevailing wage in Shawnee County for a carpenter is only $14.60.
-
I'm pretty sure we have have this thread before but my general thought is anti union because I believe that I am more valuable to my employer than the majority of the employees.
This is a great point. Very hard to separate oneself from the rest of the employees in a union shop. For instance, at my job in California the most senior union dude made $20. He worked there 35 years. Average wage was probably $14, but even the second most senior guy only got like $17.
Plus union dues must really suck.
-
I'm pretty sure we have have this thread before but my general thought is anti union because I believe that I am more valuable to my employer than the majority of the employees.
This is a great point. Very hard to separate oneself from the rest of the employees in a union shop. For instance, at my job in California the most senior union dude made $20. He worked there 35 years. Average wage was probably $14, but even the second most senior guy only got like $17.
Plus union dues must really suck.
A California union job that makes 40k a year sounds made up. I know you aren't lying but it just doesn't make sense.
-
I think they are both in some industries.
Construction wise, they are good because you get a ready pool of labor that all have a good level of training. That said, they are fucks sometimes too as they drive the cost of work up like crazy both on union jobs as well as on public money jobs because the Prevailing Wage rates very closely shadow union rates.
Too difficult of a question to answer without a whole lot of DNR length posts.
She kept rambling about prevailing wages, her husband is a union worker in Junction.
I have a low union iq but why shouldn't a company be able to hire whoever they want at whatever bid they choose? She thinks union workers should do every construction job
In many states, if something is funded by public money, they open the bidding up to both union and non union companies but use prevailing wage requirements to level the playing field. Otherwise, no union would win any public money job ever. For example. Most non union laborers get somewhere in the low $teens/hr while many prevailing wage rate classifications pay laborers in the $thirties/hour. The state requires the latter of non-union shops so that the union companies that pay laborers a similar wage can compete for the job.
I don't agree with the practice, as all it does is ensure you and I pay more for what we get at the government/municipality level, but thems the rules.
a lot of trades even out though....carpenters for instance. We are a union shop, and our guys make just under $30/hr base rate, and prevailing wage in Shawnee County for a carpenter is only $14.60.
I think that depends. When we do commercial it is high, when we do multi unit housing, it is always much lower. For example, my elect will get 60 on some jobs and high teens on others. Not all prevailing wage is equal.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
I'm pretty sure we have have this thread before but my general thought is anti union because I believe that I am more valuable to my employer than the majority of the employees.
This is a great point. Very hard to separate oneself from the rest of the employees in a union shop. For instance, at my job in California the most senior union dude made $20. He worked there 35 years. Average wage was probably $14, but even the second most senior guy only got like $17.
Plus union dues must really suck.
A California union job that makes 40k a year sounds made up. I know you aren't lying but it just doesn't make sense.
Yeah I know, but this was in the Fresno area. The shittiest part of California. Unemployment was well over 20%+ when I lived there.
-
don't know much about trade unions, but i've worked at a union work site for the last year or so. they get paid like madmen, and they actually do have some of the crazy rules that you think sound like made up crap (like only x can do y, etc). on the other hand, the employer gets some benefits too. they are almost more like ind. contractors than employees, so the employer has a lot of flexibility (like they can say we need 20 electricians this week, 100 the next, then 50 the next, and the union takes care of it).
-
I think they are both in some industries.
Construction wise, they are good because you get a ready pool of labor that all have a good level of training. That said, they are fucks sometimes too as they drive the cost of work up like crazy both on union jobs as well as on public money jobs because the Prevailing Wage rates very closely shadow union rates.
Too difficult of a question to answer without a whole lot of DNR length posts.
She kept rambling about prevailing wages, her husband is a union worker in Junction.
I have a low union iq but why shouldn't a company be able to hire whoever they want at whatever bid they choose? She thinks union workers should do every construction job
In many states, if something is funded by public money, they open the bidding up to both union and non union companies but use prevailing wage requirements to level the playing field. Otherwise, no union would win any public money job ever. For example. Most non union laborers get somewhere in the low $teens/hr while many prevailing wage rate classifications pay laborers in the $thirties/hour. The state requires the latter of non-union shops so that the union companies that pay laborers a similar wage can compete for the job.
I don't agree with the practice, as all it does is ensure you and I pay more for what we get at the government/municipality level, but thems the rules.
a lot of trades even out though....carpenters for instance. We are a union shop, and our guys make just under $30/hr base rate, and prevailing wage in Shawnee County for a carpenter is only $14.60.
I think that depends. When we do commercial it is high, when we do multi unit housing, it is always much lower. For example, my elect will get 60 on some jobs and high teens on others. Not all prevailing wage is equal.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
don't know anything about residential, only commercial. About half of our projects are prevailing wage. Heavy/highway rates do suck. We've had a few projects with them, on quasi-building jobs. I've always worked with the contracting officer to get them to use building rates as much as possible. We did a parking lit job once and the fence sub raised the issue that the H/H rates for a laborer were like $35, so she worked with us to get it reclassified at a more reasonable rate.
-
In the private sector, unions, like OSHA, have outlived their purpose. There was a time when they protected individual workers both economically and physically. In the public sector (firemen, police, teachers, etc.) they still have their usefullness.
-
In the private sector, unions, like OSHA, have outlived their purpose. There was a time when they protected individual workers both economically and physically. In the public sector (firemen, police, teachers, etc.) they still have their usefullness.
I'm no union fanboy, but this is a trite argument. Without unions, unscupulous businesses can and will take advantage and employees will have no recourse. I've seen several companies go open shop, and within a couple of years the employees were paid crap, and working conditions went to hell.
They have their most usefulness in construction, as CNS Casey said, as a mechanism to provide consistent, skilled labor. Personally, I think the public unions (fire, teachers, etc.) are a joke.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
yeah. and we won't even start discussing manufacturing or heavy industry. the stuff I've seen, even WITH the threat of OSHA....
