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.
You pay your dues metaphorically, not literally. Others pay theirs metaphorically and literally.
You may think that union treats non-union workers badly. I can't disagree, I have no personal experience of that industry. But unions in general do not treat non-union workers badly. Many have policies that are expressly opposite to that.
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.
You pay your dues metaphorically, not literally. Others pay theirs metaphorically and literally.
You may think that union treats non-union workers badly. I can't disagree, I have no personal experience of that industry. But unions in general do not treat non-union workers badly. Many have policies that are expressly opposite to that.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
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.
- John Stuart Mill
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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.
What about being the lowest man on the seniority totem pole, in a job where there is competition for hours? That seems like a situation where there is a very clear disadvantage to being in a union.
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.
You pay your dues metaphorically, not literally. Others pay theirs metaphorically and literally.
You may think that union treats non-union workers badly. I can't disagree, I have no personal experience of that industry. But unions in general do not treat non-union workers badly. Many have policies that are expressly opposite to that.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
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.
You pay your dues metaphorically, not literally. Others pay theirs metaphorically and literally.
You may think that union treats non-union workers badly. I can't disagree, I have no personal experience of that industry. But unions in general do not treat non-union workers badly. Many have policies that are expressly opposite to that.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
I didn't say that.
No, Hedgie did, and you reiterated his point of literally paying dues to the union.
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.
- John Stuart Mill
0
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
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.
You pay your dues metaphorically, not literally. Others pay theirs metaphorically and literally.
You may think that union treats non-union workers badly. I can't disagree, I have no personal experience of that industry. But unions in general do not treat non-union workers badly. Many have policies that are expressly opposite to that.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
You're a trucker. Stop acting like you have this huge investiture in a job you can't do because of a union because someone cut a driving hour to make your "dangerous" job less so. And stop passing other trucks while you're both going uphill on a two lane, that privilege is for people that can drive 70+ uphill
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.
You pay your dues metaphorically, not literally. Others pay theirs metaphorically and literally.
You may think that union treats non-union workers badly. I can't disagree, I have no personal experience of that industry. But unions in general do not treat non-union workers badly. Many have policies that are expressly opposite to that.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
You're a trucker. Stop acting like you have this huge investiture in a job you can't do because of a union because someone cut a driving hour to make your "dangerous" job less so. And stop passing other trucks while you're both going uphill on a two lane, that privilege is for people that can drive 70+ uphill
I never said I couldn't do the job because of the union; I said the union was actively working against the non-union drivers, while at the same time blocking them from union jobs. And yes, the job is dangerous; by the latest numbers, it is somewhat more dangerous than being a cop. However, cutting that hour doesn't really make the job less so; about 3 in 4 truck accidents are caused by some goose in a car who thinks he has more right to the road, and driver caused accidents are most likely to occur in the first hour of driving (right after the driver has woken up), not the last.
As for passing on the upgrade; we'll stop doing that when all you super smart guys who obviously know better invent a diesel engine that doesn't lose power as RPM drops.
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.
- John Stuart Mill
0
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
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.
What about being the lowest man on the seniority totem pole, in a job where there is competition for hours? That seems like a situation where there is a very clear disadvantage to being in a union.
you work within the system. I was the lowest kid on the totem pole for a while, but we had a ton of available hours and got lots of work for it.
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.
What about being the lowest man on the seniority totem pole, in a job where there is competition for hours? That seems like a situation where there is a very clear disadvantage to being in a union.
you work within the system. I was the lowest kid on the totem pole for a while, but we had a ton of available hours and got lots of work for it.
I ran out of time earlier to finish this thought and I'm racing time right now too.
Being the lowest kid on the totem pole while at Verizon, I got more hours. Granted I was working 6 days a week for 6 months straight and that went by seniority. Or rather, reverse seniority. The people who had the highest didn't get those shifts.
But then, those were also the people who had already been with the company for 8,9, or even 10+ years. They'd put in their time on the bottom and had made it to the top. I was the new kid, i was the one who needed to put in my time.
You can't always start out on the top of the ladder. C'mon. as a lawyer you should know this almost instinctively. Those cases/clients that nobody wants to really deal with because they're trouble? They got handed to you when you first started, right? You have to earn your stripes in that world, just like anywhere else.
you don't get into the armed forces as a general, you have to work your way up. Same with being in a union. You work your way through the rungs, through the ladders and eventually you'll end up being more senior than somebody, and it keeps going. The trick is not giving up when you're on the bottom, but working through it. You will get to the top, and by doing it this way, nobody is going to gainsay anything that you're earned. because you did earn it.
Works with physical stuff too. like with @Hacksaw. His job is ridiculously physically demanding. And he's already told you the difference between being union and non-union in his line of work. But he didn't start off in the union. He had to work his way into it. He earned those benefits (like good pay, catered food, and stuff) by putting in his hours of being drugged out on caffeine, working 60 hours straight on a weekend and being beaten and bruised by the end.
