When we do not understand the cause in our human lives, we can look to the Animal Kingdom for clues, insight and an explanation of human nature in the driving, evolutionary, animalistic and ruthless behavior, that is evident in the preservation of the individual being in purpose and want.
When a male baboon becomes the leader
of the troop, he will seek out any baboon infant that is not his and
kill it by crushing its neck in his jaws.
The mother of the doomed infant will run, hide, and fight to save her baby -- but the baboon leader will kill her if she does not hand over her infant for killing -- and so, after an appropriate fight, the infant is handed over by its mother to discover its end. The baboon leader kills the infants because they are future competitors who do not share his bloodline.
There was a time in American when Unions meant something. The working man had a voice in the workplace and found protection in the law and the solidarity of others and was celebrated in the political process.
In New York City alone, I recall many recent examples of Union-negotiated Union-busting. The recent, failed, MTA Strike where Union givebacks were more beneficial for the company than the workers. It was shocking. New hires were less protected than those who currently served their vicious masters.
I am also reminded of the NYPD's recent union negotiation where the established elite hierarchy were protected, but new recruits had their starting salaries slashed so much the requirements to become a New York City Police Officer had to be lowered to fill the classes:
At NYU, new adjuncts are set on probation -- without Union protection -- for a period of 10 semesters. For those of you who don't remember how a university operates, summer semesters don't count in the Union equation and so 10 semesters of probation works out to an astonishingly punitive probationary period of: FIVE YEARS! NYU can also fire you at will and not reappoint you any time during that FIVE YEAR probationary period and you have no recourse, grievance process or Union protection.
NYU adjuncts desperately needed to unionize because they were not being paid a fair wage even though they were teaching 70% of the undergraduate courses. It is alarming, however, to realize how quickly the old guard Union and the established adjunct faculty made out like robber barons while future adjuncts and new hires were sacrificed to suffer cemented into a never-ending probationary purgatory.
Are Unions dead in America?
If so, did they earn their deaths by offering up the necks of their young or is this just the natural evolutionary progress of industrialized nations? Have we come so far as a nation that protecting workers is no longer an issue that needs to be resolved with collective bargaining agreements? Are we destined to become a nation of work-for-hires and independent contractors?
Other than protecting the aging, power, majority in the Union, what is the advantage of sacrificing the interests of new hires who seek the protection of the Union in order to keep the Union alive beyond the prosperous lives of the present membership? Why even join a Union if the result is an immediate death blow on your neck by not just one pair of jaws, but two: Your Union elders and the company hiring you -- and both demanding undying loyalty from your grave?
The mother of the doomed infant will run, hide, and fight to save her baby -- but the baboon leader will kill her if she does not hand over her infant for killing -- and so, after an appropriate fight, the infant is handed over by its mother to discover its end. The baboon leader kills the infants because they are future competitors who do not share his bloodline.
There was a time in American when Unions meant something. The working man had a voice in the workplace and found protection in the law and the solidarity of others and was celebrated in the political process.
Waiting for Lefty is a vigorous, confrontational work, based on a 1934 strike of unionized New York cab drivers. Explicit political messages dominate the play, whose ultimate goal was nothing less than the promotion of a communist revolution in America."The Union Label" used to indicate a sign of quality and caring in the production of American goods in an ever-expanding world economy.
Appearing at the height of the Great Depression, the play's original 1935 production was a critical and popular sensation.... More than most dramas, it is the product of a particular tune and place--for its overriding concern was to influence that time and place, not to create "immortal art," and certainly not to create diverting, light-hearted entertainment. It faced its grim times squarely and offered its audience a stirring vision of hope.
In this sense Waiting for Lefty is seen as an important dramatic work that offers historical evidence of the social power and aspirations of theatre.
With his busting of the 17-month strike, Republican President Ronald Reagan sent a message to the labor movement that he and his big business backers were in charge. It was Act One in what would be a decade of unprecedented greed for Corporate America at the expense of U.S. workers.We still have unions in America but they are weak and wanton and when in negotiation for higher wages and better working conditions, Unions today are too quick in offering up the necks of their young to the jaws of power in order to preserve the old order and lock down the protections of the established workers.
Yet despite their defeat, the 13,000-strong air traffic controllers union demonstrated inspiring militancy, unity and determination--conducting an illegal strike against a popular president with little support from other unions.
