Verizon striking

[sam_gordon]

So Familyoffive, you feel the grocery workers have such a lowly job, they should not strike. So these low wage earners should go without a raise or pay increasing medical costs. With the economy the way it is, how will they handle the increased costs? We see gas and food prices ever rising. In my city, commuting costs are increasing with rising tolls and mass transit fares. Who will support these workers when they can't pay for food because of their shrinking pay? Will the government have to implement more subsidies to meet the needs of those underemployed workers? It's not as if grocery stores will reduce their prices because they will be gaining a cheaper workforce. In fact I'm sure they will increase their prices too. I will say it again unions do have a place in today's world, especially with all the evidence of increasing corporate greed.

I'm not Familyoffive, but it sounds like you feel EVERY worker should be GUARANTEED a raise every year... after all, workers have to keep up with inflation, right? Is that what you're advocating?

I also think unions have a place in today's world. But they should be around to make sure there is not abuse of workers. Assuming an employer is paying minimum wage and following overtime rules, I think unions should stay out of pay negotiation.

Look at it this way... I'm good at my job. My boss has told me so. The price of gas is going up (and I have a daily hourly commute RT), the price of food is going up, health insurance is going up, etc, etc. I go to my boss and say "I want a 5% raise to keep up with the costs of everything." My boss says "No, I can only give you 2%" or "Sorry, no raises this year." Can you please tell me what my choices are? What would you do?

In my job, the company was around LONG before I showed up, and will still be around LONG after I'm gone. If I leave (even if I'm not replaced), will the company survive? Yup. Granted things may not get done as quickly or as well, but I'm pretty sure the company will muddle through. They'd probably even survive if my entire department (three including me) walk out.

I GUARANTEE it's easier to train a checkout person, bagger, or customer service rep than it would be to train someone for my job. That doesn't mean I'm irreplaceable though.

 

[Dominus]

FOF, You don't like the closed shop, but how do you feel about totally non-union jobs? Like when the butchers at walmart unionized and walmart just did away with butchers all together. Is that ok? Sure it is, because the company can do what they want with their own business, but the workers should just shut up or quit if they don't like the job. I've heard this too many times to entertain it any longer. I'm done with this thread. I wish the other people who will continue to engage you in conversation the best of luck, but I'm not optimistic that they'll persuade you from your anti-union perch. Good bye, and good luck.

 

[undertheradar]

So Familyoffive, you feel the grocery workers have such a lowly job, they should not strike. So these low wage earners should go without a raise or pay increasing medical costs. With the economy the way it is, how will they handle the increased costs? We see gas and food prices ever rising. In my city, commuting costs are increasing with rising tolls and mass transit fares. Who will support these workers when they can't pay for food because of their shrinking pay? Will the government have to implement more subsidies to meet the needs of those underemployed workers? It's not as if grocery stores will reduce their prices because they will be gaining a cheaper workforce. In fact I'm sure they will increase their prices too. I will say it again unions do have a place in today's world, especially with all the evidence of increasing corporate greed.

Possibly they should look at reducing salaries at the union. Local 770 of the UFCW has some interesting salary for representing the lowly and underemployed grocery clerks. President of Local 770: $287,131.00 salary per year. The person employed as secretary-treasurer: $540,490.00 salary per year. Do these look excessive to you, they do to me.

 

[undertheradar]

FOF, You don't like the closed shop, but how do you feel about totally non-union jobs? Like when the butchers at walmart unionized and walmart just did away with butchers all together. Is that ok? Sure it is, because the company can do what they want with their own business, but the workers should just shut up or quit if they don't like the job. I've heard this too many times to entertain it any longer. I'm done with this thread. I wish the other people who will continue to engage you in conversation the best of luck, but I'm not optimistic that they'll persuade you from your anti-union perch. Good bye, and good luck.

So the ability to leave for another position with another employer is wrong? I like the idea of an open shop, then if you want to join the union go ahead, just don't force it upon those who don't buy into everything the union is trying to sell. That would be a win/win, those who want to pay dues and belong to the union can and those who don't wish to don't have to.