But as far as competition for hours? Suck it up dude. At least, at this point, you have a job. And your union will (if it's a good union and I'll admit that not all of them are) do what they can to make sure that you get your hours and that you keep your job. That's what they are there for.
As we've seen with the tea party, there is strength in numbers and in loud voices. It just turns out the such strength can be a tool for good as well.
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.
What about being the lowest man on the seniority totem pole, in a job where there is competition for hours? That seems like a situation where there is a very clear disadvantage to being in a union.
you work within the system. I was the lowest kid on the totem pole for a while, but we had a ton of available hours and got lots of work for it.
I ran out of time earlier to finish this thought and I'm racing time right now too.
Being the lowest kid on the totem pole while at Verizon, I got more hours. Granted I was working 6 days a week for 6 months straight and that went by seniority. Or rather, reverse seniority. The people who had the highest didn't get those shifts.
But then, those were also the people who had already been with the company for 8,9, or even 10+ years. They'd put in their time on the bottom and had made it to the top. I was the new kid, i was the one who needed to put in my time.
You can't always start out on the top of the ladder. C'mon. as a lawyer you should know this almost instinctively. Those cases/clients that nobody wants to really deal with because they're trouble? They got handed to you when you first started, right? You have to earn your stripes in that world, just like anywhere else.
you don't get into the armed forces as a general, you have to work your way up. Same with being in a union. You work your way through the rungs, through the ladders and eventually you'll end up being more senior than somebody, and it keeps going. The trick is not giving up when you're on the bottom, but working through it. You will get to the top, and by doing it this way, nobody is going to gainsay anything that you're earned. because you did earn it.
Works with physical stuff too. like with @Hacksaw. His job is ridiculously physically demanding. And he's already told you the difference between being union and non-union in his line of work. But he didn't start off in the union. He had to work his way into it. He earned those benefits (like good pay, catered food, and stuff) by putting in his hours of being drugged out on caffeine, working 60 hours straight on a weekend and being beaten and bruised by the end.
But as far as competition for hours? Suck it up dude. At least, at this point, you have a job. And your union will (if it's a good union and I'll admit that not all of them are) do what they can to make sure that you get your hours and that you keep your job. That's what they are there for.
As we've seen with the tea party, there is strength in numbers and in loud voices. It just turns out the such strength can be a tool for good as well.
And now, I'm going to go see Brave.
In a big law firm, pay is based on seniority, but work distribution is based on performance. Do good work and develop a reputation for being good and you move up the responsibility ladder much faster. Law firms have very high attrition (75% will leave/be fired by the 4th year) and it usually isn't hard to predict who will go and who will stay, based on the quality of the work people are doing, and the level of trust you engender in people. A straight seniority based system, where responsibilities and promotions are just based on how much time people have put in, seems like a nightmare to me.
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
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.
What about being the lowest man on the seniority totem pole, in a job where there is competition for hours? That seems like a situation where there is a very clear disadvantage to being in a union.
Not really. Just because someone has higher seniority than me doesn't mean they're more likely to take every job that comes along. In fact, it's usually the opposite; the guys on the A list don't want to run around town doing every gig available, not when their rate of pay is comfortable enough to where they can do a few gigs a month and be set.
I don't know what it's like in Lawyer World, but being in a union (at least, my union) is pretty solidly about worker solidarity and an understanding professional environment. The old guys know the young guys need hours, so more often than not they'll pass on jobs they might otherwise take if they were in our position.
0
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
but how many people will put in the time it requires to get that seniority? You just said that your attrition rate is insane. Those who are willing to do the work get the gigs, and the assignments. They're also the ones who will stick around and climb the ladder. Both in the company and in seniority.
it's essentially the same thing. Only one place it's informal and understood with a wink and a nod and a firm handshake and slap on the shoulder. In the other place it's more formalized. But in no means in a union shop are you going to get to the top simply by being lazy and waiting around.
The girls at Verizon with higher seniority than me? They worked for that company 40+ hours a week for 13ish years. They did their time, they stuck it out through thick and thin and they got their rewards (mainly 4 weeks of paid vacation a year after 7 years of being with the company). the guys at the top in Hacksaw's union? They worked their asses off, and probably have the scars to prove it, to be able to pick the jobs they want, and the pay that they've earned.
You want to be a partner? Do your grunt hours, take on the weak cases, and you'll get to the top. But believe me, if you think you can get by in a union shop simply by showing up for your shifts but not working like the others do? You'll soon find out just how 'safe' you are. Oh the union will go to bat for you, they have to. But they might not do their best. because to be honest, you not pulling your weight is damaging everybody else in the job, not just yourself. And the union has to protect the group, not just the one.
but how many people will put in the time it requires to get that seniority? You just said that your attrition rate is insane. Those who are willing to do the work get the gigs, and the assignments. They're also the ones who will stick around and climb the ladder. Both in the company and in seniority.
it's essentially the same thing. Only one place it's informal and understood with a wink and a nod and a firm handshake and slap on the shoulder. In the other place it's more formalized. But in no means in a union shop are you going to get to the top simply by being lazy and waiting around.