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
yeah. and we won't even start discussing manufacturing or heavy industry. the stuff I've seen, even WITH the threat of OSHA....
Don't know about manufacturing or heavy industry but they are out of control in commercial construction.
-
Why do any of you give a eff if other people unionize? What's it to you?
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
yeah. and we won't even start discussing manufacturing or heavy industry. the stuff I've seen, even WITH the threat of OSHA....
Don't know about manufacturing or heavy industry but they are out of control in commercial construction.
:facepalm:
-
Why do any of you give a eff if other people unionize? What's it to you?
ever try managing them? They're a pain in the ass.
-
I don't really understand why anybody takes a hard stance on either side of this debate, really. LOL at anti-union people getting butthurt about some guy who makes $30 per hour to push a broom. Props to the guy who found somebody willing to pay that rate. Also, LOL at the union dudes who protest non-union workers for taking a job that they are unwilling to do without charging double the going rate.
-
In the private sector, unions, like OSHA, have outlived their purpose. There was a time when they protected individual workers both economically and physically. In the public sector (firemen, police, teachers, etc.) they still have their usefullness.
I'm no union fanboy, but this is a trite argument. Without unions, unscupulous businesses can and will take advantage and employees will have no recourse. I've seen several companies go open shop, and within a couple of years the employees were paid crap, and working conditions went to hell.
They have their most usefulness in construction, as CNS Casey said, as a mechanism to provide consistent, skilled labor. Personally, I think the public unions (fire, teachers, etc.) are a joke.
no one has a gun to their head. If they don't want to do it, they can walk away.
-
In the private sector, unions, like OSHA, have outlived their purpose. There was a time when they protected individual workers both economically and physically. In the public sector (firemen, police, teachers, etc.) they still have their usefullness.
Actually public sector unions are the absolute most useless. They're borderline criminal.
-
Why do any of you give a eff if other people unionize? What's it to you?
ever try managing them? They're a pain in the ass.
Get a different job.
-
anyone think that unions artificially inflate wages instead of letting the market dictate the appropriate labor value?
-
Unions are money mixing pots that anymore are political action committees that exist to keep a revenue stream directed towards padding the pockets of a few at the expense of everybody. Down with unions.
-
anyone think that unions artificially inflate wages instead of letting the market dictate the appropriate labor value?
Ya, I guess I would a agree.
But, I kinda admire them for sticking together and pulling it off. Kudos if they can do it.
-
anyone think that unions artificially inflate wages instead of letting the market dictate the appropriate labor value?
Ya, I guess I would a agree.
But, I kinda admire them for sticking together and pulling it off. Kudos if they can do it.
Personally, I think you should just be better than most people at doing something. And if you can't do that, join a union.
-
Unions are money mixing pots that anymore are political action committees that exist to keep a revenue stream directed towards padding the pockets of a few at the expense of everybody. Down with unions.
I don't think this is accurate at all.
I agree with Clams, that they inflate wages and reduce hours/requirements that would exist in free market....and that us why they exist today....cause those dudes get something out of being in the Union.
It's no grand scheme. They want more pay for less work. And, they pull it off...which causes others to be super jealous.
-
anyone think that unions artificially inflate wages instead of letting the market dictate the appropriate labor value?
Ya, I guess I would a agree.
But, I kinda admire them for sticking together and pulling it off. Kudos if they can do it.
Personally, I think you should just be better than most people at doing something. And if you can't do that, join a union.
Exactly. Most laborers should join a Union. I agree.
-
anyone think that unions artificially inflate wages instead of letting the market dictate the appropriate labor value?
Ya, I guess I would a agree.
But, I kinda admire them for sticking together and pulling it off. Kudos if they can do it.
Personally, I think you should just be better than most people at doing something. And if you can't do that, join a union.
Exactly. Most laborers should join a Union. I agree.
Yes, that would be the advantageous choice. However, I think you should either provide value or get the eff out of the way and let an immigrant do it cheaper and happier.
-
anyone think that unions artificially inflate wages instead of letting the market dictate the appropriate labor value?
Ya, I guess I would a agree.
But, I kinda admire them for sticking together and pulling it off. Kudos if they can do it.
Personally, I think you should just be better than most people at doing something. And if you can't do that, join a union.
Exactly. Most laborers should join a Union. I agree.
Yes, that would be the advantageous choice. However, I think you should either provide value or get the eff out of the way and let an immigrant do it cheaper and happier.
Don't hate.
-
Unions are illogical and unfair, and we should eliminate unionized wages. Benefits? ok, as long as it's financed, but if every trade got paid higher wages, then everything you buy with your higher wages would be more expensive. It's simple: provide value, or just gtfo. You don't like it? I don't care.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
yeah. and we won't even start discussing manufacturing or heavy industry. the stuff I've seen, even WITH the threat of OSHA....
Don't know about manufacturing or heavy industry but they are out of control in commercial construction.
:facepalm:
So are you saying that without OSHA in commercial construction, workers would be forced to work in unsafe conditions or risk losing their jobs?
-
They want more pay for less work. And, they pull it off...
they should squeeze every nickle they can out of their work, but relax some on the stupid crap.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
Holy eff it is. I haven't been working long but the things the electricians I've worked with try to pull is unbelievable, and I'd say they're "better than most." My company has a contract with this company to build them some electrical equipment building (best way to describe it) and they're messing it up all sorts managerial-wise, but what's really crazy is the :sdeek: :eek: :horrorsurprise: things the workers do on a daily basis. How the heck someone hasn't seriously injured themselves is beyond comprehension.
-
You don't like it? I don't care.
I'd wager that the Union guys would say the same to you.
It's America, pal.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
Holy eff it is. I haven't been working long but the things the electricians I've worked with try to pull is unbelievable, and I'd say they're "better than most." My company has a contract with this company to build them some electrical equipment building (best way to describe it) and they're messing it up all sorts managerial-wise, but what's really crazy is the :sdeek: :eek: :horrorsurprise: things the workers do on a daily basis. How the heck someone hasn't seriously injured themselves is beyond comprehension.
