Verizon striking

[undertheradar]

Well of course there are, you just said yourself that there are many many more non union jobs out there so of course there are many more higher paying non union jobs.

Unions are becoming less relevant as our country goes from honoring and treating workers well, to honoring and treating big business well at the expense of the American worker.

Are you including USPS workers in your statement?

 

[undertheradar]

Bravo! I couldn't agree more. Not to mention the fact that business (through their political contributions and lobby's) have done an excellent job of squashing unions nation wide. There has been a far more organized and more effective campaign to curb unionization than to spread it. It's just sad that the american worker sides with the businesses over fellow employees. Everyone seems to dislike the upper management in their profession, but think they are fair and just in every other profession.

No, executive compensation is out of control, USPS included.

 

[FlyingDumbo]

No, executive compensation is out of control, USPS included.

Familyoffive, what do you do for a living?

 

[Dominus]

Familyoffive, what do you do for a living?

My guess is management of some sort. Or an aid to Darrell Issa.

 

[Janet Hill]

Unions are becoming less relevant as our country goes from honoring and treating workers well, to honoring and treating big business well at the expense of the American worker.

My husband is a union member and fortunately this is not my real name.

Last year his union was talking strike at a time when unemployment in his field was high. The "union bosses" had a blog going to incite discontent in the masses and encourage striking to maintain solidarity. I found this odd as non of the folks at the union hall were going to be on stike and without an income. Seemed to me they were just trying to justify their existance.

I find the "union bosses" and the organizations they run to be nothing more than a big business under the guisse of looking out for the little guy while they pad their pockets with those same big salaries they rail against for corporate management.

My husband stays in the union because he likes the company (closed shop)he works for and is compensated above union wage. He could make the same elsewhere.

 

[undertheradar]

My guess is management of some sort. Or an aid to Darrell Issa.

Not even close.

 

[undertheradar]

My husband is a union member and fortunately this is not my real name.

Last year his union was talking strike at a time when unemployment in his field was high. The "union bosses" had a blog going to incite discontent in the masses and encourage striking to maintain solidarity. I found this odd as non of the folks at the union hall were going to be on stike and without an income. Seemed to me they were just trying to justify their existance.

I find the "union bosses" and the organizations they run to be nothing more than a big business under the guisse of looking out for the little guy while they pad their pockets with those same big salaries they rail against for corporate management.

My husband stays in the union because he likes the company (closed shop)he works for and is compensated above union wage. He could make the same elsewhere.

The clerks at our neighborhood grocery store are upset because they voted against a strike. They have no choice because they are in the union.

Some of the posters excited about going back to work for the evil corporation known as Verizon were some of the biggest attackers against the corporation. From claims of VZ paying zero federal taxes, to the overpaid CEO and executives receiving subsidies from taxpayers, hostile work environments, no supplies to do repairs, lost work orders, funny how if everything stays the same as it was in the last contract they all can't wait to get paid.

Oddly enough, it looks like the unions had no plan to provide medical coverage for members and this was going to cause problems for the striking workers. It was stated that only members of one of the two striking unions would receive strike pay, and that wasn't very much. So what was the point of striking for two weeks without pay, only to return to work with no new contract? Doesn't seem like it was worth the financial risk to return for what you currently had when you stopped working. Couldn't you have accomplished this without losing pay?

 

[Deealee]

The clerks at our neighborhood grocery store are upset because they voted against a strike. They have no choice because they are in the union.

Some of the posters excited about going back to work for the evil corporation known as Verizon were some of the biggest attackers against the corporation. From claims of VZ paying zero federal taxes, to the overpaid CEO and executives receiving subsidies from taxpayers, hostile work environments, no supplies to do repairs, lost work orders, funny how if everything stays the same as it was in the last contract they all can't wait to get paid.

Oddly enough, it looks like the unions had no plan to provide medical coverage for members and this was going to cause problems for the striking workers. It was stated that only members of one of the two striking unions would receive strike pay, and that wasn't very much. So what was the point of striking for two weeks without pay, only to return to work with no new contract? Doesn't seem like it was worth the financial risk to return for what you currently had when you stopped working. Couldn't you have accomplished this without losing pay?

NO!

Being out of contract and working means the company can do whatever they want.

 

[lisaross]

The clerks at our neighborhood grocery store are upset because they voted against a strike. They have no choice because they are in the union.

Some of the posters excited about going back to work for the evil corporation known as Verizon were some of the biggest attackers against the corporation. From claims of VZ paying zero federal taxes, to the overpaid CEO and executives receiving subsidies from taxpayers, hostile work environments, no supplies to do repairs, lost work orders, funny how if everything stays the same as it was in the last contract they all can't wait to get paid.