The girls at Verizon with higher seniority than me? They worked for that company 40+ hours a week for 13ish years. They did their time, they stuck it out through thick and thin and they got their rewards (mainly 4 weeks of paid vacation a year after 7 years of being with the company). the guys at the top in Hacksaw's union? They worked their asses off, and probably have the scars to prove it, to be able to pick the jobs they want, and the pay that they've earned.
You want to be a partner? Do your grunt hours, take on the weak cases, and you'll get to the top. But believe me, if you think you can get by in a union shop simply by showing up for your shifts but not working like the others do? You'll soon find out just how 'safe' you are. Oh the union will go to bat for you, they have to. But they might not do their best. because to be honest, you not pulling your weight is damaging everybody else in the job, not just yourself. And the union has to protect the group, not just the one.
I think I may not have been clear, and for that, I apologize. My complaint is more that just doing good enough work (not sitting around being lazy) for a long enough time seems to be the criteria for advancement. By contrast, in a law firm "good enough" eventually means you will be asked to leave, or taken off partnership track. To make it, you need to show merit plus put in your time. Its the idea of strict seniority based advancement that bothers me.
FWIW, I have friends who joined unions (construction work) and literally never got called for work even once because the senior guys took all of the hours.
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
Hungry guys (and gals) get all the work. If you're relying on the union hall to get you a job, you're doing it wrong; the world belongs to those who hustle.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
No, it's not a closed shop, as you're more than welcome to join the union and work your way through the ranks. Just because the union isn't going to let you cut ahead of established members doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
I think I may not have been clear, and for that, I apologize. My complaint is more that just doing good enough work (not sitting around being lazy) for a long enough time seems to be the criteria for advancement. By contrast, in a law firm "good enough" eventually means you will be asked to leave, or taken off partnership track. To make it, you need to show merit plus put in your time. Its the idea of strict seniority based advancement that bothers me.
FWIW, I have friends who joined unions (construction work) and literally never got called for work even once because the senior guys took all of the hours.
So, in short, you like a system where the people who are most willing to sacrifice themselves to the job are the ones who rise to the top, most likely because you're willing to do so. It's really clear that you don't understand how seniority works, and it bothers you because it takes away your ability to just sacrifice yourself to the job to get ahead.
And yes, it sucks that the construction industry is in a slump.
So, in short, you like a system where the people who are most willing to sacrifice themselves to the job are the ones who rise to the top, most likely because you're willing to do so.
He's made a thread about this very concept. So, yes.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
No, it's not a closed shop, as you're more than welcome to join the union and work your way through the ranks. Just because the union isn't going to let you cut ahead of established members doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
I think I may not have been clear, and for that, I apologize. My complaint is more that just doing good enough work (not sitting around being lazy) for a long enough time seems to be the criteria for advancement. By contrast, in a law firm "good enough" eventually means you will be asked to leave, or taken off partnership track. To make it, you need to show merit plus put in your time. Its the idea of strict seniority based advancement that bothers me.
FWIW, I have friends who joined unions (construction work) and literally never got called for work even once because the senior guys took all of the hours.
So, in short, you like a system where the people who are most willing to sacrifice themselves to the job are the ones who rise to the top, most likely because you're willing to do so. It's really clear that you don't understand how seniority works, and it bothers you because it takes away your ability to just sacrifice yourself to the job to get ahead.
And yes, it sucks that the construction industry is in a slump.
It isn't about sacrificing yourself. Almost without exception, the lawyers I know are willing to do the work. Just doing a lot of work and being responsive won't get you there. You need to do a great job and rise up as a star, or else not even being the only person left standing will get you partner (they'll just bring in a lateral hire to fill the firm's need for a partner or senior associate). That sucks for the people who work hard but don't make it, but it is better for the firm (and everyone who works there) than just making someone who can't cut it a partner. Please explain what it is I am missing about seniority.
What sucks more than the construction industry being in a slump is being told there is work, and requiring you to pay dues when the senior guys take every single job that comes up. . .
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
You only pay dues on the money you make.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I know they paid the union something. Maybe some kind of fee to get on the calendar, or to start training (which they never received)? Maybe it was just plain corruption demanding money to "let" them in?
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I know they paid the union something. Maybe some kind of fee to get on the calendar, or to start training (which they never received)? Maybe it was just plain corruption demanding money to "let" them in?