Are these workers being forced, against their will and with the threat of termination by their foremen/superintendents, to do these crazy things?
-
Why do any of you give a eff if other people unionize? What's it to you?
ever try managing them? They're a pain in the ass.
Get a different job.
Fair point, I suppose. If it were up to me I'd fire their asses and pay them market prices. If they don't like it they can get another job.
Unions are money mixing pots that anymore are political action committees that exist to keep a revenue stream directed towards padding the pockets of a few at the expense of everybody. Down with unions.
I don't think this is accurate at all.
I agree with Clams, that they inflate wages and reduce hours/requirements that would exist in free market....and that us why they exist today....cause those dudes get something out of being in the Union.
It's no grand scheme. They want more pay for less work. And, they pull it off...which causes others to be super jealous.
Have you ever seen a unions LM2 filing? The union bosses and their cronies are rolling in dough. Agree on the "good for them" point but like I said if I had it my I way that crap wouldn't happen.
-
I remember the union cronies would show up every so often. They would talk to the employees for 15 minutes and then come back to management and say, "Uh, the guys want more coffee". That guy is listed on the LM-2 as making about 100k.
-
You don't like it? I don't care.
I'd wager that the Union guys would say the same to you.
It's America, pal.
I'm sure they would say the exact same thing, while they are taking their slightly higher labor wages to the bank. Good for them, but the system they are so happy to have is a remnant of a previous America - and their own history seems to get glossed over for the sake of nostalgia - and the reality is that most forms of labor are simply cheaper to outsource. The reasons most unions still exist are purely political. People who are pro-union are people who have (a) either been raised in an environment where people benefited somehow from unions, or (b) currently think they benefit from unions. There was a time when "union" work comprised a more substantial percentage of Americans. If you'd like to know what has changed, look to the rust belt - the old industrial north. Unions have since become voting blocs; but, it's a cigar industry. Anybody who thinks the proliferation of unions would be good for America's future is being nostalgic.
-
Like I said, I admire the union guys for maximizing their income, while not getting bent out of shape about Union leaders making bank.
If you are a Union guy, why do you care if Union leaders make money, as long as you make more by being in a Union?
-
Like I said, I admire the union guys for maximizing their income, while not getting bent out of shape about Union leaders making bank.
If you are a Union guy, why do you care if Union leaders make money, as long as you make more by being in a Union?
Another good point, until your union drags the company into the ground so hard that it has to be saved by tax payers.
-
If you are a Union guy, why do you care if Union leaders make money, as long as you make more by being in a Union?
the same way stockholders don't get bent out of shape about ceo's making millions for serving as a totemic good luck charm. good post, pete.
-
Like I said, I admire the union guys for maximizing their income, while not getting bent out of shape about Union leaders making bank.
If you are a Union guy, why do you care if Union leaders make money, as long as you make more by being in a Union?
This makes sense, if you have a very narrow viewpoint. A lot of people also think about themselves as stakeholders in whatever venture they are involved in. As such, they consider their role in the larger system and the impact that their function has in society as a whole. Ultimately, it comes down to a conflict of ideas. The question really is: What do you believe?
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
Holy eff it is. I haven't been working long but the things the electricians I've worked with try to pull is unbelievable, and I'd say they're "better than most." My company has a contract with this company to build them some electrical equipment building (best way to describe it) and they're messing it up all sorts managerial-wise, but what's really crazy is the :sdeek: :eek: :horrorsurprise: things the workers do on a daily basis. How the heck someone hasn't seriously injured themselves is beyond comprehension.
Are these workers being forced, against their will and with the threat of termination by their foremen/superintendents, to do these crazy things?
I was by several contractors working through HS and college.
-
Why do any of you give a eff if other people unionize? What's it to you?
ever try managing them? They're a pain in the ass.
Get a different job.
I think managing them is easy if you know how to preplan. I mean, if you understand the union agreements, there is very rarely a question as to who is responsible for what. As long as you understand that going into and write contracts accordingly, the management becomes more about coordination of timing than anything.
-
ever try managing them? They're a pain in the ass.
It's not that hard. Read the rough ridin' contract, rube.
I am a front line supervisor in a unionized environment. There are pro's and con's to it, as there are for almost all things. I've been on both sides of the line. Those who see unionized work environments as a pure black and white issue are rough ridin' dumb, looking at you Shivvyman.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
yeah. and we won't even start discussing manufacturing or heavy industry. the stuff I've seen, even WITH the threat of OSHA....
Don't know about manufacturing or heavy industry but they are out of control in commercial construction.
:facepalm:
So are you saying that without OSHA in commercial construction, workers would be forced to work in unsafe conditions or risk losing their jobs?
yes. There are a LOT of contractors that operate unsafe WITH OSHA. There would be even more without that threat.
-
Why do any of you give a eff if other people unionize? What's it to you?
ever try managing them? They're a pain in the ass.
only every single day since, oh, May 16, 1999.
-
Can we rename this thread to "People who understand economics vs. people who don't" ?
-
The CEO of WalMart makes more in one hour than most of his employees make in a year. Thank god they crush unions that try to form in their stores.
-
Can we rename this thread to "People who understand economics vs. people who don't" ?
Or maybe we could just rename the thread to "People who think companies should honor agreements that they chose to make with unions vs those who think the company should just be able to throw that agreement in the trash because no fair".
-
Can we rename this thread to "People who understand economics vs. people who don't" ?
Or maybe we could just rename the thread to "People who think companies should honor agreements that they chose to make with unions vs those who think the company should just be able to throw that agreement in the trash because no fair".
We should rename it "People who don't trust businesses not to screw over employees vs people who think companies will probably do things on the up and up without unions"
-
Can we rename this thread to "People who understand economics vs. people who don't" ?