 

[Dominus]

So the ability to leave for another position with another employer is wrong? I like the idea of an open shop, then if you want to join the union go ahead, just don't force it upon those who don't buy into everything the union is trying to sell. That would be a win/win, those who want to pay dues and belong to the union can and those who don't wish to don't have to.

Okay, you've sucked me back in. Where did I say that the ability to leave for another position with another employer was wrong? I didn't. I'm saying that that is merely one of the rights a worker should have, another right is the right to collectively bargain on working issues and to address problems as opposed to just having to leave the job. I support open shops provided the union does not have to extend their hard fought benefits to those who do no become members and if the union is not compelled to defend non-union workers when they are grieved. If they want to go it alone, so be it. But for the most part they just want to get the benefits of union work without paying. In Texas we are a right to work (for less and be fires on a whim) state. However, nonunion workers get the same pay and benefits as union dues payers and the union IS FORCED to defend them when grieved. As far as I'm concerned, the non-union workers at union shops generally are free loaders. The type to come to a party and not bring a side, eat all the food, and then likely complain about the quality of said food.

 

[dakcp2001]

Possibly they should look at reducing salaries at the union. Local 770 of the UFCW has some interesting salary for representing the lowly and underemployed grocery clerks. President of Local 770: $287,131.00 salary per year. The person employed as secretary-treasurer: $540,490.00 salary per year. Do these look excessive to you, they do to me.

When you compare it to what the CEOS make of the businesses they represent, it looks like peanuts. I am actually surprised they are so low. Which position is the equivelent of CEO? President?

 

[undertheradar]

When you compare it to what the CEOS make of the businesses they represent, it looks like peanuts. I am actually surprised they are so low. Which position is the equivelent of CEO? President?

These are for the union local positions, probably equal to store manager or director. There are many of these throughout the country. You don't believe that these salaries are excessive? What work do you figure these positions do for the rank and file?

 

[undertheradar]

Okay, you've sucked me back in. Where did I say that the ability to leave for another position with another employer was wrong? I didn't. I'm saying that that is merely one of the rights a worker should have, another right is the right to collectively bargain on working issues and to address problems as opposed to just having to leave the job. I support open shops provided the union does not have to extend their hard fought benefits to those who do no become members and if the union is not compelled to defend non-union workers when they are grieved. If they want to go it alone, so be it. But for the most part they just want to get the benefits of union work without paying. In Texas we are a right to work (for less and be fires on a whim) state. However, nonunion workers get the same pay and benefits as union dues payers and the union IS FORCED to defend them when grieved. As far as I'm concerned, the non-union workers at union shops generally are free loaders. The type to come to a party and not bring a side, eat all the food, and then likely complain about the quality of said food.

That's the beauty of an open shop, if you want to pay to belong to the union, you can. If others don't want to support the union leaders via dues, they don't have to. That is what I see as a win/win. The unions are, afterall, fighting for the benefit of everyone else and the survival of the American middle class. If that is the case as was being stated throughout the Verizon strike, then there are no free-loaders, as you call them, just fellow, middle class Americans.

 

[undertheradar]

Okay, you've sucked me back in. Where did I say that the ability to leave for another position with another employer was wrong? I didn't. I'm saying that that is merely one of the rights a worker should have, another right is the right to collectively bargain on working issues and to address problems as opposed to just having to leave the job. I support open shops provided the union does not have to extend their hard fought benefits to those who do no become members and if the union is not compelled to defend non-union workers when they are grieved. If they want to go it alone, so be it. But for the most part they just want to get the benefits of union work without paying. In Texas we are a right to work (for less and be fires on a whim) state. However, nonunion workers get the same pay and benefits as union dues payers and the union IS FORCED to defend them when grieved. As far as I'm concerned, the non-union workers at union shops generally are free loaders. The type to come to a party and not bring a side, eat all the food, and then likely complain about the quality of said food.

As a union member, aren't your job options controlled by where the union works? Meaning where they are union shops as opposed to non union shops?

 

[threecrazykids]

I've kept quiet for a few days watching this all play out. I'm still curious as to why the union agreed to come back. I've been reading a lot of the boards where there's exclamations of "WE WON" (from union workers).