Joining the upper lists in my union incurs a cost, but it's a slight one compared to the benefit it grants. Paying to be in means you're a voting member. Not paying means you still get work, you just don't get to vote on policy.
I know they paid the union something. Maybe some kind of fee to get on the calendar, or to start training (which they never received)? Maybe it was just plain corruption demanding money to "let" them in?
Joining the upper lists in my union incurs a cost, but it's a slight one compared to the benefit it grants. Paying to be in means you're a voting member. Not paying means you still get work, you just don't get to vote on policy.
I know they paid the union something. Maybe some kind of fee to get on the calendar, or to start training (which they never received)? Maybe it was just plain corruption demanding money to "let" them in?
Joining the upper lists in my union incurs a cost, but it's a slight one compared to the benefit it grants. Paying to be in means you're a voting member. Not paying means you still get work, you just don't get to vote on policy.
What is the difference between this and RTW?
RTW states allow non-union members to have all the benefits of being in a union without having to pay the cost. I don't know how it works for other unions, but in my union you don't have to pay dues for non-union work. In other words, if the folks at dispatch don't get you the job, or you're not working under a certified journeyman who made it explicitly clear at the beginning of the assignment that this would be a union gig, you're not on the hook for any dues.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
No, it's not a closed shop, as you're more than welcome to join the union and work your way through the ranks. Just because the union isn't going to let you cut ahead of established members doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
Working your way through the ranks suggests moving up a career path, not transferring to a completely unrelated one. And cutting ahead suggests that there is someone who can fill the position (as it is, they are not just incapable of doing the work at the time of transfer, they are legally barred from doing so). It's like telling a veteran network admin that he can't get a job in the IT department because their policy is to promote someone from the mail room, then, over the next quarter, teach them how to use a computer and get their certifications...but he is more than welcome to apply for the mail room.
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.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
No, it's not a closed shop, as you're more than welcome to join the union and work your way through the ranks. Just because the union isn't going to let you cut ahead of established members doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
Working your way through the ranks suggests moving up a career path, not transferring to a completely unrelated one. And cutting ahead suggests that there is someone who can fill the position (as it is, they are not just incapable of doing the work at the time of transfer, they are legally barred from doing so). It's like telling a veteran network admin that he can't get a job in the IT department because their policy is to promote someone from the mail room, then, over the next quarter, teach them how to use a computer and get their certifications...but he is more than welcome to apply for the mail room.
And your point is? Just because you don't like the cursus honorum doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Is it actually accurate to suggest unions have NO mechanism for onboarding of experienced people? What if a great stagehand from a non union place moves to your area, hacksaw? Does he literally start like a brand new hire?
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
No, it's not a closed shop, as you're more than welcome to join the union and work your way through the ranks. Just because the union isn't going to let you cut ahead of established members doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
Working your way through the ranks suggests moving up a career path, not transferring to a completely unrelated one. And cutting ahead suggests that there is someone who can fill the position (as it is, they are not just incapable of doing the work at the time of transfer, they are legally barred from doing so). It's like telling a veteran network admin that he can't get a job in the IT department because their policy is to promote someone from the mail room, then, over the next quarter, teach them how to use a computer and get their certifications...but he is more than welcome to apply for the mail room.
And your point is? Just because you don't like the cursus honorum doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
Never said it did. Mucking about with our hours of service is them trying to fuck us over; this is just them treating us like shit, and illustrates why it is the union, not the employer that makes it difficult for a LTL driver to leave a job they dislike.
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.
- John Stuart Mill
0
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
How is "them" messing with hours of service fucking you over?
How is "them" messing with hours of service fucking you over?
Drivers have 3 duty clocks we need to watch. The drive clock is the hours we can drive without taking a break. The on duty clock is the hours since we came on duty; once it has elapsed, we cannot drive even if we have time on our drive clock. The weekly clock is a sum of the past 8 days time driving and on duty; we can't drive anymore once it hits 70 hours.
In 2003, the drive clock was extended from 10 to 11 hours, the on duty clock was shortened from 15 to 14, and the required length of our break to reset those clocks was increased from 8 to 10 hours. In addition, it allowed drivers to reset their weekly clock by spending 34 hours off duty. Since those changes, injuries and fatalities have dropped by 1/3.
In 2010, the was a push to revise the hours of service again. The plan adopted, backed heavily by the teamsters, sets the driving clock back to 10 hours, and requires any 34 hour reset to include two 'sleep periods' from 1am to 5am, among other things. These changes were not for the benefit of their members. LTL and delivery drivers spend enough time loading and unloading that their on duty clock runs out before their drive clock, and since they don't drive 7 days a week, they don't have to worry about exhausting their 70 hour clock (and thus don't need to reset it).
