Yes, go to a Walmart. Most of those people are not teenagers.
This, and also: Why does this matter? Why is the labor of teenagers and college students worth less than the labor of someone else performing the same tasks?
The idea was sort of sound, if these kids are working part time or even full time but only for a year or so then they're paying into a system they won't see the long term benefits of.
I'm not sure it's a winning argument, but it makes sense.
That and we often do value the work of teenagers and college students much less than "Adult" workers.
Yes, go to a Walmart. Most of those people are not teenagers.
This, and also: Why does this matter? Why is the labor of teenagers and college students worth less than the labor of someone else performing the same tasks?
One, because a lot of the benefits component of compensation don't really apply to teenagers/students. Vacation/retirement/healthcare etc because of where they are in their life and their part time status. So a union that is negotiating for these things, is negotiating against the best interest of the student workers.
Which is why the entire concept of unionizing them seems strange to me. It's the whole Job/Career distinction. Tool and Die local 403 makes sense in that it's a skill set that one would expect to work in for decades. Paper or Plastic 545 isn't.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A lot of people do make working in big box stores and such careers. One of my grandmothers did, as did my aunt. For them a union makes sense because managers will get all the work they can out of you.
For instance, at my uni job I fucked up my back. I wasn't able to walk normally for about a month. This was two years ago and it still acts up now and then. Why did it happen? Because I was told to bring overpacked boxes of books from the basement of the library to the top floor of another building. No workers comp, no protection, if I didn't show up to work everyday I didn't get my 7.50 an hour.
Perhaps there should be a student worker clause in unionized grocery stores wherein if you're in school full time (or it is during the summers) you can opt out of paying union dues but still get protections. This seems reasonable to me.
There's no reason a student can't have medical coverage, retirement, or vacation funds at all. That's dumb. Even as part time. In fact, we should be encouraging them to get these kinds of benefits. If you put in the time (some even work pretty close to full time) you should accrue benefits proportionate to that time.
The more we push for those rights the better everyone's lives get.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
The idea is that most students won't be at these jobs long enough for retirement or vacation funds to accrue in a meaningful way. Certainly they wouldn't accrue in a way that makes paying dues cost effective. It is a point that is not entirely without merit.
But these workers still deserve protection, if not extended benefits beyond medical coverage.
And the more accrual built in to the system, the more the union serves as a way for the lifers to be supported by the students. Insurance is perhaps the best example of this. Since the premium on a 20 year old is basically nothing compared to the family premium on someone whose 35. So if the company is covering a flat % of the premium, one party is really making out on that.
The teachers union at my HS when I was there had some internal fighting over that. As they were offered x% raise and no premium increase, or x+y% raise, but the teachers would share in their premium increase. All the old teachers wanted the first and all the younger teachers the second.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well if ACA gets struck down the insurance market is going to implode so we'll need single payer soon anyway.
#silverlining
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
a) most places with unions let you go 90 days before they really get on you about it. I worked at a union grocery store for a summer and nobody really said shit to me about joining the union, because they understood I was basically a summer temp.
the "theaters" they are talking about are playhouses, I think
Yes, go to a Walmart. Most of those people are not teenagers.
This, and also: Why does this matter? Why is the labor of teenagers and college students worth less than the labor of someone else performing the same tasks?
The idea was sort of sound, if these kids are working part time or even full time but only for a year or so then they're paying into a system they won't see the long term benefits of.
I'm not sure it's a winning argument, but it makes sense.
That and we often do value the work of teenagers and college students much less than "Adult" workers.
See: work study, unpaid internships, etc.
That's because you are confusing what a union is about.
A union is not just about your pension. It's about enforcing worker safety and giving people a store of knowledge to deal with abuses against them.
The second is why unions are REALLY important for young workers. The guy who hurt his back because his boss demands he carry boxes that are too heavy may not even know he's been wronged. And even if he does, he probably has no idea what to do about it.
That's what a union is for. You call them and they know what to do.
Both you and tinwhiskers are taking a ridiculously narrow view of what a union does.
shryke on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yes, go to a Walmart. Most of those people are not teenagers.
This, and also: Why does this matter? Why is the labor of teenagers and college students worth less than the labor of someone else performing the same tasks?
