United Autoworkers Strike

[fernweh]

Sept 16, 2023 23:51:06 GMT -5 pinkdutchtulips said:

I’ve seen calls to boycott the NAIAS aka the Detroit Auto Show should the strike continue into January. People calling for folks not to cross the ‘picket line’ by attending. This will be a blow to the city in terms of lost hotel, dining, entertainment revenue.

The NAIAS is happening right now. It started yesterday actually.

[pinkdutchtulips]

Sept 17, 2023 7:05:19 GMT -5 fernweh said:

Sept 16, 2023 23:51:06 GMT -5 pinkdutchtulips said:

I’ve seen calls to boycott the NAIAS aka the Detroit Auto Show should the strike continue into January. People calling for folks not to cross the ‘picket line’ by attending. This will be a blow to the city in terms of lost hotel, dining, entertainment revenue.

The NAIAS is happening right now. It started yesterday actually.

I guess they moved it up from its usual January … thank you for letting me know !

[4speedy]

Sept 16, 2023 23:51:06 GMT -5 pinkdutchtulips said:

I’ve seen calls to boycott the NAIAS aka the Detroit Auto Show should the strike continue into January. People calling for folks not to cross the ‘picket line’ by attending. This will be a blow to the city in terms of lost hotel, dining, entertainment revenue.

Whoever is saying this is uninformed.  There is literally nothing to boycott in Detroit in January.  

[Michelle]

Sept 16, 2023 11:14:16 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Sept 15, 2023 18:52:10 GMT -5 Susie said:

Where defined benefit plans still exist at all, I think this is pretty common.  The NYSLRS (state & local gov't retirement system) currently has 6 tiers based on when you came in, and it impacts benefits eligibility, formula for calculation of benefits, death benefit coverage, service crediting, whether you have to contribute for benefits or not, etc.  MH came in at the end of tier 4, and has friends who are tiers 4, 5, and 6.  Everybody knew what they were being offered when they took the job. I'm sure tier 5 and 6 folks would love to jump in on tier 4's benefits, and tier 4 would love what tier 3 and up have.  But that was never on the table, and there was full transparency about what was on offer at the time of job offer.  Maintaining retirement benefits that were offered in the earlier tiers forever was not financially responsible for the state or feasible.  From that perspective it's hard for me to get too up in arms about a multi-tier system.

I think the ask of returning to a defined benefit plan is an out of touch ask on the part of UAW.  It just feels like a regressive reach back to the "good old days."  

I can't get mad at wanting raises of similar % to executive raises though! 

This reasoning sounded good until I found out that my Boomer in-laws — former NYC public school teachers — make $200k a year from their pension.

Two hundred thousand dollars per year

Since they were 55 years old!! For doing nothing. NY pensions also get special tax treatment in NY.

And they’re hardly the only ones: www.empirecenter.org/publications/six-figure-nyslrs-pensions-quadruple-in-ten-years/

I’m not saying it’s financially feasible to go back (at least in the public sector), but I also can’t blame younger people for saying fuck the tiers!

And thanks to Boomers, pensions are unsustainable. The demographics bubble can't be sustained by the generations backfilling them, while giving the same to said generations.

But profit-sharing bonuses are entirely possible and underutilized. There is no reason someone needs to make $29m a year... they can afford to share that down the line with bonuses that can then be moved to retirement accounts.


That said, UAW workers do get profit sharing bonuses. Just not enough based on what the execs are making. So here is where HR me has to share... in the labor relations market, UAW stands for "U Ain't Workin'." ::ducks and runs for cover::

[goldengirlz]

Sept 18, 2023 11:00:23 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Sept 16, 2023 11:14:16 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

This reasoning sounded good until I found out that my Boomer in-laws — former NYC public school teachers — make $200k a year from their pension.

Two hundred thousand dollars per year

Since they were 55 years old!! For doing nothing. NY pensions also get special tax treatment in NY.

And they’re hardly the only ones: www.empirecenter.org/publications/six-figure-nyslrs-pensions-quadruple-in-ten-years/

I’m not saying it’s financially feasible to go back (at least in the public sector), but I also can’t blame younger people for saying fuck the tiers!

And thanks to Boomers, pensions are unsustainable. The demographics bubble can't be sustained by the generations backfilling them, while giving the same to said generations.

But profit-sharing bonuses are entirely possible and underutilized. There is no reason someone needs to make $29m a year... they can afford to share that down the line with bonuses that can then be moved to retirement accounts.


That said, UAW workers do get profit sharing bonuses. Just not enough based on what the execs are making. So here is where HR me has to share... in the labor relations market, UAW stands for "U Ain't Workin'." ::ducks and runs for cover::

Seriously? This is gross.

[TR]

Sept 18, 2023 11:00:23 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Sept 16, 2023 11:14:16 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

This reasoning sounded good until I found out that my Boomer in-laws — former NYC public school teachers — make $200k a year from their pension.

Two hundred thousand dollars per year

Since they were 55 years old!! For doing nothing. NY pensions also get special tax treatment in NY.