These changes also will not improve safety. As I said earlier, the vast majority of truck accidents are caused by cars, and the most dangerous hour on the drive clock is the first one, not the last. Less than 2% of fatal accidents are caused by driver fatigue. The changes to the reset rule are completely idiotic; I tend to drive nights, which means I am almost always awake between 1am and 5am. So that change leaves me the choice of missing 2 shifts instead of 1 or driving during the time I am used to sleeping (with the added benefit of many more cars on the road).
So, if the union is backing changes that do not affect their members, do not improve safety, but does make work much more difficult for Over the Road drivers (and, incidentally, results in reduced pay), what would you call it?
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.
- John Stuart Mill
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Is it actually accurate to suggest unions have NO mechanism for onboarding of experienced people? What if a great stagehand from a non union place moves to your area, hacksaw? Does he literally start like a brand new hire?
Yes. Unless he was a union stagehand before, in which case he starts on the E list instead of the F list. Similarly, if a stagehand from my area travels somewhere else to do stagehand-y stuff, he preserves his place on whatever list he's on here, and earns hours toward advancement while he's away. It's what's known as being a "traveling journeyman".
Fun fact: you can be a traveling journeyman even if you aren't an actual journeyman.
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I should point out that my union is the not the be-all, end-all of stage employment in my city. Their primary function is to serve dispatch orders for companies looking for experienced contractors, usually on short notice. Most of my gigs are with small, private companies that do a lot of corporate work, but none the less have a collective bargaining agreement contract and only use union labor.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
No, it's not a closed shop, as you're more than welcome to join the union and work your way through the ranks. Just because the union isn't going to let you cut ahead of established members doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
Working your way through the ranks suggests moving up a career path, not transferring to a completely unrelated one. And cutting ahead suggests that there is someone who can fill the position (as it is, they are not just incapable of doing the work at the time of transfer, they are legally barred from doing so). It's like telling a veteran network admin that he can't get a job in the IT department because their policy is to promote someone from the mail room, then, over the next quarter, teach them how to use a computer and get their certifications...but he is more than welcome to apply for the mail room.
And your point is? Just because you don't like the cursus honorum doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
That is a horrifically inefficient way to do business though. This strukes me as seniority at its worst, with the union literally saying "all that matters for advancement is years served, even if you don't have the skills and someone else does.
This is completely idle speculation, but I can't help. It wonder how many people with skills and ambition actually leave their jobs (even the the employer would want them to stay) because they see the guy with no skills who works in the mail room being promoted above them in their field of expertise.
0
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
the question that immediately pops up for you in my mind is this,
how did they last that long in the job and NOT gain the skills to keep going? Even the dimmest of people learn something along the way. And if not, they will usually get fired. It is not impossible to get fired in a union shop. I've seen it happen a lot, actually. You don't even have to be absolute shit. You just have to not be able to learn, cooperate, or bend in any fashion. I've seen guys walked out of the office by their Union reps because the guys just refused to adjust something simple (like not showing up to work late and/or drunk).
Again, it's a working relationship. There has to be give and take. Sadly, lately, there's been a lot more giving from the union/workers and a lot more taking from the companies, with nothing really being done the other way around.
the question that immediately pops up for you in my mind is this,
how did they last that long in the job and NOT gain the skills to keep going? Even the dimmest of people learn something along the way. And if not, they will usually get fired. It is not impossible to get fired in a union shop. I've seen it happen a lot, actually. You don't even have to be absolute shit. You just have to not be able to learn, cooperate, or bend in any fashion. I've seen guys walked out of the office by their Union reps because the guys just refused to adjust something simple (like not showing up to work late and/or drunk).
Again, it's a working relationship. There has to be give and take. Sadly, lately, there's been a lot more giving from the union/workers and a lot more taking from the companies, with nothing really being done the other way around.
The fact that they are given the chance to even adjust for showing up drunk is already outrageous to me. . .
If there was a way to guarantee that people could never be fired for being too expensive, only for legitimately poor performance, would you still endorse seniority? I get that this is the problem seniority is meant to solve, but I think it is a bit of a sledgehammer. I don't think people should be fired and replaced with cheaper employees just to save some money, but I also don't think that time served should in and of itself count for much of anything in terms of job security, promotions or raises. People with skills, brains and motivation should always be used to the best of their ability, not made to work under less capable but more senior employees, IMO.
Edit: part of this is also the idea that putting in time gives you a right to employment. I fundamentally do not understand this idea. The employer has a right to his company, because he owns it. The employee has a right to his labor (I.e., to be paid) because he owns himself. But the employee does not have a stake in the business, such that he should have a right to be paid for his labor there just because he has labored there for a long time.
I was the lowest kid on the totem pole for a while, but we had a ton of available hours and got lots of work for it.
The lowest head on a totem pole usually represents the most powerful deity, and then they go down in rank as they go higher on the pole.
As for people being too expensive... am I the only one who has actually experienced a pay cut before? Like, not performance-based, but for economic reasons. If someone's too expensive, can't you offer them less?