The idea was sort of sound, if these kids are working part time or even full time but only for a year or so then they're paying into a system they won't see the long term benefits of.
I'm not sure it's a winning argument, but it makes sense.
That and we often do value the work of teenagers and college students much less than "Adult" workers.
See: work study, unpaid internships, etc.
That's because you are confusing what a union is about.
A union is not just about your pension. It's about enforcing worker safety and giving people a store of knowledge to deal with abuses against them.
The second is why unions are REALLY important for young workers. The guy who hurt his back because his boss demands he carry boxes that are too heavy may not even know he's been wronged. And even if he does, he probably has no idea what to do about it.
That's what a union is for. You call them and they know what to do.
Both you and tinwhiskers are taking a ridiculously narrow view of what a union does.
Except in the very next post of mine I addressed this.
Usually monthly. My teamsters one was $20 a month. Taken out of my third check as to not fuck over beginning of month bills like rent.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Interesting.
That's less of a burden than I would've guessed. You're still losing about a paycheck a year (at the amount of money you'd be making in these types of jobs), but that's not as horrible as it could be.
A lot of people do make working in big box stores and such careers. One of my grandmothers did, as did my aunt. For them a union makes sense because managers will get all the work they can out of you.
For instance, at my uni job I fucked up my back. I wasn't able to walk normally for about a month. This was two years ago and it still acts up now and then. Why did it happen? Because I was told to bring overpacked boxes of books from the basement of the library to the top floor of another building. No workers comp, no protection, if I didn't show up to work everyday I didn't get my 7.50 an hour.
Perhaps there should be a student worker clause in unionized grocery stores wherein if you're in school full time (or it is during the summers) you can opt out of paying union dues but still get protections. This seems reasonable to me.
So you want to make all students part of a defacto RTW state?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Uh, no?
I think students should be able to work in whatever way benefits them the most. If that's by joining a union more power to them, if it isn't more power to them.
It also may have been factored into my pay. I made about $225 a week. ($9 an hour)
But I had full benefits. No copays on medical, or pills. If my body didn't get absolutely destroyed by working there I would've seriously considered keeping it part time just to have the benefits. Great retirement and life insurance and all that stuff too.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Wouldn't it be great if benefits traveled with you as you moved place to place?
Sure $200 after 4 years may not be a hell of a lot but that's better than $0.
you can effectively get some benefits to travel with you - you set up your own IRA as use it as a dumping ground for all your work ones. But again, just because something is possible, doesn't mean its accessible.
I think students should be able to work in whatever way benefits them the most. If that's by joining a union more power to them, if it isn't more power to them.
Uh yes. I mean, you do understand that "you can opt out of union dues while still getting union benefits" is what RTW MEANS right?
Your idea just encourages management to hire mostly people who would be able to opt out of the union and then tell them to do so and suddenly the union be crippled/dead.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think students should be able to work in whatever way benefits them the most. If that's by joining a union more power to them, if it isn't more power to them.
Uh yes. I mean, you do understand that "you can opt out of union dues while still getting union benefits" is what RTW MEANS right?
Your idea just encourages management to hire mostly people who would be able to opt out of the union and then tell them to do so and suddenly the union be crippled/dead.
I was specifically talking about student workers. There's a finite supply of those, you need to relax.
I think students should be able to work in whatever way benefits them the most. If that's by joining a union more power to them, if it isn't more power to them.
Uh yes. I mean, you do understand that "you can opt out of union dues while still getting union benefits" is what RTW MEANS right?
Your idea just encourages management to hire mostly people who would be able to opt out of the union and then tell them to do so and suddenly the union be crippled/dead.
I was specifically talking about student workers. There's a finite supply of those, you need to relax.
Which is why I said "So you want to make all students part of a defacto RTW state?".
I'm specifically talking about students too.
And there is not a finite supply of student workers anymore then there is a finite supply of any kind of worker.
Like, sorry man, but what you are suggesting is exactly what RTW is about and you should be aware of that.
The biggest downside about unions for lower wage jobs is that when it comes to dues i doubt the cost of running the union downsizes as much as the pay does in comparison to other jobs.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well you'd think that the sheer number of jobs that could be covered under such a union would counteract the smaller amount of dues one would be required to pay.