And they’re hardly the only ones: www.empirecenter.org/publications/six-figure-nyslrs-pensions-quadruple-in-ten-years/

I’m not saying it’s financially feasible to go back (at least in the public sector), but I also can’t blame younger people for saying fuck the tiers!

And thanks to Boomers, pensions are unsustainable. The demographics bubble can't be sustained by the generations backfilling them, while giving the same to said generations.

But profit-sharing bonuses are entirely possible and underutilized. There is no reason someone needs to make $29m a year... they can afford to share that down the line with bonuses that can then be moved to retirement accounts.


That said, UAW workers do get profit sharing bonuses. Just not enough based on what the execs are making. So here is where HR me has to share... in the labor relations market, UAW stands for "U Ain't Workin'." ::ducks and runs for cover::

Why did you "have to" share that? 

[wanderingback]

Sept 18, 2023 11:36:00 GMT -5 TR said:

Sept 18, 2023 11:00:23 GMT -5 Michelle said:

And thanks to Boomers, pensions are unsustainable. The demographics bubble can't be sustained by the generations backfilling them, while giving the same to said generations.

But profit-sharing bonuses are entirely possible and underutilized. There is no reason someone needs to make $29m a year... they can afford to share that down the line with bonuses that can then be moved to retirement accounts.


That said, UAW workers do get profit sharing bonuses. Just not enough based on what the execs are making. So here is where HR me has to share... in the labor relations market, UAW stands for "U Ain't Workin'." ::ducks and runs for cover::

Why did you have to share that? 

Michelle has a history of saying offensive things and not reading the room so not surprising.

[jinkies]

It's surprising to me, given the overall leanings of this board, to see such mixed support of unions and worker benefits.

I think they are making a valid point-- if the company can afford to give executives 40% raises, then why shouldn't the workers see those raises too?

Also, average UAW wage is $18-32/hour. Which is $37-66k/year for 40 hours/week. Is that "a really good wage for their type of work"?

I also can't begrudge Boomers for enjoying their pensions-- that was a benefit that was offered/expected during the peak of their employment, at a time largely before the prevalence of 401ks, so the idea that they are getting it "for doing nothing" is bugging me.

Full disclosure: My H took a union job 3 years ago that has very significantly changed our lives for the better. They aren't perfect, but I will sing the praises of unions all day every day.

[goldengirlz]

Sept 18, 2023 11:59:07 GMT -5 jinkies said:

It's surprising to me, given the overall leanings of this board, to see such mixed support of unions and worker benefits.

I think they are making a valid point-- if the company can afford to give executives 40% raises, then why shouldn't the workers see those raises too?

Also, average UAW wage is $18-32/hour. Which is $37-66k/year for 40 hours/week. Is that "a really good wage for their type of work"?

I also can't begrudge Boomers for enjoying their pensions-- that was a benefit that was offered/expected during the peak of their employment, at a time largely before the prevalence of 401ks, so the idea that they are getting it "for doing nothing" is bugging me.

Full disclosure: My H took a union job 3 years ago that has very significantly changed our lives for the better. They aren't perfect, but I will sing the praises of unions all day every day.

I made the comment about “doing nothing,” which was as much a dig at my ILs as anything. My FIL in particular is very peak Boomer about getting his due (god forbid anyone mentions taxing his pension), while grumbling about having to pay a nominal health insurance fee every time they go to a restaurant.

Hey, I’m glad they got their pensions so they can live in their 4000 sq ft house and collect a check that’s nearly four times the median wage in the U.S. today. If we’re lucky, that’s my kid’s inheritance. But my comment WAS in support of younger people wanting to have the same benefits. Being a teacher today is as hard as it ever was — if not harder — and we treat people as entitled for wanting the bare minimum. Meanwhile, the Boomers have totally drained our coffers. I mean, good for them, but which generation is overwhelmingly voting for anti-labor policies? Talk about pulling up the ladder behind you …

[seeyalater52]

Sept 18, 2023 11:59:07 GMT -5 jinkies said:

It's surprising to me, given the overall leanings of this board, to see such mixed support of unions and worker benefits.

I think they are making a valid point-- if the company can afford to give executives 40% raises, then why shouldn't the workers see those raises too?

Also, average UAW wage is $18-32/hour. Which is $37-66k/year for 40 hours/week. Is that "a really good wage for their type of work"?

I also can't begrudge Boomers for enjoying their pensions-- that was a benefit that was offered/expected during the peak of their employment, at a time largely before the prevalence of 401ks, so the idea that they are getting it "for doing nothing" is bugging me.

Full disclosure: My H took a union job 3 years ago that has very significantly changed our lives for the better. They aren't perfect, but I will sing the praises of unions all day every day.

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

[rupertpenny]

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Sept 18, 2023 11:59:07 GMT -5 jinkies said:

It's surprising to me, given the overall leanings of this board, to see such mixed support of unions and worker benefits.

I think they are making a valid point-- if the company can afford to give executives 40% raises, then why shouldn't the workers see those raises too?