In New York City alone, I recall many recent examples of Union-negotiated Union-busting. The recent, failed, MTA Strike where Union givebacks were more beneficial for the company than the workers. It was shocking. New hires were less protected than those who currently served their vicious masters.
I am also reminded of the NYPD's recent union negotiation where the established elite hierarchy were protected, but new recruits had their starting salaries slashed so much the requirements to become a New York City Police Officer had to be lowered to fill the classes:
The New York City firefighters also gave in to city demands and the result was a punishing of future, yet-to-be-hired, FDNY recruits:
The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association last week charged that the NYPD dropped its 2.0 college grade-point-average requirement in order to garner enough candidates to fill its just sworn-in class of recruits under the new, drastically reduced starting salary. Paul J. Browne, the NYPD's chief spokesman, vehemently denied that the department had relaxed the academic requirement.
"It's not true," Mr. Browne asserted. "The Police Commissioner instructed the Chief of Personnel that there would be no lowering of standards." Al O'Leary, a spokesman for the PBA, asserted that the NYPD eliminated the 2.0 GPA requirement this class. He added that the department was struggling to recruit and retain officers under the previous $36,878 starting salary, which was reduced based on a binding arbitration award issued in June.
That award provided incumbent officers 10.25-percent in raises over two years in return for several concessions, chief among them a reduced pay scale that will cost new officers $48,000 during their first six years of service compared to those hired in 2005.
The Uniformed Firefighters' Association has already agreed to a 50-month contract, which provides a 17.52-percent wage increase funded in part by a cut in starting pay for new hires and other concessions.When the New York University adjuncts union -- run by the ACT-UAW -- negotiated terms with the university, those who had been teaching at NYU for a long time were richly rewarded with prosperous contracts that protected seniority and guaranteed reappointments, but lost in the hubris of such an extravagant contract was the non-protection of newly hired adjuncts.
The first two years of the contract replicate the PBA raises and concessions; the last two years of that deal give Firefighters raises of 3 and 3.15 percent. City negotiators have asserted that those additional years have set the new pattern for this round of collective bargaining.
At NYU, new adjuncts are set on probation -- without Union protection -- for a period of 10 semesters. For those of you who don't remember how a university operates, summer semesters don't count in the Union equation and so 10 semesters of probation works out to an astonishingly punitive probationary period of: FIVE YEARS! NYU can also fire you at will and not reappoint you any time during that FIVE YEAR probationary period and you have no recourse, grievance process or Union protection.
NYU adjuncts desperately needed to unionize because they were not being paid a fair wage even though they were teaching 70% of the undergraduate courses. It is alarming, however, to realize how quickly the old guard Union and the established adjunct faculty made out like robber barons while future adjuncts and new hires were sacrificed to suffer cemented into a never-ending probationary purgatory.
Are Unions dead in America?
If so, did they earn their deaths by offering up the necks of their young or is this just the natural evolutionary progress of industrialized nations? Have we come so far as a nation that protecting workers is no longer an issue that needs to be resolved with collective bargaining agreements? Are we destined to become a nation of work-for-hires and independent contractors?
Other than protecting the aging, power, majority in the Union, what is the advantage of sacrificing the interests of new hires who seek the protection of the Union in order to keep the Union alive beyond the prosperous lives of the present membership? Why even join a Union if the result is an immediate death blow on your neck by not just one pair of jaws, but two: Your Union elders and the company hiring you -- and both demanding undying loyalty from your grave?
Hi David,
I was a member of a union when I worked at the grocery store. I remember there being several different contracts. People with a lot of seniority did very well for workers in the service industry. However, new employees -- like I was when I was hired -- ended up getting the short end of the deal.
We didn't get any of the special perks given to the old guard. We didn't get paid extra for working on Sundays -- unlike the people on the older contract -- so all of the new employees ended up working that day. We did get nice insurance benefits -- if we worked for a full year -- but most young people never used them because they were covered under their parent's insurance policies or would quit before they had put in a year's worth of time to find a better paying position someplace else.
Unlike non-union shops, we weren't allowed to get raises unless there was a new contract. People routinely quit to find better paying jobs. One worker did get a raise to keep him from leaving, but that was quickly ended when someone filed a grievance with the union. After a while, the best and brightest workers ended up leaving for better pay elsewhere -- like McDonalds -- leaving behind those who liked the flexibility or the work.