I'm confused by this statement. How do the union workers feel they won? If they are referring to getting their benefits and paycheck back, I guess, yes it's a win. But as far as anything "changing" as far as VZ motives and hot topics in the bargaining go, from what I'm seeing, top execs say they remain focused on the objectives.

I'm very happy everyone is back to work. I just wonder what VZ's motives are in this...as well as the unions. I see this as VZ saying "ok...we don't want to pay unemployment, etc. so bring them back on for 30 days...let them clean up as much of the backlog as possible (hence the reason for the REMOVAL of the overtime cap on that work agreement)...and send em' back out!"

Is the union not wanting to deplete the strike fund for those who ARE eligible, so they agree to come back and throw out the "We've crippled them, so now their getting serious!" spin on it?

I don't trust EITHER side as far as PR is concerned. They are going to say what THEIR side wants to hear. That the other side is caving and that's why they are back on the job.

Was there a big buy off of some union leaders by VZ? Who knows.

I'm very happy everyone is back to work...for now...but I certainly don't see this being the end of this, where everyone is now "ready to bargain fair" and just work out the little items left on the table. No...far from it. The big issues haven't even been addressed yet...I just hope the 2 weeks out wasn't for nothing but to put the union 2 weeks without pay.

It all seems verrrrry fishy to me.

 

[lisaross]

That's the beauty of an open shop, if you want to pay to belong to the union, you can. If others don't want to support the union leaders via dues, they don't have to. That is what I see as a win/win. The unions are, afterall, fighting for the benefit of everyone else and the survival of the American middle class. If that is the case as was being stated throughout the Verizon strike, then there are no free-loaders, as you call them, just fellow, middle class Americans.

I am disappointed in you. I didn’t think that you would stoop to mincing words. Of course the union is a business in itself, and needs the dues of its paying members to get anything done, much less survive. The non-dues paying workers who reap the rewards of union won benefits, and protection are nothing better than flagrant freeloaders. After 45 pages of debates are you really going to stoop to playing with semantics?

 

[Acklander]

I've kept quiet for a few days watching this all play out. I'm still curious as to why the union agreed to come back. I've been reading a lot of the boards where there's exclamations of "WE WON" (from union workers).

I'm confused by this statement. How do the union workers feel they won?

It all seems verrrrry fishy to me.

I don't work for version and haven't read in depth on what the reasons are, but from what I understand they are going back to work under the terms of the old contract until the new contract is hashed out. Since then workers were striking for what they already had and weren't asking for anything new, maybe they consider the terms of the old contract to be winning??? At least thats my take on it. It doesn't seem fishy to me.

 

[Deealee]

I don't work for version and haven't read in depth on what the reasons are, but from what I understand they are going back to work under the terms of the old contract until the new contract is hashed out. Since then workers were striking for what they already had and weren't asking for anything new, maybe they consider the terms of the old contract to be winning??? At least thats my take on it. It doesn't seem fishy to me.

That's exactly it.

 

[undertheradar]

I am disappointed in you. I didn’t think that you would stoop to mincing words. Of course the union is a business in itself, and needs the dues of its paying members to get anything done, much less survive. The non-dues paying workers who reap the rewards of union won benefits, and protection are nothing better than flagrant freeloaders. After 45 pages of debates are you really going to stoop to playing with semantics?

The true colors come out. When the union strikers declared that they were fighting for the survival of the middle class and what benefits they receive would somehow benefit all of the rest of us. Now you come and second the idea that anyone not joining the union in an open shop is a freeloader? If you were striking to preserve the middle class, how can you possibly state that someone who gets the same things you were fighting for without contributing to the union via dues isn't entitled to them? This under the premise of an open shop. Goes against common sense to say that you are doing it for the benefit of everyone else if you are calling a non union member in an open shop a flagrant freeloader. Weren't the strikers posting on here about the benefit of this strike as it pertains to all other workers? That isn't the message that labeling someone a "freeloader" sends.

