The phrase Phyrric Victory comes to mind.....

I absolutely agree that Unions had and still can have their place. 50 years ago they were a necessity. But when the union hammers a company so hard that they go out of business or move their operations to another state or country are they a good thing? When every car coming out of GM has $1200 added to the price to pay the union medical benefits, is that a good thing? If I was under the gun the way PW is I would close the doors too. Boeing's union is why we now have a assembly plant in SC. A month or so after the local Boeing plant voted down the union Boeing decided to move 3500 jobs here. The unions are strangling big companies and I can't blame them for going somewhere they can breath. Hopefully more of them will just find better states rather than better countries.

see, I am on the opposite side. Because I do not have a union to protect me, the main company I work for was able to drop my hours to a third of what I was working before christmas. Our Sister properties are all unionised, mine is not. Because of this, my department is not on a "do more with less" it is on a "do all with none" philosophy. Not only is our department half the size of the other 4 casinos.. but we have twice the work.

Meanwhile our director farms us out to do work off property (on no notice btw) because we do not get paid time and a half to do it..

I might also add, his bonus is directly based on how many man hours he saves the company.

All of us that are left.. and consider my self left even if i only work 12 hours a week now.. are burned out. We often work straight through our shifts with no breaks and no lunch just because there is too much work and not enough people to do it. I think at least one is on the verge of some serious health issues.. and we have no recourse and nobody to protect us.

So yes.. Unions do have their place in this world.

mad_machine wrote: Our director farms us out to do work off property (on no notice btw) because we do not get paid time and a half to do it.. I might also add, his bonus is directly based on how many man hours he saves the company.

This is exactly the mimanagement and profiteering I speak of...

mad_machine wrote: All of us that are left.. and consider my self left even if i only work 12 hours a week now.. are burned out. We often work straight through our shifts with no breaks and no lunch just because there is too much work and not enough people to do it. I think at least one is on the verge of some serious health issues.. and we have no recourse and nobody to protect us. So yes.. Unions do have their place in this world.

I fully agree a union has a place in an industry. But like toyman said, you can only take so much from a company before theres nothing left. The Unions have sucked all the profit margin out of a company, so no they cant be competitive with a junk company shipping us lead drinking cups from china. Now maybe the corporate whizkids in charge would mis-manage a company into the ground to bulk up their personal portfolio so they can retire in barbados and without the union the employees are left out in the cold. A union serves its purpose when employees are being exploited, but as soon as the employees are being treated fairly, the union needs to go away. blah blah I could go on about consumerism in a down economy, and corporate waste, and union tomfoolery and so on and so forth and all of these things, but its just pissing me off so Im gonna stop now

exactly... when people do not become so greedy that they reach for everything... then honestly we would not need unions, or if we had them, they would not suck a business into the ground.

Lesley wrote: I'm far happier now, relying on my own skills --- if I don't produce the very best work that I'm capable of, I won't make money. Seems like a fair concept to me.

Amen! That just seems so ... sensible. I don't understand why that is such an uncommon viewpoint. But then, I don't fall anywhere on the normal political continuum so I must be wrong.

In reply to mad_machine:

assuming you thought you could get another job, I assume you would quit? Don't let your boss push you around, if no one would do what you do for what they pay you, call your employers bluff.

I work at several other casinos as a casual. and right now work is tight all over for what I do. I am going for an interview for a more steady position next door (where I also work) at the Borgata on thursday.

As a tool & die machinist/ tooling designer, all my adult life, the only thing I have seen unions do is inflate wages/benifits to 3X market value. As a Southerner, I am amazed that someone would think a company owed them anything more, than a fair days pay for a full days work. When union leadership has no requirement to do what the majority of the membership wants, it becomes nothing but a protection racket.

Wally wrote: They are tired of chasing jobs, and they feel that their kids and grandkids are just going to get screwed harder as time goes on. I know it's their fault for not getting MBA's and realizing that they are all replaceable parts but without them you would be able to go home and touch yourself thinking about how much better their Asian counterparts are at making your various widgets.

Chasing jobs? Nope. All those with low seniority were let go in the 90's(save a very very few). The young ones are welders who have a job that older workers cannot physically do. 30+ years now reign. They're all top rate @ $30/hr or more.