The kicker was when we did get a raise. Everyone voted on a new union contract. We ended up getting a little pay raise of 5 cents per hour. But, along with the pay increase, we ended up with increased union dues of $2 per week. 5cents x 40 hours = our union dues. I think I was making $3.45 or about that per hour at that time -- maybe 10 cents above the minimum wage. We did end up getting a pay increase when the minimum wage was increased to $3.80, but that was required by law.
The problem with the union was that it protected people who didn't work too hard, made it difficult to reward those who did, and generally didn't get us too much more than what we probably could have gotten ourselves if we were to ask.
I wonder if I'm still a member of the union? Is it like the Marines? Once a union member, always a union member?
HI Chris!
Your experience reflects my union experience and that of many others. Unions are created to protect the older workers who are in power and since they do not care about anything else or anyone else beyond themselves -- if they did they'd fight to their deaths for the lives of new workers -- the old Union guard is in bed with company management because they share the same interest: Lower costs at the price of new hires.
You're also right about dues. Many contracts mandate they get stripped out of paychecks automatically and any new company hire IS REQUIRED TO join the union even if it is not beneficial to them. That's a strange disconnect.
Chris!
Ha! I think you're out of the Union if you're no longer paying dues. I still get Rutgers Union letters and news and I haven't been in that union for over two years. :grin:
I remember seeing some stories a couple of years ago about a union hiring non-union temporaries to protest Wal-Mart. The temps from a temporary service -- who had no benefits -- were making $6/hour to hold informational picket signs in 104 degree weather.
That's a shocking story, Chris!
I know big businesses don't want any unions because the startup costs are so great -- there aren't any "newbies" to punish. Everyone who votes to join will get the same contract because you can't split out the old from the new unless there are new hires.
It can take a decade of embedding before having a union help ruin your young employees is set in place.
I thought of another problem with unions as I experienced them. They didn't encourage any movement upward within the company because they made it hard for people gain additional experience outside of their job class.
When I worked at the store, I remember being asked to help out in another department because someone was out for the day. The manager said that I'd get bumped up to the higher pay for the department for the time I was working there. It was nice to get an easier gig -- the lowest paid people usually have the hardest work assignments in terms of having to do tiring labor -- and a little more money for that day's work.
I remember someone asking me if I had transferred to the new department. I said I was just filling in for someone who was absent. I didn't think anything about it.
A few days later, I heard that someone had filed a grievance with the union. I didn't know the specifics of the grievance, but it seemed that it hurt someones chances to gain new experience in different departments because the managers never gave anyone the opportunity to "try out" different jobs after that time because someone probably griped that they weren't getting a chance to make a couple of more dollars an hour.
That's an excellent point, Chris!
In many unions your "hire level" remains the same throughout your employment and you never rise above that initial categorization. Sure, you can always get a raise and better benefits if the union gets that for you, but many promotions and access to more responsibilities are determined by that initial hiring status. Those who know the union game understand how to fight to get a better lot number than newbies who just show up off the street and eagerly gnaw on any bone thrown their way.
That's very true. If I was to try to transfer into another department, I'd have to allow anyone else who had been hired before me to have a shot at the job opening.
When I was getting ready to graduate with my undergraduate degree, the managers asked me and a few other people if we wanted to join their management training program. It would have been good money -- I'd heard that some store managers were pulling in high five-figure incomes in the early 1990s.
If I had decided to make that my career, I would probably would have had to move to a different location because I would have never had the respect of anyone that had had more seniority at the store where I worked.
Hi Chris!
You again make excellent points. You're right about hierarchy helping the unions manage and help those they prefer over those they don't.
I know a grocery store manager for a major chain in the Bronx who was "brought in" to run the store. He makes three figures and manages 35,000 products. It's a massive job but he's doing really well.
I'm sure some people are surprised to learn how much a "Super Store" manager can make these days and it is really because of the early Union movement that protected workers from being fired without cause and for creating an established chain of ascension that is sorely missing from many new union contracts today.
It's almost too bad that the chain of ascension isn't like that in the military where people move up through the rank based on competency. People don't just get promotions because they've managed to stick around for many years.
If someone enlists in the service, then works his or her way up through the NCO ranks, then into the officer corps, that person usually has the respect of everyone because they knew that person has done some hard work to rise through the ranks. In a union, that same type of individual is likely to cause resentment because there are some people who feel entitled to positions based upon their longevity with a certain company.
When I was in the store, I remember people talking about trying not to improve their work speed because that could result in work rules changes that would require more speed in the future.