Oddly enough, it looks like the unions had no plan to provide medical coverage for members and this was going to cause problems for the striking workers. It was stated that only members of one of the two striking unions would receive strike pay, and that wasn't very much. So what was the point of striking for two weeks without pay, only to return to work with no new contract? Doesn't seem like it was worth the financial risk to return for what you currently had when you stopped working. Couldn't you have accomplished this without losing pay?

Familyoffive I’ve noticed that for the last 44 pages you have asked tons of questions, some fair, some offensive. The thing that must be clear to everyone on this board is that you know most of our side now yet you, for some reason, don’t want to reveal your job. If you are going to insist on questioning us further, don’t you think that it might be a bit fairer if we knew to whom we were speaking?
Once again you made a statement against the union that was completely inaccurate. I’ve decided, finally, not to divulge any additional information to potentially unfriendly ears, but let us just say that the CWA completely had our back. My wife and I, aside from being conservative financially, know many creative ins and outs to get bills paid, or simply delay them until better financial times. When the local finds out about people with helpful knowledge, they have us help others.
As far as returning to work without a contract, that is a blessing. Not one of us wanted to strike from the beginning. We were asked if we were willing to if it came down to it, and the majority won. We weren’t striking because we didn’t like what Vz was offering, we were striking because they refused to negotiate fairly. They were told from the beginning that we would work through the old contract as long as they negotiated. It took a lawsuit against Vz, won through an arbitrator to force Vz to do it fairly.
No one liked the strike, but it did show Vz that we were serious. The new CEO is from Texas, he’s always been anti-union, he’s not seen what the northeast is like, and thought of us as a joke performing easy tasks. Surprise, maybe our jobs weren’t quite that easy.
So in hindsight, I didn’t like the strike in the slightest, but I’d do it again if it’s necessary. Most people find killing people deplorable, and sinful, (as they should), yet during war time it’s constantly committed. They don’t want to they are doing what they must. I hope that I have made myself abundantly clear.

 

[luvestodizz]

I have to agree with Lisa's DH on Familyoffive. We all know you are against unions so why do you seek so much information on the whole striking process? Where did you get your information on what the union was offering its' members during the strike? You were totally inaccurate. I don't share personal details either but wanted to clear up that you are wrong.

 

[LoveBWVVBR]

Not even close.

I figured that you worked for a CLEC and not for Verizon itself.

 

[lisaross]

I figured that you worked for a CLEC and not for Verizon itself.

I mentioned that I work with clecs often, and he didn't seem like it struck home. Although I'm pretty sure what my mindset would be if I were a high ranking officer in a larger company. My assumtion is that he is an executive. I'm not putting it down, for that matter, it sounds like a great way to live. I just wish that people would not criticize the legitimate lifestyles of others.

 

[sam_gordon]

I just wish that people would not criticize the legitimate lifestyles of others.

Sort of like how people have criticized Verizon's CEO?

 

[undertheradar]

Familyoffive I’ve noticed that for the last 44 pages you have asked tons of questions, some fair, some offensive. The thing that must be clear to everyone on this board is that you know most of our side now yet you, for some reason, don’t want to reveal your job. If you are going to insist on questioning us further, don’t you think that it might be a bit fairer if we knew to whom we were speaking?
Once again you made a statement against the union that was completely inaccurate. I’ve decided, finally, not to divulge any additional information to potentially unfriendly ears, but let us just say that the CWA completely had our back. My wife and I, aside from being conservative financially, know many creative ins and outs to get bills paid, or simply delay them until better financial times. When the local finds out about people with helpful knowledge, they have us help others.
As far as returning to work without a contract, that is a blessing. Not one of us wanted to strike from the beginning. We were asked if we were willing to if it came down to it, and the majority won. We weren’t striking because we didn’t like what Vz was offering, we were striking because they refused to negotiate fairly. They were told from the beginning that we would work through the old contract as long as they negotiated. It took a lawsuit against Vz, won through an arbitrator to force Vz to do it fairly.
No one liked the strike, but it did show Vz that we were serious. The new CEO is from Texas, he’s always been anti-union, he’s not seen what the northeast is like, and thought of us as a joke performing easy tasks. Surprise, maybe our jobs weren’t quite that easy.
So in hindsight, I didn’t like the strike in the slightest, but I’d do it again if it’s necessary. Most people find killing people deplorable, and sinful, (as they should), yet during war time it’s constantly committed. They don’t want to they are doing what they must. I hope that I have made myself abundantly clear.

Now in my view, all privacy was lost when both sides of the dispute went public. Both sides took out ads complaining about the other side. Both complained via the media. The unions were seeking public support by striking. How would these actions beg for privacy?

What does the new CEO being from Texas have to do with it? Corporate business practices are the same, are they not?

Still trying to understand how picketing on the West Coast was supportive to a strike from unions located on the East Coast? I get the "solidarity" show, that is the same cry that the soon to be striking grocery clerks are using here in Southern California. The only true fight that the unions are fighting, is for the continued existence of the union itself.