Or maybe we could just rename the thread to "People who think companies should honor agreements that they chose to make with unions vs those who think the company should just be able to throw that agreement in the trash because no fair".
We should rename it "People who don't trust businesses not to screw over employees vs people who think companies will probably do things on the up and up without unions"
Its a two way street, a company needs me and i need them. If i think i'm worth more than i'm getting paid i can take my services elsewhere. If i truely am, and my absense is going to hurt the company more than a raise, than we'll work something out.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
yeah. and we won't even start discussing manufacturing or heavy industry. the stuff I've seen, even WITH the threat of OSHA....
Don't know about manufacturing or heavy industry but they are out of control in commercial construction.
:facepalm:
So are you saying that without OSHA in commercial construction, workers would be forced to work in unsafe conditions or risk losing their jobs?
yes. There are a LOT of contractors that operate unsafe WITH OSHA. There would be even more without that threat.
Bottom line is that OSHA costs money to employers. You bet they would trim that cost at very least if not do what they can to fully eliminate it.
-
Have an uncle who is a Union leader for the Post Office. Guy didn't even graduate high school and makes bank to basically tell people to eff off.
-
Can we rename this thread to "People who understand economics vs. people who don't" ?
Or maybe we could just rename the thread to "People who think companies should honor agreements that they chose to make with unions vs those who think the company should just be able to throw that agreement in the trash because no fair".
We should rename it "People who don't trust businesses not to screw over employees vs people who think companies will probably do things on the up and up without unions"
Its a two way street, a company needs me and i need them. If i think i'm worth more than i'm getting paid i can take my services elsewhere. If i truely am, and my absense is going to hurt the company more than a raise, than we'll work something out.
Alternatively, you could work a union job where some guy does all of that negotiation for you, so you don't have to threaten to walk out to get raises, and if you aren't happy with your pay you can still go find another job anyway.
Union workers get nothing more than their employers agree to pay. The employer is just as much to blame as the union for companies that go under for not being able to fund their union pension plan, etc.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
Holy eff it is. I haven't been working long but the things the electricians I've worked with try to pull is unbelievable, and I'd say they're "better than most." My company has a contract with this company to build them some electrical equipment building (best way to describe it) and they're messing it up all sorts managerial-wise, but what's really crazy is the :sdeek: :eek: :horrorsurprise: things the workers do on a daily basis. How the heck someone hasn't seriously injured themselves is beyond comprehension.
Are these workers being forced, against their will and with the threat of termination by their foremen/superintendents, to do these crazy things?
The exact opposite, at least the guys I work with are trying to keep them from doing these crazy things, it's more of a case of missing management rather than micromanagement. Granted they're trying to make brutal deadlines but that does not mean safety can be circumvented, the reputation of my company is built on safety records so any mishap can keep us from getting other jobs. It's more of a "when the cats away the mice will play" mentality that's the point trying to be proven. Can there be forced work in places? Sure, but really contractors (and more accurately the worker under them) are in the mentality of "getting the job done" not "getting the job done safely" or at least thinking it through. Hence the need for OSHA.
-
I've never gotten the whole "shame" thing. Every time someone hires non-union workers to do something the union pays people to stand outside and shake signs that say some message with "shame" in it. Why should the people willing to do the work for a lower wage feel shame? I recently stayed at a hotel where union workers were standing outside shaking a sign at me and telling me that I should feel "shame" for staying at a hotel that used non-union workers every time I walked in/out. Why do they think should I care?
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
Holy eff it is. I haven't been working long but the things the electricians I've worked with try to pull is unbelievable, and I'd say they're "better than most." My company has a contract with this company to build them some electrical equipment building (best way to describe it) and they're messing it up all sorts managerial-wise, but what's really crazy is the :sdeek: :eek: :horrorsurprise: things the workers do on a daily basis. How the heck someone hasn't seriously injured themselves is beyond comprehension.
Are these workers being forced, against their will and with the threat of termination by their foremen/superintendents, to do these crazy things?
The exact opposite, at least the guys I work with are trying to keep them from doing these crazy things, it's more of a case of missing management rather than micromanagement. Granted they're trying to make brutal deadlines but that does not mean safety can be circumvented, the reputation of my company is built on safety records so any mishap can keep us from getting other jobs. It's more of a "when the cats away the mice will play" mentality that's the point trying to be proven. Can there be forced work in places? Sure, but really contractors (and more accurately the worker under them) are in the mentality of "getting the job done" not "getting the job done safely" or at least thinking it through. Hence the need for OSHA.
So what you're saying is that your company provides training for their employees and puts a heavy emphasis on working safety yet some employees continue to practice unsafe acts when not under immediate supervision? OSHA is needed to ensure that those workers take it upon themselves, after being provided ample training and proper PPE, to practice safe work habits? I just want to make sure I fully understand your argument here.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
yeah. and we won't even start discussing manufacturing or heavy industry. the stuff I've seen, even WITH the threat of OSHA....
Don't know about manufacturing or heavy industry but they are out of control in commercial construction.
:facepalm:
So are you saying that without OSHA in commercial construction, workers would be forced to work in unsafe conditions or risk losing their jobs?
yes. There are a LOT of contractors that operate unsafe WITH OSHA. There would be even more without that threat.
Bottom line is that OSHA costs money to employers. You bet they would trim that cost at very least if not do what they can to fully eliminate it.
Of course there are a lot of contractors that operate unsafely. Most of them are in the residential side (I'm talking construction here, as I said in an earlier post, I am not familiar with the industrial side). OSHA has only started policing residential contractors in the last couple years. This is because most residential guys are small and any fines levied against them would not be paid in full. The company would just close up shop because they couldn't afford to pay the fine. Any reputable commercial contractor has safety protocols in place. It would cost them more in workman's comp and insurance premiums, as well as lost contract opportunities, than what any OSHA fine would be.