The biggest downside about unions for lower wage jobs is that when it comes to dues i doubt the cost of running the union downsizes as much as the pay does in comparison to other jobs.
Just the general cost of running a union is why many will join together in large multi-workplace unions. I'm not sure how common this is in the states.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Anyone know what the general breakdown of union budgets is?
Like:
X% Admin
X% Marketing/Outreach
X% Legal
etc.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You forgot the X% for destroying America!
I'm kidding in case that isn't obvious.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
There's no reason a student can't have medical coverage, retirement, or vacation funds at all. That's dumb. Even as part time. In fact, we should be encouraging them to get these kinds of benefits. If you put in the time (some even work pretty close to full time) you should accrue benefits proportionate to that time.
The more we push for those rights the better everyone's lives get.
It also may have been factored into my pay. I made about $225 a week. ($9 an hour)
But I had full benefits. No copays on medical, or pills. If my body didn't get absolutely destroyed by working there I would've seriously considered keeping it part time just to have the benefits. Great retirement and life insurance and all that stuff too.
On paper, it really is nice. Until Monday rolls around and you question your life choices for 5 hours.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
i vaguely remember my dues being about $40/month.
But I also had fully paid medical benefits. I made roughly $900/month after taxes.
But I can't really remember completely. It's been a while.
Yeah it really wasn't a big deal. For the kind of things you get in a union shop, that money pays for itself at least thrice over.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
pretty much.
the health benefits alone were worth my dues and then some. The stewards doing everything they could about when somebody got in trouble for being sick was another. Even when there was a case of sexual harassment going through the office, the union did everything right and well. I wouldn't have given up that union for anything at that point and I'd eagerly jump back into one again. There's no real reason not to.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
So, in short, independent drivers are unwilling to pay their dues (literally) and expect that their asses should be kissed. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this because?
"They didn't join the union so fuck them, let's treat them like shit"
Yeah, that's a good attitude. I have no idea why some people in the thread were convinced that there was a simplification going on in here.
Except that they aren't being treated like shit.
Actually, yes, the union does generally treat non-union drivers like shit. When the Teamsters try to get into a shop, they don't go after the drivers; they go after the warehouse workers and promise them the driving jobs. It's one of the major reasons why the union dominates the LTL carriers, like Conway or UPS, while they have never been able to get a foothold in the OTR carriers like Swift or Werner (there are owner-operators, but most of us are company drivers who do not own the truck).
And finally, it takes at least 3 months of training, 12 hours a day before you can drive solo. A working week for an OTR driver is 70 hours over 8 days. We are on the road for at least two weeks (personally, I haven't been home since the first week of May and my co-driver and I have already driven 20,000 miles this month). We 'pay our dues' well enough out here. We don't expect to have our asses kissed, but neither are we going to look kindly on an organization that has actively worked against us, most recently in getting the driving day shortened by an hour (something that will not affect LTL drivers, but will result in a 9% pay cut for the rest of us) and has turned every union fleet into, for all intents and purposes, a closed shop.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Posts
The idea was sort of sound, if these kids are working part time or even full time but only for a year or so then they're paying into a system they won't see the long term benefits of.
I'm not sure it's a winning argument, but it makes sense.
That and we often do value the work of teenagers and college students much less than "Adult" workers.
See: work study, unpaid internships, etc.
One, because a lot of the benefits component of compensation don't really apply to teenagers/students. Vacation/retirement/healthcare etc because of where they are in their life and their part time status. So a union that is negotiating for these things, is negotiating against the best interest of the student workers.
Which is why the entire concept of unionizing them seems strange to me. It's the whole Job/Career distinction. Tool and Die local 403 makes sense in that it's a skill set that one would expect to work in for decades. Paper or Plastic 545 isn't.
For instance, at my uni job I fucked up my back. I wasn't able to walk normally for about a month. This was two years ago and it still acts up now and then. Why did it happen? Because I was told to bring overpacked boxes of books from the basement of the library to the top floor of another building. No workers comp, no protection, if I didn't show up to work everyday I didn't get my 7.50 an hour.
Perhaps there should be a student worker clause in unionized grocery stores wherein if you're in school full time (or it is during the summers) you can opt out of paying union dues but still get protections. This seems reasonable to me.
The more we push for those rights the better everyone's lives get.