Also, average UAW wage is $18-32/hour. Which is $37-66k/year for 40 hours/week. Is that "a really good wage for their type of work"?

I also can't begrudge Boomers for enjoying their pensions-- that was a benefit that was offered/expected during the peak of their employment, at a time largely before the prevalence of 401ks, so the idea that they are getting it "for doing nothing" is bugging me.

Full disclosure: My H took a union job 3 years ago that has very significantly changed our lives for the better. They aren't perfect, but I will sing the praises of unions all day every day.

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

It is so irritating. Plus, "white collar" professionals can unionize too! Unions aren't only for people who work in trades or do physical labor, any worker can be taken advantage of by their employer and potentially benefit from collective bargaining. 

My workplace is working towards unionizing under the UAW and my job could not be further from automobile manufacturing. I really hope we can make it happen, I know it would make me feel much more secure in my job.

[penguingrrl]

Sept 18, 2023 15:06:48 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

It is so irritating. Plus, "white collar" professionals can unionize too! Unions aren't only for people who work in trades or do physical labor, any worker can be taken advantage of by their employer and potentially benefit from collective bargaining. 

My workplace is working towards unionizing under the UAW and my job could not be further from automobile manufacturing. I really hope we can make it happen, I know it would make me feel much more secure in my job.

I just left an industry that desperately needs unionization because it asks some really crazy things of people while grossly underpaying them and it’s a widespread problem. It’s also a white collar job that mostly requires a masters or PhD to enter, but the underpay and work conditions are shockingly difficult. 

I think most people need unions and I don’t think I’ve ever not sided with a union. The decoupling of white collar jobs from unions is exactly what allowed us to be in a place where the wealth inequality is worse than it was in the gilded age, which was what gave rise to unions to begin with.

[Michelle]

Sept 18, 2023 11:39:37 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Sept 18, 2023 11:36:00 GMT -5 TR said:

Why did you have to share that? 

Michelle has a long personal history of family poverty thanks to corrupt union strikes saying offensive things and not reading the room so not surprising.

FTFY.

Although the strikeout is an opinion that certainly some may share.

This is supposed to be a political board where different opinions are discussed. Some of us have had very bad experiences with unions, and I didn't make that up - UAW workers who have had bad experiences came up with that acronym, not me. It's been used in case studies in labor relations issues exploring the pro's and con's of unions.

There IS a point at which there needs to be some compromise on both sides. The union pushing for pensions to be at pre-1980's rates isn't a reasonable place of compromise. And if they continue with that position, they aren't going to be working, at their own sacrifice.

Editing to add for those who don't know my story.

My dad was a copper miner in NM. He came from a rich family of union workers (not financially rich, but culturally rich and pro-union), and when he went to work in the mine, he joined the union like a good boy. Also, NM is a closed-shop state so he didn't have a choice even if his family blood wasn't rich with union support.

When I was 4 years old the union went on strike. I was 4, so i won't pretend to know what the issues were so I'll assume joining the strike was the right thing to do.

It lasted TWO YEARS.

In a mining town, there isn't much you can do when a strike lasts that long. So he got a job at a gas station. He couldn't pay his own bills, much less child support. So here in Houston where I lived with my mom, we didn't get any support from him and lived off beans and bisquick. I thought pancakes for dinner were cool because mom made them seem that way.  But that was dinner because you could stretch a box of bisquick pretty far when there is nothing else in the pantry or fridge.

Fast forward to when i was about 15. He was working in a mine in a nearby town, different from the other one. The contract was up for negotiation and the union was preparing to strike again. My dad and step-mom kept fighting because he was planning to cross the picketline. Of course bing a scab would have him ostracized from family and our community. I asked my dad why he'd take such a risk and he reminded me of the one strike from long before. And of other strikes since then that he supported. But this one was corrupt. In this case, the company wanted to buy a brand of safety gloves that was higher rated and of better quality than the ones the union wanted to buy. As it turns out, the owner of the manufacturer supported by the union was the brother-in-law of the local union steward. My dad wasn't willing to have us go into poverty again just so this guy's brother could get rich at the expense of all the workers.

My dad's house was up on a hill and there was a winding road to get to it, and only one way in or out. One night while he was in the mine (he packed a bag because once in, you stayed in), people blocked off the end of the driveway on one end and threw a Molotov cocktail up the hill to our house at the other end. We were trapped, and they were threatening our lives. The police broke it up, but we had to pack up and go to another state for a couple of weeks.

Yes, my dad was a scab so of course people would be pissed. But shouldn't they be pissed at the original reason for the strike? And should we have faced the brunt of it? The union corruption was putting employee safety at risk with lower quality PPE. After that my dad wasn't really welcome at that mine, so he put in for a transfer to a mine in Arizona that was decertified. He got better pay and benefits there and was able to build up a little savings for him and his family after that.