Does going five years at the same company without even a token raise count as a pay cut?
In real terms, yeah. Especially if your insurance premiums (if you get insurance) keep increasing. This is what is happening to me right now - probably gonna leave after I finish my MS.
I was the lowest kid on the totem pole for a while, but we had a ton of available hours and got lots of work for it.
The lowest head on a totem pole usually represents the most powerful deity, and then they go down in rank as they go higher on the pole.
As for people being too expensive... am I the only one who has actually experienced a pay cut before? Like, not performance-based, but for economic reasons. If someone's too expensive, can't you offer them less?
Very likely.
Downward nominal wage rigidity yo!
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
So, yes, more than one of us has experienced a pay cut then. Although around here it's more like
10 Cancel all raises (hell, cancel all performance reviews)
20 Bleed personnel during downturns
30 Never hire them back during upturns
40 Divvy their workload up amongst the remaining staff (who, by God, should be glad they even have jerbs!), until
50 Staff get fed up and quit (yay, our UI premiums don't go up!)
60 GOTO 30
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Posts
You pay your dues metaphorically, not literally. Others pay theirs metaphorically and literally.
You may think that union treats non-union workers badly. I can't disagree, I have no personal experience of that industry. But unions in general do not treat non-union workers badly. Many have policies that are expressly opposite to that.
Saying that we have no standing to complain because we don't pay union dues is the height of goosery when it is the union shutting us out; closed shops are supposed to be illegal in this country. And the workers the teamsters are holding those positions for may literally pay their dues, but they most certainly do not metaphorically, not making time in a warehouse where the work is far less dangerous and far less demanding.
- John Stuart Mill
What about being the lowest man on the seniority totem pole, in a job where there is competition for hours? That seems like a situation where there is a very clear disadvantage to being in a union.
I didn't say that.
No, Hedgie did, and you reiterated his point of literally paying dues to the union.
- John Stuart Mill
You're a trucker. Stop acting like you have this huge investiture in a job you can't do because of a union because someone cut a driving hour to make your "dangerous" job less so. And stop passing other trucks while you're both going uphill on a two lane, that privilege is for people that can drive 70+ uphill
I host a podcast about movies.
I never said I couldn't do the job because of the union; I said the union was actively working against the non-union drivers, while at the same time blocking them from union jobs. And yes, the job is dangerous; by the latest numbers, it is somewhat more dangerous than being a cop. However, cutting that hour doesn't really make the job less so; about 3 in 4 truck accidents are caused by some goose in a car who thinks he has more right to the road, and driver caused accidents are most likely to occur in the first hour of driving (right after the driver has woken up), not the last.
As for passing on the upgrade; we'll stop doing that when all you super smart guys who obviously know better invent a diesel engine that doesn't lose power as RPM drops.
- John Stuart Mill
you work within the system. I was the lowest kid on the totem pole for a while, but we had a ton of available hours and got lots of work for it.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I ran out of time earlier to finish this thought and I'm racing time right now too.
Being the lowest kid on the totem pole while at Verizon, I got more hours. Granted I was working 6 days a week for 6 months straight and that went by seniority. Or rather, reverse seniority. The people who had the highest didn't get those shifts.
But then, those were also the people who had already been with the company for 8,9, or even 10+ years. They'd put in their time on the bottom and had made it to the top. I was the new kid, i was the one who needed to put in my time.
You can't always start out on the top of the ladder. C'mon. as a lawyer you should know this almost instinctively. Those cases/clients that nobody wants to really deal with because they're trouble? They got handed to you when you first started, right? You have to earn your stripes in that world, just like anywhere else.
you don't get into the armed forces as a general, you have to work your way up. Same with being in a union. You work your way through the rungs, through the ladders and eventually you'll end up being more senior than somebody, and it keeps going. The trick is not giving up when you're on the bottom, but working through it. You will get to the top, and by doing it this way, nobody is going to gainsay anything that you're earned. because you did earn it.
Works with physical stuff too. like with @Hacksaw. His job is ridiculously physically demanding. And he's already told you the difference between being union and non-union in his line of work. But he didn't start off in the union. He had to work his way into it. He earned those benefits (like good pay, catered food, and stuff) by putting in his hours of being drugged out on caffeine, working 60 hours straight on a weekend and being beaten and bruised by the end.
But as far as competition for hours? Suck it up dude. At least, at this point, you have a job. And your union will (if it's a good union and I'll admit that not all of them are) do what they can to make sure that you get your hours and that you keep your job. That's what they are there for.
As we've seen with the tea party, there is strength in numbers and in loud voices. It just turns out the such strength can be a tool for good as well.
