More: Why Unions Often Create Problems

[Rogue]

Working for non-Unionized companies all my life, never have I had any one pay for 100% of my health care costs.  I'm happy with paying 20%, even 35% at one point.  These guys want 100% paid and they're willing to give up their jobs for it.  


Constellium stands firm in face of strike
Bloomberg, 08.17.2012

Constellium continues to stand by its final contract offer to striking workers even as its Ravenswood, W.Va., aluminum rolling mill concludes its second week of limited operations.  “We’ve put a generous offer on the table, but the union negotiating committee has turned its back on it,” chief executive officer Kyle Lorentzen said in a statement Friday.  Constellium’s offer, which was put forward Aug. 1, asks employees to begin sharing in the cost of their health care beginning in 2014.  “The fact remains that we must address our runaway health-care costs if we’re going to bring financial stability to the facility, period,” Lorentzen said.  Meanwhile, the company said “picket line misconduct” and “picket line violence” has continued, leading to the arrest of some employees.  Additionally, some “unsubstantiated rumors” about the company and its customer contracts have been circulating throughout the  strike, Lorentzen said.  “Earlier this week, it was rumors about our customers and our customer contracts that simply are not true.  There’s just so much bad information out there,” he said.  Nearly 700 employees went on strike Aug. 5 after the United Steelworkers union Local 5668 rejected the offer (amm.com, Aug. 6).  Constellium has been operating the facility at a limited rate with some 300 salaried employees since then (amm.com, Aug. 10).  The downstream aluminum producer said it wants to reduce its health-care costs at Ravenswood, which it estimates are about two-and-a-half times that of the national average.  “We have made it clear to the union negotiating committee that we must address the health-care issue and the uncertainty facing the company with rising health-care costs,” Jerry Carter, Constellium’s vice president of human resources and chief negotiator, said in a statement Friday.  Union officials did not respond to requests for comment.  Workers and their families are now having to manage without their paychecks and – at month-end – their health-care benefits, according to Constellium.  (Full Text)

[Cricket1]

Yeah it's sad that in the end it will be the families that take the brunt of the fall. Oh the union might get a victory, but it will be a pyrrhic one.

[stew71]

And at some point down the road, the company may decide it's better to move its operations overseas or over the border to avoid more fights with a union unwilling to compromise.

If I were an executive there, I know I'd have to at least consider it from a purely business aspect.

Oh and this thread will be going PO in about 10 seconds....

[xsrider]

Oh and this thread will be going PO in about 10 seconds....

It's been an hour.  I'm surprised this thread hasn't been moved to PO yet.  

I have never had a union job.  But right now, I'm just glad to be employed and glad to have health insurance, even if I have to pay for a good part of the insurance costs.

[FJR1300]

Our contract is up at the end of the year and I am fearful the union will authorize a strike. The last time that happened, we were out a long time and ended up coming back for a nickel less per hour then the company was originally offering.

 

[miles]

[Mr.Black]

 

[CLAY]

And at some point down the road, the company may decide it's better to move its operations overseas or over the border to avoid more fights with a union unwilling to compromise.

If I were an executive there, I know I'd have to at least consider it from a purely business aspect.

Oh and this thread will be going PO in about 10 seconds....

This.  I'd step out with a bullhorn and tell them all that we are now considering moving the company to China.  

[Kneescrubber]

So is that Levi Strauss? Take it from me. When it comes to colorizing, subtlety works best.  

[The Shepherd]

Maybe the owners of the company could lobby for lower heath care costs and fight FOR their employees instead of against them.

[Blunder]

Working for non-Unionized companies all my life....

I could jump on that and proclaim you a running dog lackey of the ruling classes, you shameless bandit and exploiter of the good workers that you are.  

I worked in bargaining unit for almost 28 years, IBEW to be exact, so I know a thing or two of contract negotiations.

It might be an archaic notion, but when the two parties enter into renegotiating they do so with the mindset of not giving up anything. Of course, on the face of it, this an absurd approach, but that is how it is done. It's a pain in the ass and working on pulling said thorns from said ass is the hard part. Compromise is possible, but many sides have to be amenable to it.

What must be gleaned here is some facts. Does the company want to keep this plant open? Do the represented employees show some understanding of the facts? Does the Union have the best interests of its members at heart or is it flailing away in a futile and ignorant struggle for survival at the expense of those honestly concerned with the outcome? There are other concerns that enter into this, but they are yet unclear.

Everybody concerned is on tenterhooks on the healthcare issue. It's obviously a major poker chip here. Does Obamacare win out, or does the Romney Massachussets model, basically the same thing, take over? Or has the Ryan plan taken over as an alternative?

Healthcare. It's the big issue. Are you covered?

[Kneescrubber]

Maybe the owners of the company could lobby for lower heath care costs and fight FOR their employees instead of against them.

Lobby who/what? Government? IMHO lobbying is the bain of our government. Lobbying boils down to who has the most money in Washington DC wins. I don't agree with that mentality.

[The Shepherd]

Lobby who/what? Government? IMHO lobbying is the bain of our government. Lobbying boils down to who has the most money in Washington DC wins. I don't agree with that mentality.

Yes, lobby the government. Like you said, "who has the most money wins". The 99% can't do a damn thing about lower prices and affordable insurance. The 1% certainly can, and if they wanted to take care of their employees, they should push hard for lower rates. Therefore their employees will keep more of their paycheck and come contract time......maybe would be more pliant in their demands.

It's about time for the boss to work a bit in their employees favour, you get the donkey to move faster with carrots rather than the stick.

[Mac]

Ahhh,  a damyankee.