Unions aren't ALWAYS the best option for workers. Sometimes they are needed, and sometimes they do great things. And there are certainly awful corporate leaders who couldn't care less about workers. But as much as some people will always have love in their hearts from unions, I'll have trauma. I will always be wary. I will always warn people about signing authorization cards because once you give your voice away, you can't get it back. And it isn't always used toward your benefit. So if you work for a company where you don't need a union to negotiate for advancement, or for job security, work with that company. If you don't, well that company is getting what is coming to them. But you also need to be prepared with savings every time the contract comes up because unions don't pay you when you aren't working.

These aren't right wing talking points. This is from my lived experience. Just SOME of my lived experience with union corruption.

[goldengirlz]

Sept 18, 2023 15:06:48 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

It is so irritating. Plus, "white collar" professionals can unionize too! Unions aren't only for people who work in trades or do physical labor, any worker can be taken advantage of by their employer and potentially benefit from collective bargaining. 

My workplace is working towards unionizing under the UAW and my job could not be further from automobile manufacturing. I really hope we can make it happen, I know it would make me feel much more secure in my job.

Yep. Medical residents have been unionizing in record numbers as another example.

[wildrice]

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Sept 18, 2023 11:59:07 GMT -5 jinkies said:

It's surprising to me, given the overall leanings of this board, to see such mixed support of unions and worker benefits.

I think they are making a valid point-- if the company can afford to give executives 40% raises, then why shouldn't the workers see those raises too?

Also, average UAW wage is $18-32/hour. Which is $37-66k/year for 40 hours/week. Is that "a really good wage for their type of work"?

I also can't begrudge Boomers for enjoying their pensions-- that was a benefit that was offered/expected during the peak of their employment, at a time largely before the prevalence of 401ks, so the idea that they are getting it "for doing nothing" is bugging me.

Full disclosure: My H took a union job 3 years ago that has very significantly changed our lives for the better. They aren't perfect, but I will sing the praises of unions all day every day.

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

Dittoing this. I live in a white collar world now, but grew up in a blue collar family and from what I've seen, most blue collar workers work a lot harder than I do, many times without the comforts I have. They were the ones considered essential during the pandemic, the ones who work shift work so miss out on a lot of "normal" evening/weekend stuff, and often are working physically taxing jobs. I think EVERYONE deserves to be paid a living wage, but I certainly don't think that because there is a lower educational/training bar to getting some jobs that they are worth less pay. 

FWIW I work (and teach, and study) in HR and I'm still very pro-union. Maybe that's unusual but I got into HR because I want to be able to advocate for better working conditions for the people who work at the companies where I work. I do not think that what's good for the business is at odds with what's good for the employee - generally both sides are better off if they look out for each other. If workers are feeling like they are being compensated unfairly, they probably aren't wrong and they SHOULD do something about it. I wish more companies would unionize - I think we'd be better off as a society since clearly our government isn't interested in regulating much of anything when it comes to employment. If some companies start offering better wages and benefits because their union pushed for it, others are going to have to also raise their compensation standards to be competitive. 

[rupertpenny]

Sept 18, 2023 15:17:45 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Sept 18, 2023 15:06:48 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

It is so irritating. Plus, "white collar" professionals can unionize too! Unions aren't only for people who work in trades or do physical labor, any worker can be taken advantage of by their employer and potentially benefit from collective bargaining. 

My workplace is working towards unionizing under the UAW and my job could not be further from automobile manufacturing. I really hope we can make it happen, I know it would make me feel much more secure in my job.

I just left an industry that desperately needs unionization because it asks some really crazy things of people while grossly underpaying them and it’s a widespread problem. It’s also a white collar job that mostly requires a masters or PhD to enter, but the underpay and work conditions are shockingly difficult. 

I think most people need unions and I don’t think I’ve ever not sided with a union. The decoupling of white collar jobs from unions is exactly what allowed us to be in a place where the wealth inequality is worse than it was in the gilded age, which was what gave rise to unions to begin with.

Yes to the bolded! 

And yeah, I'm university non-tenure track faculty. We all have PhD's or some other combination of advanced degrees. We still need a union. We especially need a union since our whole job category was created to undermine protections of tenure. 

[Michelle]

Sept 18, 2023 15:28:16 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

Dittoing this. I live in a white collar world now, but grew up in a blue collar family and from what I've seen, most blue collar workers work a lot harder than I do, many times without the comforts I have. They were the ones considered essential during the pandemic, the ones who work shift work so miss out on a lot of "normal" evening/weekend stuff, and often are working physically taxing jobs. I think EVERYONE deserves to be paid a living wage, but I certainly don't think that because there is a lower educational/training bar to getting some jobs that they are worth less pay. 

FWIW I work (and teach, and study) in HR and I'm still very pro-union. Maybe that's unusual but I got into HR because I want to be able to advocate for better working conditions for the people who work at the companies where I work. I do not think that what's good for the business is at odds with what's good for the employee - generally both sides are better off if they look out for each other. If workers are feeling like they are being compensated unfairly, they probably aren't wrong and they SHOULD do something about it. I wish more companies would unionize - I think we'd be better off as a society since clearly our government isn't interested in regulating much of anything when it comes to employment. If some companies start offering better wages and benefits because their union pushed for it, others are going to have to also raise their compensation standards to be competitive. 