And now, I'm going to go see Brave.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
In a big law firm, pay is based on seniority, but work distribution is based on performance. Do good work and develop a reputation for being good and you move up the responsibility ladder much faster. Law firms have very high attrition (75% will leave/be fired by the 4th year) and it usually isn't hard to predict who will go and who will stay, based on the quality of the work people are doing, and the level of trust you engender in people. A straight seniority based system, where responsibilities and promotions are just based on how much time people have put in, seems like a nightmare to me.
Not really. Just because someone has higher seniority than me doesn't mean they're more likely to take every job that comes along. In fact, it's usually the opposite; the guys on the A list don't want to run around town doing every gig available, not when their rate of pay is comfortable enough to where they can do a few gigs a month and be set.
I don't know what it's like in Lawyer World, but being in a union (at least, my union) is pretty solidly about worker solidarity and an understanding professional environment. The old guys know the young guys need hours, so more often than not they'll pass on jobs they might otherwise take if they were in our position.
it's essentially the same thing. Only one place it's informal and understood with a wink and a nod and a firm handshake and slap on the shoulder. In the other place it's more formalized. But in no means in a union shop are you going to get to the top simply by being lazy and waiting around.
The girls at Verizon with higher seniority than me? They worked for that company 40+ hours a week for 13ish years. They did their time, they stuck it out through thick and thin and they got their rewards (mainly 4 weeks of paid vacation a year after 7 years of being with the company). the guys at the top in Hacksaw's union? They worked their asses off, and probably have the scars to prove it, to be able to pick the jobs they want, and the pay that they've earned.
You want to be a partner? Do your grunt hours, take on the weak cases, and you'll get to the top. But believe me, if you think you can get by in a union shop simply by showing up for your shifts but not working like the others do? You'll soon find out just how 'safe' you are. Oh the union will go to bat for you, they have to. But they might not do their best. because to be honest, you not pulling your weight is damaging everybody else in the job, not just yourself. And the union has to protect the group, not just the one.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I think I may not have been clear, and for that, I apologize. My complaint is more that just doing good enough work (not sitting around being lazy) for a long enough time seems to be the criteria for advancement. By contrast, in a law firm "good enough" eventually means you will be asked to leave, or taken off partnership track. To make it, you need to show merit plus put in your time. Its the idea of strict seniority based advancement that bothers me.
FWIW, I have friends who joined unions (construction work) and literally never got called for work even once because the senior guys took all of the hours.
No, it's not a closed shop, as you're more than welcome to join the union and work your way through the ranks. Just because the union isn't going to let you cut ahead of established members doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
So, in short, you like a system where the people who are most willing to sacrifice themselves to the job are the ones who rise to the top, most likely because you're willing to do so. It's really clear that you don't understand how seniority works, and it bothers you because it takes away your ability to just sacrifice yourself to the job to get ahead.
And yes, it sucks that the construction industry is in a slump.
He's made a thread about this very concept. So, yes.
It isn't about sacrificing yourself. Almost without exception, the lawyers I know are willing to do the work. Just doing a lot of work and being responsive won't get you there. You need to do a great job and rise up as a star, or else not even being the only person left standing will get you partner (they'll just bring in a lateral hire to fill the firm's need for a partner or senior associate). That sucks for the people who work hard but don't make it, but it is better for the firm (and everyone who works there) than just making someone who can't cut it a partner. Please explain what it is I am missing about seniority.
What sucks more than the construction industry being in a slump is being told there is work, and requiring you to pay dues when the senior guys take every single job that comes up. . .
I know they paid the union something. Maybe some kind of fee to get on the calendar, or to start training (which they never received)? Maybe it was just plain corruption demanding money to "let" them in?
Joining the upper lists in my union incurs a cost, but it's a slight one compared to the benefit it grants. Paying to be in means you're a voting member. Not paying means you still get work, you just don't get to vote on policy.
What is the difference between this and RTW?
RTW states allow non-union members to have all the benefits of being in a union without having to pay the cost. I don't know how it works for other unions, but in my union you don't have to pay dues for non-union work. In other words, if the folks at dispatch don't get you the job, or you're not working under a certified journeyman who made it explicitly clear at the beginning of the assignment that this would be a union gig, you're not on the hook for any dues.
Working your way through the ranks suggests moving up a career path, not transferring to a completely unrelated one. And cutting ahead suggests that there is someone who can fill the position (as it is, they are not just incapable of doing the work at the time of transfer, they are legally barred from doing so). It's like telling a veteran network admin that he can't get a job in the IT department because their policy is to promote someone from the mail room, then, over the next quarter, teach them how to use a computer and get their certifications...but he is more than welcome to apply for the mail room.
- John Stuart Mill
And your point is? Just because you don't like the cursus honorum doesn't mean you're getting fucked over.
I host a podcast about movies.
Never said it did. Mucking about with our hours of service is them trying to fuck us over; this is just them treating us like shit, and illustrates why it is the union, not the employer that makes it difficult for a LTL driver to leave a job they dislike.