As for revealing who I am, I didn't go on strike for public sympathy. When the cost of medical premiums came up, I listed what my costs and coverages are. When it came to paid time off, I listed mine as a source of comparison. How many others have provided such info in this thread? Sorry, not going to tell me I didn't exchange info.

Comparing killing in war to a work strike, you should be ashamed.

 

[undertheradar]

I mentioned that I work with clecs often, and he didn't seem like it struck home. Although I'm pretty sure what my mindset would be if I were a high ranking officer in a larger company. My assumtion is that he is an executive. I'm not putting it down, for that matter, it sounds like a great way to live. I just wish that people would not criticize the legitimate lifestyles of others.

Exactly what is legitimate lifestyle?

 

[lisaross]

Sort of like how people have criticized Verizon's CEO?

Speaking only for myself, Lisa's husband, I never put him down. I stated that it is not in the best interest of the share holders to pay him such an exorbitant salary when claiming that the majority of workers, all who make under $100k a year, make too much for the shareholders to profit. The argument that has been set on me was that he has the right to make however much he can as long as the shareholders still make their profits. My question is that if he can, why can't we?

 

[lisaross]

Exactly what is legitimate lifestyle?

The legitimate lifestyle is working for a living. Not existing on welfare or off the backs of others. I don't know what you were inferring.

As to comparing our strike to war, it was a simple comparison. I viewed you as, although against our side of this particular problem, an intelligent and well spoken person. The comparison was simply stating that people do things during a strike which they hate, but must do to maintain their livelihood. It's no secret that people who kill in a war would probably never do it if they didn't have to. If you feel that I should be ashamed of myself for drawing a parallel then I suppose that this is another example which shows that we will not see eye to eye.
As for dragging my personal business through the media, I did not! Vz did without provocation. I didn’t like it, or agree with any of the mudslinging on either side. The outcome is that more people know my personal business than I feel comfortable with. As far as answering direct questions, I know that you have. You’ve answered some questions very honestly, but never answered what you do. That might be the source of aggravation on our side of the debate, that you are definitely hiding something.

 

[sam_gordon]

Speaking only for myself, Lisa's husband, I never put him down. I stated that it is not in the best interest of the share holders to pay him such an exorbitant salary when claiming that the majority of workers, all who make under $100k a year, make too much for the shareholders to profit. The argument that has been set on me was that he has the right to make however much he can as long as the shareholders still make their profits. My question is that if he can, why can't we?

I think you can too. Make as much money as you can. More power to you. I just don't think striking was the appropriate answer in this case (and generally isn't in many cases IMO). I think unions CAN (not always) be as greedy as the "evil" companies they are "fighting" against.

If you don't like the benefits package (salary, pension, healthcare, everything) an employer offers you, counter offer. If you can't come to an agreement, you choose if you want to stay.

 

[undertheradar]

The legitimate lifestyle is working for a living. Not existing on welfare or off the backs of others. I don't know what you were inferring.

As to comparing our strike to war, it was a simple comparison. I viewed you as, although against our side of this particular problem, an intelligent and well spoken person. The comparison was simply stating that people do things during a strike which they hate, but must do to maintain their livelihood. It's no secret that people who kill in a war would probably never do it if they didn't have to. If you feel that I should be ashamed of myself for drawing a parallel then I suppose that this is another example which shows that we will not see eye to eye.
As for dragging my personal business through the media, I did not! Vz did without provocation. I didn’t like it, or agree with any of the mudslinging on either side. The outcome is that more people know my personal business than I feel comfortable with. As far as answering direct questions, I know that you have. You’ve answered some questions very honestly, but never answered what you do. That might be the source of aggravation on our side of the debate, that you are definitely hiding something.

Both sides used the media. VZ used it to graner support for what they offered, the unions used it to list salary range that differed from what VZ listed. So both sides published this "personal" info.

As for what I do, I'm not on strike or attempting to receive public sympathy. I'm not an executive or a manager, just a daily slug like everyone else.

If you are trying to compare foot soldiers to the rank and file union employees, then all power only lies with the leaders, be them corporate or union. Takes away the ability to have independent thought if you can't voice
opposition if you don't accept what the union was telling you to do. That is why I don't understand the union closed shop practice. I understand that it perpetuates union membership and the dues that they pay, I don't like the lack of freedom that comes with it. I believe that unions served a purpose when they were founded and probably during the highest years of membership in the early 1950's. Most unions have far outlived purpose due to the numerous laws that they helped to come to fruition. The true measure of this would be the ever dwindling numbers of union card carrying members. I can see them still being required in some of the more high risk work fields, I do not consider customer service to be a high risk work field. I also consider the possible strike by union grocery clerks in Southern California to be ill timed and foolish based upon the skill set in play and an unemployment rate of 10.7%. These are not skilled systems engineers or techs, these are scanners, baggers and stockers.

 

[luvestodizz]

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.