-
Those contractors closing up shop would be a good thing dumbass. OSHA isn't out there to collect money. The fines are punitive. Meant to be punishment. Punishment hurts. Pay up or go out of biz. That is exactly why they exist. Get the shitty guys out of biz so that the industry as a whole is better.
I don't know where the OSHA talking point has come from, but I have been working one kind of construction or another solidly for 20 yrs now and it certainly is a needed set of regulations.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
Holy eff it is. I haven't been working long but the things the electricians I've worked with try to pull is unbelievable, and I'd say they're "better than most." My company has a contract with this company to build them some electrical equipment building (best way to describe it) and they're messing it up all sorts managerial-wise, but what's really crazy is the :sdeek: :eek: :horrorsurprise: things the workers do on a daily basis. How the heck someone hasn't seriously injured themselves is beyond comprehension.
Are these workers being forced, against their will and with the threat of termination by their foremen/superintendents, to do these crazy things?
The exact opposite, at least the guys I work with are trying to keep them from doing these crazy things, it's more of a case of missing management rather than micromanagement. Granted they're trying to make brutal deadlines but that does not mean safety can be circumvented, the reputation of my company is built on safety records so any mishap can keep us from getting other jobs. It's more of a "when the cats away the mice will play" mentality that's the point trying to be proven. Can there be forced work in places? Sure, but really contractors (and more accurately the worker under them) are in the mentality of "getting the job done" not "getting the job done safely" or at least thinking it through. Hence the need for OSHA.
So what you're saying is that your company provides training for their employees and puts a heavy emphasis on working safety yet some employees continue to practice unsafe acts when not under immediate supervision? OSHA is needed to ensure that those workers take it upon themselves, after being provided ample training and proper PPE, to practice safe work habits? I just want to make sure I fully understand your argument here.
My company is overseeing the engineering of a subcontractors' construction, they are not my company's employees. I agree it's the responsibility of the subcontractor (as it is our company) to provide proper safety training and PPE to do the job correctly, but the subcontractor is failing to meet our standards and OSHA's standards of safety. It's general every company's and OSHA's policy to report any unsafe working conditions and make sure things are done in a safe manner.
To untangle your statement, even though I haven't been doing my job for a really long time, OSHA to me is the standard set of guidelines of safety in which every worker has the right to have while working and be able to go home safe every night. Without a general rule book (in addition to company policies) there would be no way to define "safe" and "unsafe" working practices legally, or at least you need some sort of bureaucracy (OSHA) to oversee the proper administration of safe work practices.
Without such as bulwark with regular inspections it becomes easy to not follow the rules, and not following the rules put workers at risk at being hurt on the job, not a thing anyone wants to have happen to themselves. Not only that, having such a legal bulwark makes it easier for me, the engineer, to cite certain rules and regulations to wayward contractors about not being safe, and also what is to be expected at the job sites I, (as an extension of my company), oversee.
-
Also, this thread seems like it belongs in the Birther Pit
-
I guess I don't understand... Do people think OSHA doesn't apply to non-union workers?
-
I guess I don't understand... Do people think OSHA doesn't apply to non-union workers?
No, they just have a hard time keeping their Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking points separated enough to not get them tangled.
-
I guess I don't understand... Do people think OSHA doesn't apply to non-union workers?
No, they just have a hard time keeping their Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking points separated enough to not get them tangled.
This, (though I didn't help I fanned the flames)
-
I guess I don't understand... Do people think OSHA doesn't apply to non-union workers?
No, they just have a hard time keeping their Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking points separated enough to not get them tangled.
See the Overated Things thread which you, CNS, initiated the derailment of.
-
Those contractors closing up shop would be a good thing dumbass. OSHA isn't out there to collect money. The fines are punitive. Meant to be punishment. Punishment hurts. Pay up or go out of biz. That is exactly why they exist. Get the shitty guys out of biz so that the industry as a whole is better.
I don't know where the OSHA talking point has come from, but I have been working one kind of construction or another solidly for 20 yrs now and it certainly is a needed set of regulations.
Wrong Dumbass. OSHA's federal funding has been cut significantly so that the majority of their funding DOES come from fines. OSHA is out there to collect money or else they wouldn't come up with guidelines that their own inspectors can't even interpret. They also wouldn't come up with regulations such as the multiemployer rule which allows them to fine two contractors for one infraction. If they were here to get the shitty guys out of the biz, they would have been regulating residential contractors years ago.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
Holy eff it is. I haven't been working long but the things the electricians I've worked with try to pull is unbelievable, and I'd say they're "better than most." My company has a contract with this company to build them some electrical equipment building (best way to describe it) and they're messing it up all sorts managerial-wise, but what's really crazy is the :sdeek: :eek: :horrorsurprise: things the workers do on a daily basis. How the heck someone hasn't seriously injured themselves is beyond comprehension.
Are these workers being forced, against their will and with the threat of termination by their foremen/superintendents, to do these crazy things?
The exact opposite, at least the guys I work with are trying to keep them from doing these crazy things, it's more of a case of missing management rather than micromanagement. Granted they're trying to make brutal deadlines but that does not mean safety can be circumvented, the reputation of my company is built on safety records so any mishap can keep us from getting other jobs. It's more of a "when the cats away the mice will play" mentality that's the point trying to be proven. Can there be forced work in places? Sure, but really contractors (and more accurately the worker under them) are in the mentality of "getting the job done" not "getting the job done safely" or at least thinking it through. Hence the need for OSHA.
So what you're saying is that your company provides training for their employees and puts a heavy emphasis on working safety yet some employees continue to practice unsafe acts when not under immediate supervision? OSHA is needed to ensure that those workers take it upon themselves, after being provided ample training and proper PPE, to practice safe work habits? I just want to make sure I fully understand your argument here.
My company is overseeing the engineering of a subcontractors' construction, they are not my company's employees. I agree it's the responsibility of the subcontractor (as it is our company) to provide proper safety training and PPE to do the job correctly, but the subcontractor is failing to meet our standards and OSHA's standards of safety. It's general every company's and OSHA's policy to report any unsafe working conditions and make sure things are done in a safe manner.