I respect these guys a great deal, they are in general great hard working folks.

Thanks for the personal attack. It's not like I don't get it every day. But thats ok.. I'm the boss.

ps. Not many mention this, but the work at PW was going to Maine, Georgia, and Singapore. Not all overseas.

Sorry about that, but you do seem to have a pretty stong dislike for anything and any one American. If the job goes from Connecticut to Maine, Georgia or Singapore then they have to pack up and go somwwhere else if they want to keep their job. My point was that after 30+ years some of them are tierd of it and don't feel like they should have to. If the plant closes seniority doesn't matter as everyone is out of work.

Wally wrote: Sorry about that, but you do seem to have a pretty stong dislike for anything and any one American. If the job goes from Connecticut to Maine, Georgia or Singapore then they have to pack up and go somwwhere else if they want to keep their job. My point was that after 30+ years some of them are tierd of it and don't feel like they should have to. If the plant closes seniority doesn't matter as everyone is out of work.

Actually the two plants they were closing had different job codes than any other plant. To be very frank, the majority of the workers are now pissed because the layoffs won't be limited to that specific job code. They'll now be widespread throughout the company... The average union member isn't really enthused that these plants will be held open.

Thanks for using the great conservative tactic of saying that liberals and business people hate anything american. It dosen't work. If anything my desire to have the best people with the best processes and lowest costs produce the product are inately american and capitalistic. Saying that you want the government to force business to remain in an uncompetitive environment, is a tad bit more anti-american than anything I'm advocating...

edit:

so lets do a tally.

You advocate big government control of business

Me not

You advocate the use of uncompetitive collectivist labor agreements

me not

hmmm... Who sounds like the crazy American hating liberal now?

Ignorant, I think the issue at hand is a bit more complicated than fundamental party mentality:

If a corporation would put in the hours to cut cost through eliminating waste and unnecessary spending, like oh i dunno...freezing unnecessary expense accounts, streamlining the manufacturing process, reducing management levels, reconfiguring materials management and flow, etc, layoffs wont be nearly as necesary.

It seems like corporate upper management goes into self preservation mode - as in preserving the upper managements positions - whenever "cost cutting" is needed "to keep the shareholders happy". That translates into cutting headcount in the hourly sector, as that has the fastest, most controllable, and most calculate-able reduction of a known cost possible.

Before you all reach for the flame throwers, Ive been in supply logistics for a couple BIG corporations for some time now, I have a handle on what Im talking about. Ive seen a big, american based, international operation decide its better to cut heads than make tough decisions internally that will affect the bottom line - its a product of short term gains mentality - fix the big problem now with a bandaid, and use another bandaid 10 months from now when the problems come back.

Thats a situation where a Union may serve some good - fight to make the company more profitable without cutting hourly jobs. But fighting to keep people on the job when theyre clearly not performing at an acceptable level is ridiculous. No company should be forced to pay someone who doesnt do their job, plain and simple.

I think the big issue is people, generally, plan for the short term. They would rather avoid the "pain" they have staring them in the face today, rather than face it. They are OK with pain that is probably maybe could happen in the future.

If you look at large public mulitnationals, UTC has done a pretty good job of doing long range planning..... Just sometimes at the micro level it dosen't look that way.

ignorant wrote: UTC has done a pretty good job of doing long range planning..... Just sometimes at the micro level it dosen't look that way.

perhaps, I am not familiar with the company, nor machining operations. But i bet theres more than one middle/upper manager there, who when asked by a review committee what his job is, he would get frustrated and blurt out that he is a people person

ignorant wrote: Actually the two plants they were closing had different job codes than any other plant. To be very frank, the majority of the workers are now pissed because the layoffs won't be limited to that specific job code. They'll now be widespread throughout the company... The average union member isn't really enthused that these plants will be held open. Thanks for using the great conservative tactic of saying that liberals and business people hate anything american. It dosen't work. If anything my desire to have the best people with the best processes and lowest costs produce the product are inately american and capitalistic. Saying that you want the government to force business to remain in an uncompetitive environment, is a tad bit more anti-american than anything I'm advocating... edit: so lets do a tally. You advocate big government control of business Me not You advocate the use of uncompetitive collectivist labor agreements me not hmmm... Who sounds like the crazy American hating liberal now?