[Papa Lazarou]

Healthcare. It's the big issue. Are you covered?

Yes. But then, so does evreyone where I live.

[SuperHans]

I worked in bargaining unit for almost 28 years, IBEW to be exact, so I know a thing or two of contract negotiations.

It might be an archaic notion, but when the two parties enter into renegotiating they do so with the mindset of not giving up anything. Of course, on the face of it, this an absurd approach, but that is how it is done. It's a pain in the ass and working on pulling said thorns from said ass is the hard part. Compromise is possible, but many sides have to be amenable to it.

What must be gleaned here is some facts. Does the company want to keep this plant open? Do the represented employees show some understanding of the facts? Does the Union have the best interests of its members at heart or is it flailing away in a futile and ignorant struggle for survival at the expense of those honestly concerned with the outcome? There are other concerns that enter into this, but they are yet unclear.

Having worked as both union labor and management at the same company I can agree with what you have to say. I've seen very militant union leadership try to manipulate the membership. I also shake my head every time I see some of the concessions the company tries to get from the union. It seems obvious the company negotiators have no clue how the complete contract is written nor how our own HR systems work as there is no way to implement some of the concessions they are asking for. It's obvious they have not looked for the input of those low level supervisors who have to actually implement the contract they negotiate.

Quite often you have two parties trying to negotiate a contract that they are looking at from 30,000 feet. They often have no concern for those who actually have to live it. It's more about getting their own points across and not about the actual contract.

I think the stance the union is taking in this case is doing a real disservice to its membership. Asking the company to foot the fool bill for healthcare when it is not the standard nationwide is foolish.

[dorklord]

Yes, lobby the government. Like you said, "who has the most money wins". The 99% can't do a damn thing about lower prices and affordable insurance. The 1% certainly can, and if they wanted to take care of their employees, they should push hard for lower rates. Therefore their employees will keep more of their paycheck and come contract time......maybe would be more pliant in their demands.

It's about time for the boss to work a bit in their employees favour, you get the donkey to move faster with carrots rather than the stick.

You're demanding free carrots at these food prices?

Look, here's our best offer: we give everyone a 20% pay cut, and use half the money we save to buy new sticks. We'll invest the rest in IT solutions that will result in increased productivity and efficiency (aka buy iPads for all the upper management staff, who will use them to play angry birds).

[arktazz]

Having worked as both union labor and management at the same company I can agree with what you have to say. I've seen very militant union leadership try to manipulate the membership. I also shake my head every time I see some of the concessions the company tries to get from the union. It seems obvious the company negotiators have no clue how the complete contract is written nor how our own HR systems work as there is no way to implement some of the concessions they are asking for. It's obvious they have not looked for the input of those low level supervisors who have to actually implement the contract they negotiate.

Quite often you have two parties trying to negotiate a contract that they are looking at from 30,000 feet. They often have no concern for those who actually have to live it. It's more about getting their own points across and not about the actual contract.

I think the stance the union is taking in this case is doing a real disservice to its membership. Asking the company to foot the fool bill for healthcare when it is not the standard nationwide is foolish.

Well said

[Blunder]

I think the stance the union is taking in this case is doing a real disservice to its membership. Asking the company to foot the full bill for healthcare when it is not the standard nationwide is foolish.

This is true. The horse that paid for full medical coverage was let out of the barn long ago and it ain't coming back. You gotta work for the government and even there complete coverage is slowly going away, especially at the municipal level.

I have also seen, from both sides of the bargaining table, a childish and obsessive hatred, bordering on fanaticism, towards the other side. Otherwise reasonable people waging a form of ideological warfare over how they believe things should be. It's real class warfare stuff and I find it distasteful, yet I know it's necessary because it has to be done.

I know the OP, Rogue, has an opinion regarding unions. That's fine. I would like to point out, however, that a collective bargaining contract is a useful tool in management/labor relations, if both sides can agree to follow it in an adult manner. The contract spells out what can and cannot be done by both sides, it proscribes all the rules for compensation, lines of progression, benefits, etc. It avoids the cases of low level supervision acting on personal whims and becoming little dictators lording it over their little fiefdom. If there are any disputes the contract is brought out and the matter is quickly settled.

Are there cases where labor has seemingly excessive demands? I know a favorite target is the UAW and it's apparent intransigence over benefits. See my above comment re both sides coming to the table not wanting to give up anything. Those benefits were hard-won and took many years to attain. People aren't going to give up such things easily. The problem is magnified when there is no reason behind the resistance to change. Union reps can be self satisfied jerks. Not all, but a lot of them like their cushy jobs to the point of annoyance. There was one I knew that I would tell to get out when he came to make his rounds and stopped by the control room. He wasn't welcome on my shift. I wanted nothing to do with his particular brand of representation.

The unions aren't alone in this. I've seen management engage in boorish behavior. I've seen some managers act as if they're still living the lives of drunken frat boys, happily denigrating the lowly peasants (most of the mid-level and on up bosses where I worked went to Cal, Stanford or some of the lower Ivy League schools) as they laugh about how righteous they were, when in reality they were the beneficiaries of lucky DNA. They won the sperm donor lottery. It is this attitude they brought to the negotiating table.

The whole process is an ugly mess, combining childishness, pigheadedness, reason, unreason and every other human foible, vice and peccadillo (ya, I know what that means) to produce something that nobody is happy with. Kinda like a bad marriage.

[Papa Lazarou]

The whole process is an ugly mess, combining childishness, pigheadedness, reason, unreason and every other human foible, vice and peccadillo (ya, I know what that means) to produce something that nobody is happy with. Kinda like a bad marriage.

A bit like Triumph/ BSA in the 70s?