To untangle your statement, even though I haven't been doing my job for a really long time, OSHA to me is the standard set of guidelines of safety in which every worker has the right to have while working and be able to go home safe every night. Without a general rule book (in addition to company policies) there would be no way to define "safe" and "unsafe" working practices legally, or at least you need some sort of bureaucracy (OSHA) to oversee the proper administration of safe work practices.
Without such as bulwark with regular inspections it becomes easy to not follow the rules, and not following the rules put workers at risk at being hurt on the job, not a thing anyone wants to have happen to themselves. Not only that, having such a legal bulwark makes it easier for me, the engineer, to cite certain rules and regulations to wayward contractors about not being safe, and also what is to be expected at the job sites I, (as an extension of my company), oversee.
So you are an engineer or are working for an engineering firm?
-
Thought this was going to be a gay marriage thread.
Yeah, i was like that thread is going to the pit so why bother looking.
-
The CEO of WalMart makes more in one hour than most of his employees make in a year. Thank god they crush unions that try to form in their stores.
The market dictates the value of his job. Everyone on earth would agree that the CEO of most companies makes too much. But as long as companies are having to pay those salaries to compete, you bet your ass they'll pay them.
-
A union is a carefully crafted political action committee whereunder the democrat party steals money from the uneducated working class in order to push its agenda to expand and crush the working class, while simultaneously indoctrinating said uneducated working class worker through a mixture and positive reinforcement (e.g., you're welding worth $35 an hour with full benefits) and propaganda (e.g., if not for us "the man" would work you until you're dead then hire another).
Union members are also historically the source of racism and anti-immigration sentiment.
-
A union is a carefully crafted political action committee whereunder the democrat party steals money from the uneducated working class in order to push its agenda to expand and crush the working class, while simultaneously indoctrinating said uneducated working class worker through a mixture and positive reinforcement (e.g., you're welding worth $35 an hour with full benefits) and propaganda (e.g., if not for us "the man" would work you until you're dead then hire another).
Union members are also historically the source of racism and anti-immigration sentiment.
so bad union history is not propaganda (it's not), but bad industry history is totally propaganda (it's not)?
pretty lazy here FSDork.
-
The CEO of WalMart makes more in one hour than most of his employees make in a year. Thank god they crush unions that try to form in their stores.
The market dictates the value of his job. Everyone on earth would agree that the CEO of most companies makes too much. But as long as companies are having to pay those salaries to compete, you bet your ass they'll pay them.
the market doesn't dictate the value of the ceo of walmart, any more than the market dictates the value of an elite coach. there are only a handful of jobs that the ceo/coach would consider leaving for and there are thousands of people that could do his job as well or better. his salary is dictated by the cost his employer (or at least the people responsible for doing the hiring) assigns to the risk of rough ridin' up the hiring of his replacement.
-
The fact that that's the only thing you took issue with is troubling for unions.
Also, unions are the conduit for much of the countries organized crime.A union is a carefully crafted political action committee whereunder the democrat party steals money from the uneducated working class in order to push its agenda to expand and crush the working class, while simultaneously indoctrinating said uneducated working class worker through a mixture and positive reinforcement (e.g., you're welding worth $35 an hour with full benefits) and propaganda (e.g., if not for us "the man" would work you until you're dead then hire another).
Union members are also historically the source of racism and anti-immigration sentiment.
so bad union history is not propaganda (it's not), but bad industry history is totally propaganda (it's not)?
pretty lazy here FSDork.
-
i'm not a union fan, as i stated earlier in this thread.
but your arguement that the history of how companies exploited workers is invalid, but featuring the history of unions is pretty lazy.
-
i'm not a union fan, as i stated earlier in this thread.
but your arguement that the history of how companies exploited workers is invalid, but featuring the history of unions is pretty lazy.
FYI, most propaganda doesn't include "both sides of the story".
-
also pretty lazy to say they steal money from the poor, but then make the poor overpaid.
-
so you're a propaganda spreader. makes a lot of your posts understandable now.
-
Interesting, as union labor has decrease, so has the middle class and manufacturing in the US
-
Interesting, as union labor has decrease, so has the middle class and manufacturing in the US
Well, after they drove their employer out of business and overseas there was no one left to hire them.
-
so you're a propaganda spreader. makes a lot of your posts understandable now.
I'm 99% certain you don't understand anything I post. As evidenced above. I should probably take your money now.
-
Interesting, as union labor has decrease, so has the middle class and manufacturing in the US
Well, after they drove their employer out of business and overseas there was no one left to hire them.
LOL
-
The CEO of WalMart makes more in one hour than most of his employees make in a year. Thank god they crush unions that try to form in their stores.
The market dictates the value of his job. Everyone on earth would agree that the CEO of most companies makes too much. But as long as companies are having to pay those salaries to compete, you bet your ass they'll pay them.
the market doesn't dictate the value of the ceo of walmart, any more than the market dictates the value of an elite coach. there are only a handful of jobs that the ceo/coach would consider leaving for and there are thousands of people that could do his job as well or better. his salary is dictated by the cost his employer (or at least the people responsible for doing the hiring) assigns to the risk of rough ridin' up the hiring of his replacement.
No. If Mike Duke resigned from Wal-Mart right now, whatever job he took would pay at least, if not more than the job he has now.
-
Those contractors closing up shop would be a good thing dumbass. OSHA isn't out there to collect money. The fines are punitive. Meant to be punishment. Punishment hurts. Pay up or go out of biz. That is exactly why they exist. Get the shitty guys out of biz so that the industry as a whole is better.
I don't know where the OSHA talking point has come from, but I have been working one kind of construction or another solidly for 20 yrs now and it certainly is a needed set of regulations.