 

[Dominus]

The true colors come out. When the union strikers declared that they were fighting for the survival of the middle class and what benefits they receive would somehow benefit all of the rest of us. Now you come and second the idea that anyone not joining the union in an open shop is a freeloader? If you were striking to preserve the middle class, how can you possibly state that someone who gets the same things you were fighting for without contributing to the union via dues isn't entitled to them? This under the premise of an open shop. Goes against common sense to say that you are doing it for the benefit of everyone else if you are calling a non union member in an open shop a flagrant freeloader. Weren't the strikers posting on here about the benefit of this strike as it pertains to all other workers? That isn't the message that labeling someone a "freeloader" sends.

Why don't the "close shop" people who don't want to support the union just go find a job at an "open shop"? Or better yet, a non-union shop. It seems you want to use that when employees should just go to a different job. But for people who don't want to join, they should have the right to keep the job, but not join the union. Hmm. Double standard! I'm all for an open shop if the union doesn't have to extend representation to the non dues payers. Let them go it alone if they don't want to bargain collectively. I'd be curious to see what "great" deal they would get, my guess is...the same as "contract" or "temp", or "part-time" employees...not a great deal at all.

 

[undertheradar]

Why don't the "close shop" people who don't want to support the union just go find a job at an "open shop"? Or better yet, a non-union shop. It seems you want to use that when employees should just go to a different job. But for people who don't want to join, they should have the right to keep the job, but not join the union. Hmm. Double standard! I'm all for an open shop if the union doesn't have to extend representation to the non dues payers. Let them go it alone if they don't want to bargain collectively. I'd be curious to see what "great" deal they would get, my guess is...the same as "contract" or "temp", or "part-time" employees...not a great deal at all.

I don't see why they should have to be represented by the union for greivance(sp) issues. That to me is wrong. There is no double standard involved. Now if the union employee wanted to go to a non union shop but still be unionized, that would probably pose problems. The whole purpose of the open shop is to allow choice of belonging to the union or not. Are you saying it is a double standard if the union employee is not allowed union representation in a non union shop?

 

[Dominus]

I don't see why they should have to be represented by the union for greivance(sp) issues. That to me is wrong. There is no double standard involved. Now if the union employee wanted to go to a non union shop but still be unionized, that would probably pose problems. The whole purpose of the open shop is to allow choice of belonging to the union or not. Are you saying it is a double standard if the union employee is not allowed union representation in a non union shop?

Where I'm seeing a double standard is you seem to be proposing that is an employee has a beef with his boss or company that he should just seek employment elsewhere. But if an employee has a beef with his union representation or leadership, he should have the option to quit just the union, but not the job. If it was a union shop when he took the job, then his option should be to leave the job for a job that has better/no union. Or that is seems like you're saying employers or employees should be able to dissolve a union if they want, but that employees shouldn't be able to form a union if it's not already a union establishment. Unless I have your views mistaken.

 

[undertheradar]

Where I'm seeing a double standard is you seem to be proposing that is an employee has a beef with his boss or company that he should just seek employment elsewhere. But if an employee has a beef with his union representation or leadership, he should have the option to quit just the union, but not the job. If it was a union shop when he took the job, then his option should be to leave the job for a job that has better/no union. Or that is seems like you're saying employers or employees should be able to dissolve a union if they want, but that employees shouldn't be able to form a union if it's not already a union establishment. Unless I have your views mistaken.

Not what I was saying, I don't think. Let's say you work in a closed union shop and you want a different job, are you limited to find employment that your union covers, as opposed to going to a non union shop and trying to remain covered by your union for your(individual) negotiations? If it was a non union shop and you wanted to stay with your union, then I would think that you would not entertain that job opening. That is what I meant when I spoke earlier of limitations. Never said that employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize if that is what they want and provides the best options for them.

 

[Dominus]

Not what I was saying, I don't think. Let's say you work in a closed union shop and you want a different job, are you limited to find employment that your union covers, as opposed to going to a non union shop and trying to remain covered by your union for your(individual) negotiations? If it was a non union shop and you wanted to stay with your union, then I would think that you would not entertain that job opening. That is what I meant when I spoke earlier of limitations. Never said that employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize if that is what they want and provides the best options for them.

Okay, then we're more or less on the same page. Except that I do view non-members who enjoy the benefits to be freeloaders of sorts.