Have you worked in HR under a union contract though?

I agree that some companies deserve it - if you treat your workers horribly, having them unionize is what you get as a consequence, and then out the window goes all the flexibility and innovation you could have been applying.

But also, out the window goes all the flexibility and innovation you could have been applying. So an employee has a need to take some extra PTO because of a medical condition of a family member that goes beyond the max limit of intermittent FML. But the contract says that PTO assignments are by contract only and there is a minimum staffing level, so even on an expected low-volume day, you couldn't let that person take off to go care for their family member because Susan has a day at the spa planned that day (and good for her) and you have to staff up to a certain level regardless of volume, so you can't let the person off. 

Or someone's parent dies overseas and they need an extended vacation to get through all the travel to get there in time and honor the cultural practices of the deceased. But the contract says vacations longer than 2 weeks must be approved 2 months in advance, so you can't approve it.

Sometimes contracts bind your hands into what is not always the common sense or even best-for-the-majority and individual solution in decisions.

With the latest NLRB ruling on authorization cards, you will likely get your wish. But it will also likely be at the expense of employees who wish they had a secret ballot election and would have voted no for a union.

[jinkies]

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Sept 18, 2023 11:59:07 GMT -5 jinkies said:

It's surprising to me, given the overall leanings of this board, to see such mixed support of unions and worker benefits.

I think they are making a valid point-- if the company can afford to give executives 40% raises, then why shouldn't the workers see those raises too?

Also, average UAW wage is $18-32/hour. Which is $37-66k/year for 40 hours/week. Is that "a really good wage for their type of work"?

I also can't begrudge Boomers for enjoying their pensions-- that was a benefit that was offered/expected during the peak of their employment, at a time largely before the prevalence of 401ks, so the idea that they are getting it "for doing nothing" is bugging me.

Full disclosure: My H took a union job 3 years ago that has very significantly changed our lives for the better. They aren't perfect, but I will sing the praises of unions all day every day.

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

This place is so interesting to me, because it's like the inverse of my real life. I have a college degree, but I am the only one in either my own, or my husband's, entire extended family who has one. Within my own family, I am often dismissed as "not really working" because what I do is computer-based. 

Over the years, my job also has placed me in a world where I hear frequent casual disparagement of blue collar workers. There are definitely tones of that attitude here as well-- sentiments so common that I'm not always sure people are hearing what they are saying or understanding that it's insulting.

[penguingrrl]

Sept 18, 2023 15:28:24 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

Sept 18, 2023 15:17:45 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I just left an industry that desperately needs unionization because it asks some really crazy things of people while grossly underpaying them and it’s a widespread problem. It’s also a white collar job that mostly requires a masters or PhD to enter, but the underpay and work conditions are shockingly difficult. 

I think most people need unions and I don’t think I’ve ever not sided with a union. The decoupling of white collar jobs from unions is exactly what allowed us to be in a place where the wealth inequality is worse than it was in the gilded age, which was what gave rise to unions to begin with.

Yes to the bolded! 

And yeah, I'm university non-tenure track faculty. We all have PhD's or some other combination of advanced degrees. We still need a union. We especially need a union since our whole job category was created to undermine protections of tenure. 

You absolutely need a union! I was in museum work and the exploitations in that industry are massive. I know very few people who don’t/didn’t leave within 10 years of starting because of work conditions and low pay.

[seeyalater52]

Sept 18, 2023 15:51:22 GMT -5 jinkies said:

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

This place is so interesting to me, because it's like the inverse of my real life. I have a college degree, but I am the only one in either my own, or my husband's, entire extended family who has one. Within my own family, I am often dismissed as "not really working" because what I do is computer-based. 

Over the years, my job also has placed me in a world where I hear frequent casual disparagement of blue collar workers. There are definitely tones of that attitude here as well-- sentiments so common that I'm not always sure people are hearing what they are saying or understanding that it's insulting.

100%. I by and large work with people who would call themselves liberal or progressive but working on Medicaid policy means that everyone shows their whole ass when it comes to understanding poverty and working class experiences. They don’t even know what they don’t know to understand how they sound. It’s gross, and sometimes it’s super awkward being in that environment as someone who is proximal to poverty in my immediate family of origin to this day (which, I will add, is very likely a different lived experience than someone whose family lived in poverty or scarcity when they were a child and are now baseline financially stable.)

I’m not talking about any one poster so y’all can miss me with the @ and the sob stories about terrible unions. I’m not interested in the ahistorics of weighing a smattering of unflattering behaviors of specific unions under specific circumstances (most of which I’ll add are pretty subjective anyways), to the immense gains unions have made and continue to make in employment conditions and n this country. It is demonstrably true, without question. Trying to complicate that with some anecdotes is a truly delusional take - I do not believe every person on this board who is problematic on worker protections/unions/employment conditions or even just skeptical of certain strikes has had a personal and intimate traumatic experience with unions. This stuff is so built into the fabric of our current consciousness that people can’t even see their own blind spots.