I worked as a utility clerk -- so that meant working in the front end and doing all of the trash cleanup stuff that nobody else wanted to do. When I was younger, I hated getting assigned to do the trash pickup assignment that required one to clean the restrooms once so often, check and change trash can liners throughout the store, and make sure bottles were stacked for return to their bottler. I could never figure out why the clerks with more experience always seemed to enjoy the job so much.
It was only after thinking about it a little bit that I realized why people with the most seniority wanted to get assigned to be "trash boy." They were assigned 4 hours to do a job that only required about 1 1/2 hours of actual work. The rest of the time could be spent talking to customers -- which was encouraged and allowed -- or just moving around looking like he or she was working on some project related to the cleaning duties. Of course, the guys with the most seniority would "disappear" not to be seen until their time was up.
Ha! You know the process, Chris! Very funny! Love the specifics.
I do know in the military, though, if there's a tie, the preference goes to the one the promotion committee likes better. I have a good friend who was up for full Colonel and all the qualifications were similar between those up for the slot. The top guy chose the guy he went to school with to fill the slot and there was nothing the others could do to complain so they all just took retirement because by the time you hit Colonel you either get it and go on or miss it and get out because staying is too much of a humiliation and once you're passed over for promotion in the military you don't get the chance to move up again at that level.
The military at the upper levels gets to be very political and sometimes people get promoted into incompetency because they know someone. But, when people get into field grade positions -- Major through Colonel -- they are being groomed to possibly move up into the rarefied "upper management" levels of the military. At those levels, just as in the business world, it requires a lot of political skill to be able to compete for the few slots at the top of the pyramid.
I remember the cashiers always were keeping an eye on the required "scan rate" because it was the same deal. If everyone started working a little faster, there could come a time when the union would allow management to require faster scan rates.
I
Hi Chris!
That's an excellent PDF! Where did you find it?
I'm glad to know once you hit Lt. Colonel you're into chits and favors and performance is sort of out the window.
Scan rates are fascinating. Not too much. Not too little. That's a lot of pressure to remain average! :grin:
Hi David,
It's interesting to note that Rumsfield was against the rule that you had to be promoted or you had to leave.
Here's the RAND study of the issue: "New Paths to Success: Determining Career Alternative for Field-Grade Officer."
I personally think "Up and Out" is silly as well. My dad was a major when he got out of the military -- he worked in finance and accounting and his office went from being staffed by active duty military people to being all civilian by the time he got out and joined the DoD on the civilian side for more money and more job freedom.
David, You can find a bunch of interesting documents by searching Google for "RAND" and "field grade officer" or "flag officer" or "company grade officers"
Hi David,
This is so interesting, because “Union” – be it teachers’ or trade is so powerful in some states in India that they can just “stop” the flow of daily life – any time.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/34095087.cms
http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/15/stories/2006121516161800.htm
In fact, people are fearful about the word “union” which sometimes (!) follow the path of aggression instead of collective burgaining.
Forgot to log in...oooof!!!
Hello my lovely, Katha!
Outstanding links!
Unions used to be all-powerful here, too, Katha. In the 50's and 60's they could be a city to its knees with a proper strike. Garbage workers were especially effective in calling strikes and winning big contract concession with their cities. No one wants garbage piling up in the streets and decaying...
Then states like NY got smart and passed legislation -- like the Taylor Law -- that outlaws strikes against the vested interests of a city. Unions can still strike, as the MTA foolishly did with their subway and bus strike in NYC -- but if they do they risk incredible fines and the imprisonment of their leaders:
http://www.goer.state.ny.us/CNA/bucenter/taylor.html
KATHA ARE YOU LOGGED IN?!!!
:mrgreen:
OOF IS RIGHT! :wink:
Thanks for those great search tips, Chris! Love it!
Hi David,
It is so interesting that you mentioned about '50s and '60s - the following article also tells the same!
http://travel.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/travel/tmagazine/15T-INDIA.html?ex=1184990400&en=dc14cf3af3079f26&ei=5070
I understand the importance of the union being powerful but a continuous abuse of any system has an adverse effect -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/47000080.cms
Now a days - it basically boils down to fulfilling the agenda of the union leaders - the mass is often ignored.
Now that's a great link, Katha!
Yes, you're right that when unions become too powerful those who are "first in" are "first out" at the slightest hint of any trouble. There isn't universal protection in a union. There is only protection for some. The whole idea of banding together as one must be to serve the greater purpose of the one in the all -- to separate that power willfully is to destroy that which was nobly anticipated.