Wrong Dumbass. OSHA's federal funding has been cut significantly so that the majority of their funding DOES come from fines. OSHA is out there to collect money or else they wouldn't come up with guidelines that their own inspectors can't even interpret. They also wouldn't come up with regulations such as the multiemployer rule which allows them to fine two contractors for one infraction. If they were here to get the shitty guys out of the biz, they would have been regulating residential contractors years ago.
Their fines are still punitive. Their budget being drastically cut doesn't retroactively change the intent of the regulations.
Good god ppl.
Also, the idea of the multiemployer rule makes sense. If you have a contractor on your site, as a General Contractor, and he is doing stupid crap, both his employer and you should be responsible as both his employer and you have the responsibility to stop it. Guess what, if that same dumbass gets hurt, guess how the insurance works? That's right, said dumbass will sue his employer as well as the GC as well as the owner of the project. What I am saying is that in the world of responsibility, things don't stop at one level. This isn't anything new.
What exactly do you think will change if OSHA is abolished? You think the market will regulate itself in safety? Who wins if OSHA is done away with?
-
Who wins if OSHA is done away with?
The Tea Party
-
Those contractors closing up shop would be a good thing dumbass. OSHA isn't out there to collect money. The fines are punitive. Meant to be punishment. Punishment hurts. Pay up or go out of biz. That is exactly why they exist. Get the shitty guys out of biz so that the industry as a whole is better.
I don't know where the OSHA talking point has come from, but I have been working one kind of construction or another solidly for 20 yrs now and it certainly is a needed set of regulations.
Wrong Dumbass. OSHA's federal funding has been cut significantly so that the majority of their funding DOES come from fines. OSHA is out there to collect money or else they wouldn't come up with guidelines that their own inspectors can't even interpret. They also wouldn't come up with regulations such as the multiemployer rule which allows them to fine two contractors for one infraction. If they were here to get the shitty guys out of the biz, they would have been regulating residential contractors years ago.
Their fines are still punitive. Their budget being drastically cut doesn't retroactively change the intent of the regulations.
Good god ppl.
Also, the idea of the multiemployer rule makes sense. If you have a contractor on your site, as a General Contractor, and he is doing stupid crap, both his employer and you should be responsible as both his employer and you have the responsibility to stop it. Guess what, if that same dumbass gets hurt, guess how the insurance works? That's right, said dumbass will sue his employer as well as the GC as well as the owner of the project. What I am saying is that in the world of responsibility, things don't stop at one level. This isn't anything new.
What exactly do you think will change if OSHA is abolished? You think the market will regulate itself in safety? Who wins if OSHA is done away with?
I've never grasped the short sighted nature of people who trot out the anti-union (and now anti-OSHA) talking point of "it's a different world, it's no longer needed". It's a different world because it exists. Man has not changed since the advent of unions (and OSHA). Man will return to the old ways given the chance.
-
Those contractors closing up shop would be a good thing dumbass. OSHA isn't out there to collect money. The fines are punitive. Meant to be punishment. Punishment hurts. Pay up or go out of biz. That is exactly why they exist. Get the shitty guys out of biz so that the industry as a whole is better.
I don't know where the OSHA talking point has come from, but I have been working one kind of construction or another solidly for 20 yrs now and it certainly is a needed set of regulations.
Wrong Dumbass. OSHA's federal funding has been cut significantly so that the majority of their funding DOES come from fines. OSHA is out there to collect money or else they wouldn't come up with guidelines that their own inspectors can't even interpret. They also wouldn't come up with regulations such as the multiemployer rule which allows them to fine two contractors for one infraction. If they were here to get the shitty guys out of the biz, they would have been regulating residential contractors years ago.
Their fines are still punitive. Their budget being drastically cut doesn't retroactively change the intent of the regulations.
Good god ppl.
Also, the idea of the multiemployer rule makes sense. If you have a contractor on your site, as a General Contractor, and he is doing stupid crap, both his employer and you should be responsible as both his employer and you have the responsibility to stop it. Guess what, if that same dumbass gets hurt, guess how the insurance works? That's right, said dumbass will sue his employer as well as the GC as well as the owner of the project. What I am saying is that in the world of responsibility, things don't stop at one level. This isn't anything new.
What exactly do you think will change if OSHA is abolished? You think the market will regulate itself in safety? Who wins if OSHA is done away with?
I've never grasped the short sighted nature of people who trot out the anti-union (and now anti-OSHA) talking point of "it's a different world, it's no longer needed". It's a different world because it exists. Man has not changed since the advent of unions (and OSHA). Man will return to the old ways given the chance.
What it comes down to is money. Money is money and ppl will save money at the expense of worker well being unless regulated.
-
How many of you actually work for a manufacturer? Of those, how many are union?
-
My company has 350,000 employees. I'm sure some of them are union workers.
-
My company has 350,000 employees. I'm sure some of them are union workers.
Similar.
-
I work for a global manufacturer, employees ~20,000. We're all non-union AFAIK. I interned for one of the big auto makers for two summers. That's all it took to know I didn't want to work there for the rest of my life. Almost got fired my first day on the job for picking up a bolt (safety hazard) in a walking aisle.
-
I work for a global manufacturer, employees ~20,000. We're all non-union AFAIK. I interned for one of the big auto makers for two summers. That's all it took to know I didn't want to work there for the rest of my life. Almost got fired my first day on the job for picking up a bolt (safety hazard) in a walking aisle.
I have a good friend who worked for Ford for a while and has a bunch of family that still does. The stories I hear from them along with the ones we all hear on the news definitely make me think the Auto unions are the primary issue in why most ppl hate unions. I mean, they get by with some outlandish stuff. Some of it could land the normal non-union guy in jail.
Also, with the automation of the manufacturing process, it took skill out of many of the jobs from what I understand to the point that the "certain level of training" argument I made for the construction industry doesn't apply.