[jinkies]

Michelle, I will add my own anecdote.

My H's company policy is that every worker randomly draws 2 holidays/year that they have to work. If you work one of the big ones-- Christmas or Thanksgiving-- you are guaranteed not to get them the next year. H worked xmas in 2021. In 2022, he was assigned weekend shift Christmas weekend. So he worked both Christmas Eve and Christmas day, at regular overtime rate (1.5x), because the holidays fell on a Saturday/Sunday. The union contract stipulated that the official holiday for holiday pay (and for the purpose of assigning work) was the Federally recognized holiday. In 2022, that was Monday, December 26.

It was the stupidest fucking thing I'd ever heard, but their hands were tied by the contract.

Despite that, we would choose his current union job over his previous 20-year non-union career any day of the week. The incredible benefits FAR FAR FAR outweigh any problems we've encountered as a result of inflexible union contracts. So to use a few highly specific examples of inflexibility as a reason to throw out the whole union is laughable.

We went from paying $1200/month for high deductible insurance, to about $100/month with an HSA that is fully funded by the employer to cover all copays. He went from 12 hour days to 8. At his old company, they would randomly shift your start time to provide longer coverage without paying overtime. With the union, any after hours calls pay a baseline of 3 hours overtime, even if he's there 5 minutes, which goes a long way toward them not abusing the need for employees to work extra. He has more vacation than he knows what to do with, mandated breaks, generous retirement plans, and within 2 years was making more than his previous job.

I know a LOT of people who work non-union jobs (including me!). I've never heard of anyone at those companies being treated as generously as we are by the union. Unions are NOT a "consequence" for treating your employees poorly. They are a collective bargaining tactic to make things more fair for everyone. Let's please not pretend that there are just a multitude of companies out there willing to be as generous with their employees as they would be if a union helped with the negotiations.

[jlt19]

Sept 18, 2023 11:00:23 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Sept 16, 2023 11:14:16 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

This reasoning sounded good until I found out that my Boomer in-laws — former NYC public school teachers — make $200k a year from their pension.

Two hundred thousand dollars per year

Since they were 55 years old!! For doing nothing. NY pensions also get special tax treatment in NY.

And they’re hardly the only ones: www.empirecenter.org/publications/six-figure-nyslrs-pensions-quadruple-in-ten-years/

I’m not saying it’s financially feasible to go back (at least in the public sector), but I also can’t blame younger people for saying fuck the tiers!

And thanks to Boomers, pensions are unsustainable. The demographics bubble can't be sustained by the generations backfilling them, while giving the same to said generations.

But profit-sharing bonuses are entirely possible and underutilized. There is no reason someone needs to make $29m a year... they can afford to share that down the line with bonuses that can then be moved to retirement accounts.


That said, UAW workers do get profit sharing bonuses. Just not enough based on what the execs are making. So here is where HR me has to share... in the labor relations market, UAW stands for "U Ain't Workin'." ::ducks and runs for cover::

Aren’t you in Texas? One of the most dangerous states to work in a “traditionally Union” role?

[wildrice]

Sept 18, 2023 15:46:19 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Sept 18, 2023 15:28:16 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Dittoing this. I live in a white collar world now, but grew up in a blue collar family and from what I've seen, most blue collar workers work a lot harder than I do, many times without the comforts I have. They were the ones considered essential during the pandemic, the ones who work shift work so miss out on a lot of "normal" evening/weekend stuff, and often are working physically taxing jobs. I think EVERYONE deserves to be paid a living wage, but I certainly don't think that because there is a lower educational/training bar to getting some jobs that they are worth less pay. 

FWIW I work (and teach, and study) in HR and I'm still very pro-union. Maybe that's unusual but I got into HR because I want to be able to advocate for better working conditions for the people who work at the companies where I work. I do not think that what's good for the business is at odds with what's good for the employee - generally both sides are better off if they look out for each other. If workers are feeling like they are being compensated unfairly, they probably aren't wrong and they SHOULD do something about it. I wish more companies would unionize - I think we'd be better off as a society since clearly our government isn't interested in regulating much of anything when it comes to employment. If some companies start offering better wages and benefits because their union pushed for it, others are going to have to also raise their compensation standards to be competitive. 

Have you worked in HR under a union contract though?

Yes and no - a couple of places I've worked have had a subset of employees who were union (for something like the campus police) and the rest of folks were not. I know at my last job, the fact that some employees were unionized - and many of the places we competed with for talent were, too - meant we had to be careful not to do anything that would cause the rest of our employees to unionize - which basically meant meeting the standards that the unionized folks get. IMO this was a net positive for everyone - it kept us accountable while still giving us flexibility. I don't necessarily believe that every single place should unionize, but I do think it's a positive for employees overall that unions exist. 

There are always going to be exceptions to any policy or contract that mean that it doesn't work in everyone's favor. I think HR is yet another area where you just have to look at the bigger picture and do what's right for MOST, even if there are going to be some people here and there that would benefit more from something else. 