- John Stuart Mill
I host a podcast about movies.
Drivers have 3 duty clocks we need to watch. The drive clock is the hours we can drive without taking a break. The on duty clock is the hours since we came on duty; once it has elapsed, we cannot drive even if we have time on our drive clock. The weekly clock is a sum of the past 8 days time driving and on duty; we can't drive anymore once it hits 70 hours.
In 2003, the drive clock was extended from 10 to 11 hours, the on duty clock was shortened from 15 to 14, and the required length of our break to reset those clocks was increased from 8 to 10 hours. In addition, it allowed drivers to reset their weekly clock by spending 34 hours off duty. Since those changes, injuries and fatalities have dropped by 1/3.
In 2010, the was a push to revise the hours of service again. The plan adopted, backed heavily by the teamsters, sets the driving clock back to 10 hours, and requires any 34 hour reset to include two 'sleep periods' from 1am to 5am, among other things. These changes were not for the benefit of their members. LTL and delivery drivers spend enough time loading and unloading that their on duty clock runs out before their drive clock, and since they don't drive 7 days a week, they don't have to worry about exhausting their 70 hour clock (and thus don't need to reset it).
These changes also will not improve safety. As I said earlier, the vast majority of truck accidents are caused by cars, and the most dangerous hour on the drive clock is the first one, not the last. Less than 2% of fatal accidents are caused by driver fatigue. The changes to the reset rule are completely idiotic; I tend to drive nights, which means I am almost always awake between 1am and 5am. So that change leaves me the choice of missing 2 shifts instead of 1 or driving during the time I am used to sleeping (with the added benefit of many more cars on the road).
So, if the union is backing changes that do not affect their members, do not improve safety, but does make work much more difficult for Over the Road drivers (and, incidentally, results in reduced pay), what would you call it?
- John Stuart Mill
Yes. Unless he was a union stagehand before, in which case he starts on the E list instead of the F list. Similarly, if a stagehand from my area travels somewhere else to do stagehand-y stuff, he preserves his place on whatever list he's on here, and earns hours toward advancement while he's away. It's what's known as being a "traveling journeyman".
Fun fact: you can be a traveling journeyman even if you aren't an actual journeyman.
That is a horrifically inefficient way to do business though. This strukes me as seniority at its worst, with the union literally saying "all that matters for advancement is years served, even if you don't have the skills and someone else does.
This is completely idle speculation, but I can't help. It wonder how many people with skills and ambition actually leave their jobs (even the the employer would want them to stay) because they see the guy with no skills who works in the mail room being promoted above them in their field of expertise.
how did they last that long in the job and NOT gain the skills to keep going? Even the dimmest of people learn something along the way. And if not, they will usually get fired. It is not impossible to get fired in a union shop. I've seen it happen a lot, actually. You don't even have to be absolute shit. You just have to not be able to learn, cooperate, or bend in any fashion. I've seen guys walked out of the office by their Union reps because the guys just refused to adjust something simple (like not showing up to work late and/or drunk).
Again, it's a working relationship. There has to be give and take. Sadly, lately, there's been a lot more giving from the union/workers and a lot more taking from the companies, with nothing really being done the other way around.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The fact that they are given the chance to even adjust for showing up drunk is already outrageous to me. . .
If there was a way to guarantee that people could never be fired for being too expensive, only for legitimately poor performance, would you still endorse seniority? I get that this is the problem seniority is meant to solve, but I think it is a bit of a sledgehammer. I don't think people should be fired and replaced with cheaper employees just to save some money, but I also don't think that time served should in and of itself count for much of anything in terms of job security, promotions or raises. People with skills, brains and motivation should always be used to the best of their ability, not made to work under less capable but more senior employees, IMO.
Edit: part of this is also the idea that putting in time gives you a right to employment. I fundamentally do not understand this idea. The employer has a right to his company, because he owns it. The employee has a right to his labor (I.e., to be paid) because he owns himself. But the employee does not have a stake in the business, such that he should have a right to be paid for his labor there just because he has labored there for a long time.
The lowest head on a totem pole usually represents the most powerful deity, and then they go down in rank as they go higher on the pole.
As for people being too expensive... am I the only one who has actually experienced a pay cut before? Like, not performance-based, but for economic reasons. If someone's too expensive, can't you offer them less?
In real terms, yeah. Especially if your insurance premiums (if you get insurance) keep increasing. This is what is happening to me right now - probably gonna leave after I finish my MS.
Very likely.
Downward nominal wage rigidity yo!
Yes.
10 Cancel all raises (hell, cancel all performance reviews)
20 Bleed personnel during downturns
30 Never hire them back during upturns
40 Divvy their workload up amongst the remaining staff (who, by God, should be glad they even have jerbs!), until
50 Staff get fed up and quit (yay, our UI premiums don't go up!)
60 GOTO 30