But these workers still deserve protection, if not extended benefits beyond medical coverage.
The teachers union at my HS when I was there had some internal fighting over that. As they were offered x% raise and no premium increase, or x+y% raise, but the teachers would share in their premium increase. All the old teachers wanted the first and all the younger teachers the second.
#silverlining
I host a podcast about movies.
That's because you are confusing what a union is about.
A union is not just about your pension. It's about enforcing worker safety and giving people a store of knowledge to deal with abuses against them.
The second is why unions are REALLY important for young workers. The guy who hurt his back because his boss demands he carry boxes that are too heavy may not even know he's been wronged. And even if he does, he probably has no idea what to do about it.
That's what a union is for. You call them and they know what to do.
Both you and tinwhiskers are taking a ridiculously narrow view of what a union does.
Except in the very next post of mine I addressed this.
But meh.
Sure $200 after 4 years may not be a hell of a lot but that's better than $0.
As a point of interest are union dues monthly or yearly ?
That's less of a burden than I would've guessed. You're still losing about a paycheck a year (at the amount of money you'd be making in these types of jobs), but that's not as horrible as it could be.
So you want to make all students part of a defacto RTW state?
I think students should be able to work in whatever way benefits them the most. If that's by joining a union more power to them, if it isn't more power to them.
But I had full benefits. No copays on medical, or pills. If my body didn't get absolutely destroyed by working there I would've seriously considered keeping it part time just to have the benefits. Great retirement and life insurance and all that stuff too.
I was just thinking about student workers doing a minimum wage gig at big box or grocery store.
The last year of my undergrad I was having to pay back 80% of my paychecks to the school so I was wondering about that.
But if it's as low as 20 bucks a month that's not too bad.
you can effectively get some benefits to travel with you - you set up your own IRA as use it as a dumping ground for all your work ones. But again, just because something is possible, doesn't mean its accessible.
I host a podcast about movies.
Uh yes. I mean, you do understand that "you can opt out of union dues while still getting union benefits" is what RTW MEANS right?
Your idea just encourages management to hire mostly people who would be able to opt out of the union and then tell them to do so and suddenly the union be crippled/dead.
I was specifically talking about student workers. There's a finite supply of those, you need to relax.
Which is why I said "So you want to make all students part of a defacto RTW state?".
I'm specifically talking about students too.
And there is not a finite supply of student workers anymore then there is a finite supply of any kind of worker.
Like, sorry man, but what you are suggesting is exactly what RTW is about and you should be aware of that.
I would say that's probably about par for union dues then?
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Just the general cost of running a union is why many will join together in large multi-workplace unions. I'm not sure how common this is in the states.
Like:
X% Admin
X% Marketing/Outreach
X% Legal
etc.
Well obviously that would be 100%.
This.
On paper, it really is nice. Until Monday rolls around and you question your life choices for 5 hours.
But I also had fully paid medical benefits. I made roughly $900/month after taxes.
But I can't really remember completely. It's been a while.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
the health benefits alone were worth my dues and then some. The stewards doing everything they could about when somebody got in trouble for being sick was another. Even when there was a case of sexual harassment going through the office, the union did everything right and well. I wouldn't have given up that union for anything at that point and I'd eagerly jump back into one again. There's no real reason not to.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Actually, yes, the union does generally treat non-union drivers like shit. When the Teamsters try to get into a shop, they don't go after the drivers; they go after the warehouse workers and promise them the driving jobs. It's one of the major reasons why the union dominates the LTL carriers, like Conway or UPS, while they have never been able to get a foothold in the OTR carriers like Swift or Werner (there are owner-operators, but most of us are company drivers who do not own the truck).
And finally, it takes at least 3 months of training, 12 hours a day before you can drive solo. A working week for an OTR driver is 70 hours over 8 days. We are on the road for at least two weeks (personally, I haven't been home since the first week of May and my co-driver and I have already driven 20,000 miles this month). We 'pay our dues' well enough out here. We don't expect to have our asses kissed, but neither are we going to look kindly on an organization that has actively worked against us, most recently in getting the driving day shortened by an hour (something that will not affect LTL drivers, but will result in a 9% pay cut for the rest of us) and has turned every union fleet into, for all intents and purposes, a closed shop.
- John Stuart Mill