[bee20]

I worked in a union for over half of my working life. I'm glad to now be in a place that treats employees so well we don't need a union, but for the role where I was unionized it was 100% necessary because the company was terrible. Unfortunately it also protected some of the worst workplace behavior both in "slackers" and harassment, once people had tenure they had not a care in the world.

For pensions I think they are actually golden handcuffs and we're better without them. I've had both, and the issue isn't pension vs. 401k, it's that the pensions usually involve the employer putting 15% of your salary aside for you, whereas the average 401k match is a paltry 3%. A 401k with a 15% match would be better than a pension that ties you to a bad job or goes belly-up mid retirement.

[Michelle]

Sept 18, 2023 17:53:34 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Sept 18, 2023 15:46:19 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Have you worked in HR under a union contract though?

Yes and no - a couple of places I've worked have had a subset of employees who were union (for something like the campus police) and the rest of folks were not. I know at my last job, the fact that some employees were unionized - and many of the places we competed with for talent were, too - meant we had to be careful not to do anything that would cause the rest of our employees to unionize - which basically meant meeting the standards that the unionized folks get. IMO this was a net positive for everyone - it kept us accountable while still giving us flexibility. I don't necessarily believe that every single place should unionize, but I do think it's a positive for employees overall that unions exist. 

There are always going to be exceptions to any policy or contract that mean that it doesn't work in everyone's favor. I think HR is yet another area where you just have to look at the bigger picture and do what's right for MOST, even if there are going to be some people here and there that would benefit more from something else. 

I agree with you, and in my company, that means not having a union. And yet i have to admit that some might argue we are in a unique situation.

Working in the Texas Medical Center means that we have incredible industry competition, which pushes us to ensure extremely competitive wages. It also means tight talent markets, so for our company, that includes a philosophy of job security - don't let go of the talent easily because they will be hard to get back. We also benefit from a constantly growing population, which drives up demand, so profit margins are 4-7% instead of the 0.25-1% that many healthcare organizations in other parts of the country face. That makes it a lot easier to be generous with employee total rewards packages.

We have a philosophy that if you do right by the people and the patients, the profits will follow. And it is a proven model. So we have better leadership than most. That gives me the privilege of saying that unions are a consequence of not doing right by your employees. If you are already out there putting safety, compensation/benefits, working conditions, work culture, etc. at the front of your decision making, employees don't need to collectively bargain for more. They can bring their individual concerns forward and have them evaluated and addressed. In some departments, that might include some shared governance (committees that weigh in on department policies). In others it might mean an unusual staffing decision that meets a person's unique need while balancing fairness for the rest. We definitely look at what is best for most, but we have the flexibility to try something unique as well, and it is the best of both worlds.

I don't hate all unions. I do have trauma from unions. So again, it's a cautionary tale from me. 


Someone upthread asked don't I work in Texas which can be dangerous if you aren't in a union. In some industries, yes. And unions may be appropriate for those, although one would argue that of all industries, mining should theoretically be one of the most important and that didn't work so well for my dad or a few other family members and friends (who weren't scabs). In my industry, there are often state protections that offer what unions typically offer. There is a state law prohibiting mandatory overtime for healthcare workers, for example. And if you have unsafe staffing conditions, we have Safe Harbor. To fight for talent, we already have policy to staff at the ratios that unions are usually campaigning on. 

We offer the most generous benefits of any company i've ever worked for, and when I share them with cross-industry HR folks they are in awe. We have had a living wage for at least a decade now, and reduced premiums for low income workers.

We do a ton for employees. So working in HR here is admittedly easy in that regard. Having to manage through contracts for every little decision would kill our culture, which is our competitive differentiator for both attracting talent and caring for patients.

[Michelle]

Sept 18, 2023 18:35:44 GMT -5 bee20 said:

I worked in a union for over half of my working life. I'm glad to now be in a place that treats employees so well we don't need a union, but for the role where I was unionized it was 100% necessary because the company was terrible. Unfortunately it also protected some of the worst workplace behavior both in "slackers" and harassment, once people had tenure they had not a care in the world.

For pensions I think they are actually golden handcuffs and we're better without them. I've had both, and the issue isn't pension vs. 401k, it's that the pensions usually involve the employer putting 15% of your salary aside for you, whereas the average 401k match is a paltry 3%. A 401k with a 15% match would be better than a pension that ties you to a bad job or goes belly-up mid retirement.

This is my MIL's position. She was die-hard union, so we had interesting discussions. She had a great pension and great benefits from Southwestern Bell when she retired in her early 50s. But the bubble burst on it and the company had to restructure their retirement agreements and medical plans and they were pretty awful, comparatively, the last couple of years of her life.

She loved her union, but hated that she worked 28 Christmases before she got one off, because the contract prioritized seniority and first come first serve for holiday time off. As a telephone operator, someone always has to be at work on Christmas. So she never had Christmas Day off with her kid until he was grown and out of the house. She worked for the company for 30 years. So she got 2 Christmas holidays off...

But, she didn't have the option to work for a company that treated their employees better without a union, so she was happy to have that job.