For example, one story I heard was that a guy at Ford had the responsibility of checking one screw/bolt/whatevs on one certain part of the door of cars to make sure it was fully tightened. How did he do this? With a device that measures torque? Nope. with his thumbnail. He went around and tried to slide his thumbnail behind the screw head and if he could, he had to call another guy over to tighten it. His thumbnail was worn all weird because of this repeated use too. this guy was getting paid in excess of $70k last I heard.
Also, a new one I heard this yr: there is a lift at Ford that takes the truck from one level of the conveyor down a level to another area. The lift can be manipulated so that it moves before the vehicle is fully placed on it by the conveyor. A certain guy was significantly lowering the lift so that when the truck came off the line, it would fall like 5-6 feet to the lift. Ford's protocol is to shut the entire portion of the line down for the shift to investigate for safety reasons. Boom! paid shift off since the union negotiated it that way.
That all said, I am all for someone negotiating for as much as they can get.
-
I work for a global manufacturer, employees ~20,000. We're all non-union AFAIK. I interned for one of the big auto makers for two summers. That's all it took to know I didn't want to work there for the rest of my life. Almost got fired my first day on the job for picking up a bolt (safety hazard) in a walking aisle.
I have a good friend who worked for Ford for a while and has a bunch of family that still does. The stories I hear from them along with the ones we all hear on the news definitely make me think the Auto unions are the primary issue in why most ppl hate unions. I mean, they get by with some outlandish stuff. Some of it could land the normal non-union guy in jail.
Also, with the automation of the manufacturing process, it took skill out of many of the jobs from what I understand to the point that the "certain level of training" argument I made for the construction industry doesn't apply.
For example, one story I heard was that a guy at Ford had the responsibility of checking one screw/bolt/whatevs on one certain part of the door of cars to make sure it was fully tightened. How did he do this? With a device that measures torque? Nope. with his thumbnail. He went around and tried to slide his thumbnail behind the screw head and if he could, he had to call another guy over to tighten it. His thumbnail was worn all weird because of this repeated use too. this guy was getting paid in excess of $70k last I heard.
Also, a new one I heard this yr: there is a lift at Ford that takes the truck from one level of the conveyor down a level to another area. The lift can be manipulated so that it moves before the vehicle is fully placed on it by the conveyor. A certain guy was significantly lowering the lift so that when the truck came off the line, it would fall like 5-6 feet to the lift. Ford's protocol is to shut the entire portion of the line down for the shift to investigate for safety reasons. Boom! paid shift off since the union negotiated it that way.
That all said, I am all for someone negotiating for as much as they can get.
Those unions would already be dead because of crap like that if the government wouldn't have bailed them out.
-
I thought this thread was about buildings on college campuses where students congregate outside of class.
-
I thought this thread was about buildings on college campuses where students congregate outside of class.
K-State has the best union that I have visited, by far. I haven't been to many outside of Kansas, though.
-
I thought this thread was about plumbing and joining two pieces of pipe together.
-
Those who say that osha isn't needed don't know many contractors.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
:lol:
Funny cause it's true.
Holy eff it is. I haven't been working long but the things the electricians I've worked with try to pull is unbelievable, and I'd say they're "better than most." My company has a contract with this company to build them some electrical equipment building (best way to describe it) and they're messing it up all sorts managerial-wise, but what's really crazy is the :sdeek: :eek: :horrorsurprise: things the workers do on a daily basis. How the heck someone hasn't seriously injured themselves is beyond comprehension.
Are these workers being forced, against their will and with the threat of termination by their foremen/superintendents, to do these crazy things?
The exact opposite, at least the guys I work with are trying to keep them from doing these crazy things, it's more of a case of missing management rather than micromanagement. Granted they're trying to make brutal deadlines but that does not mean safety can be circumvented, the reputation of my company is built on safety records so any mishap can keep us from getting other jobs. It's more of a "when the cats away the mice will play" mentality that's the point trying to be proven. Can there be forced work in places? Sure, but really contractors (and more accurately the worker under them) are in the mentality of "getting the job done" not "getting the job done safely" or at least thinking it through. Hence the need for OSHA.
So what you're saying is that your company provides training for their employees and puts a heavy emphasis on working safety yet some employees continue to practice unsafe acts when not under immediate supervision? OSHA is needed to ensure that those workers take it upon themselves, after being provided ample training and proper PPE, to practice safe work habits? I just want to make sure I fully understand your argument here.
My company is overseeing the engineering of a subcontractors' construction, they are not my company's employees. I agree it's the responsibility of the subcontractor (as it is our company) to provide proper safety training and PPE to do the job correctly, but the subcontractor is failing to meet our standards and OSHA's standards of safety. It's general every company's and OSHA's policy to report any unsafe working conditions and make sure things are done in a safe manner.
To untangle your statement, even though I haven't been doing my job for a really long time, OSHA to me is the standard set of guidelines of safety in which every worker has the right to have while working and be able to go home safe every night. Without a general rule book (in addition to company policies) there would be no way to define "safe" and "unsafe" working practices legally, or at least you need some sort of bureaucracy (OSHA) to oversee the proper administration of safe work practices.
Without such as bulwark with regular inspections it becomes easy to not follow the rules, and not following the rules put workers at risk at being hurt on the job, not a thing anyone wants to have happen to themselves. Not only that, having such a legal bulwark makes it easier for me, the engineer, to cite certain rules and regulations to wayward contractors about not being safe, and also what is to be expected at the job sites I, (as an extension of my company), oversee.
So you are an engineer or are working for an engineering firm?
Engineer working for an engineering firm.
-
I thought this thread was about buildings on college campuses where students congregate outside of class.
K-State has the best union that I have visited, by far. I haven't been to many outside of Kansas, though.
I wish it had a more traditional look.
-
I thought this thread was about buildings on college campuses where students congregate outside of class.
K-State has the best union that I have visited, by far. I haven't been to many outside of Kansas, though.
I wish it had a more traditional look.
I like how we are different. Our union is better than other unions, so why should it look the same?