[jlt19]

Do you know why some Union contracts have such strict stipulations? It’s not because the Union sought them out. It’s because somewhere along the way, some asshole employer tried to take advantage of something that wasn’t perfectly spelled out in the contract.

I worked at a large labor Union for 15 years. I’ve written several CBA’s that don’t have these rigid details for upwards of 20k people.

No Union is perfect. Was there people at the top taking advantage? Yep. It’s no different than any other hierarchy. The powerful will always do what they can to protect what they’ve “earned”.

Most are historically racist and sexist, but many are working towards changing their reputations within the community.

To prove I’m not actually all in, rah rah Union, I actually sued the one I worked for, for the way they handled something with me.

But I would never deny the overall good they do on behalf of the membership and their families. Especially for the “type of work” they do.

I’ll get a decent pension from the Union, but the 167% match of my 6% contribution (10%) my current publicly traded employer contributes will probably be better in the long run. I’m fairly certain there aren’t many employers out there willing to offer that without a Union holding them to it. I’m just grateful I found the unicorn that does.

[msmerymac]

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Sept 18, 2023 11:59:07 GMT -5 jinkies said:

It's surprising to me, given the overall leanings of this board, to see such mixed support of unions and worker benefits.

I think they are making a valid point-- if the company can afford to give executives 40% raises, then why shouldn't the workers see those raises too?

Also, average UAW wage is $18-32/hour. Which is $37-66k/year for 40 hours/week. Is that "a really good wage for their type of work"?

I also can't begrudge Boomers for enjoying their pensions-- that was a benefit that was offered/expected during the peak of their employment, at a time largely before the prevalence of 401ks, so the idea that they are getting it "for doing nothing" is bugging me.

Full disclosure: My H took a union job 3 years ago that has very significantly changed our lives for the better. They aren't perfect, but I will sing the praises of unions all day every day.

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

This is probably one (of several) reasons the Democrats have lost support from working class white voters in the last several decades. From the days of FDR, when way more Americans worked in manufacturing and were members of unions, to now, when Democrats seem to many to be filled with out-of-touch, privileged, college-educated people. 

[seeyalater52]

Sept 19, 2023 8:11:54 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 18, 2023 14:11:25 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

This is where the board’s (and GBCN’s) immense class and financial privilege really starts to show. It’s easy to be progressive and fair when your family isn’t at risk of giving anything up, but a lot of posters do seem to think they have something to lose here, and frankly a lot of it is just regurgitated right wing talking points. Board sympathy is not with blue collar workers because upper middle class white collar professionals believe they deserve more than the people who do “that kind of work.” And perhaps they do but that is not UAW’s problem to fix.

I’m not surprised but it is seriously irritating nonetheless.

This is probably one (of several) reasons the Democrats have lost support from working class white voters in the last several decades. From the days of FDR, when way more Americans worked in manufacturing and were members of unions, to now, when Democrats seem to many to be filled with out-of-touch, privileged, college-educated people. 

Totally. While Republicans are terrible about worker protections, they are very skilled at leveraging other issues to capture this electorate’s fear and anger by directing it toward other historically marginalized groups. And Democrats are shit on labor and safety net policy more broadly honestly, so they’re increasingly unappealing.

[pixy0stix]

Sept 18, 2023 12:17:04 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Sept 18, 2023 11:59:07 GMT -5 jinkies said:

It's surprising to me, given the overall leanings of this board, to see such mixed support of unions and worker benefits.

I think they are making a valid point-- if the company can afford to give executives 40% raises, then why shouldn't the workers see those raises too?

Also, average UAW wage is $18-32/hour. Which is $37-66k/year for 40 hours/week. Is that "a really good wage for their type of work"?

I also can't begrudge Boomers for enjoying their pensions-- that was a benefit that was offered/expected during the peak of their employment, at a time largely before the prevalence of 401ks, so the idea that they are getting it "for doing nothing" is bugging me.

Full disclosure: My H took a union job 3 years ago that has very significantly changed our lives for the better. They aren't perfect, but I will sing the praises of unions all day every day.

I made the comment about “doing nothing,” which was as much a dig at my ILs as anything. My FIL in particular is very peak Boomer about getting his due (god forbid anyone mentions taxing his pension), while grumbling about having to pay a nominal health insurance fee every time they go to a restaurant.

Hey, I’m glad they got their pensions so they can live in their 4000 sq ft house and collect a check that’s nearly four times the median wage in the U.S. today. If we’re lucky, that’s my kid’s inheritance. But my comment WAS in support of younger people wanting to have the same benefits. Being a teacher today is as hard as it ever was — if not harder — and we treat people as entitled for wanting the bare minimum. Meanwhile, the Boomers have totally drained our coffers. I mean, good for them, but which generation is overwhelmingly voting for anti-labor policies? Talk about pulling up the ladder behind you …

I can't believe I'm going to defend Boomers, but... there's not a lot of difference between generations and support of unions. It's divided by political party - www.americanprogress.org/article/what-you-need-to-know-about-gen-zs-support-for-unions/