I;m not saying liberals and business people hate America. I was pointing out that you come off as having an ax to grind with the American worker and American companies. Just look at your comments regarding the Toyota recalls. American companies recall cars because they design and build crap. Toyota recalls cars because they let Americans design and build crap.

Nowhere did I advocate government controling business. The gov't was the main cause of all three examples I listed. The only thing the Govt did in the Case you listed was try to keep the company in CT because they had previously bribed them with tax cuts, which I disagree also. I was just pointing out that these workers might not be the evil anti company people that everyone is making them out to be.

Wally wrote:

ignorant wrote: Actually the two plants they were closing had different job codes than any other plant. To be very frank, the majority of the workers are now pissed because the layoffs won't be limited to that specific job code. They'll now be widespread throughout the company... The average union member isn't really enthused that these plants will be held open. Thanks for using the great conservative tactic of saying that liberals and business people hate anything american. It dosen't work. If anything my desire to have the best people with the best processes and lowest costs produce the product are inately american and capitalistic. Saying that you want the government to force business to remain in an uncompetitive environment, is a tad bit more anti-american than anything I'm advocating... edit: so lets do a tally. You advocate big government control of business Me not You advocate the use of uncompetitive collectivist labor agreements me not hmmm... Who sounds like the crazy American hating liberal now?

I;m not saying liberals and business people hate America. I was pointing out that you come off as having an ax to grind with the American worker and American companies. Just look at your comments regarding the Toyota recalls. American companies recall cars because they design and build crap. Toyota recalls cars because they let Americans design and build crap.

Yup.. My years in the auto industry lead me to that conclusion. You perverted it slightly to suit your own agenda, but hey.. I'm cool with that. As long I do it.. Like a boss. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c (nsfw)

mad_machine wrote: . We often work straight through our shifts with no breaks and no lunch just because there is too much work and not enough people to do it.

Union or not, in most states, if not all, this is illegal.

93celicaGT2 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: . We often work straight through our shifts with no breaks and no lunch just because there is too much work and not enough people to do it.

Union or not, in most states, if not all, this is illegal.

It's only illegal if they are not compensated for it.

ignorant wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: . We often work straight through our shifts with no breaks and no lunch just because there is too much work and not enough people to do it.

Union or not, in most states, if not all, this is illegal.

It's only illegal if they are not compensated for it.

Hrmmm.... must vary state by state. By Indiana state law, last i knew, if you work 8 hours, you are required by law to have a paid 30 minute lunch, for example.

US Dept of Labor said: Federal law does not require lunch or coffee breaks. However, when employers do offer short breaks (usually lasting about 5 to 20 minutes), federal law considers the breaks as compensable work hours that would be included in the sum of hours worked during the work week and considered in determining if overtime was worked. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and any extension of the break will be punished. Bona fide meal periods (typically lasting at least 30 minutes), serve a different purpose than coffee or snack breaks and, thus, are not work time and are not compensable.

If only there were some group that worked to make sure workers were treated fairly.

Weird... i retract my statements. Just strange that every employer that i've worked for has enforced the "take your breaks" rule pretty hardcore-like.

They may not have been paying you for them. My wife works for the state of NY and full time workers are paid 7.5 hr a day so if she works through her lunch she worked without pay. Lately the Dept of Labor has been cracking down on that and her hospital was fined some rediculous amount.

I think i have this all backwards... I'm required to take a 30 minute unpaid lunch, and two 15 minute paid breaks. My shift is 8 hours paid, but schedule across 8.5 hours. That makes more sense i guess.

Sorry for the confusion.

A. this thread broke the intrawebz
B. The reason your bosses enforce it is to be consistent with all employees - if da bossman treats Joe better/different than Bob, then Bob may have grounds for a suit. The enforced breaks, even paid, is them covering their tush, plain and simple.

I will preface my statement with the following: I think that unions should be allowed and legal under any and all circumstances.

Now, for the counter-point. The state government gets a choice as to what labor laws to enforce (as per the constitution of the US) and my state (SC) is one where labor unions can form and dissolve whenever they want. In other states (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm) labor unions can mandate membership by some crazy back-woods methods. In this environment, the union becomes the 'state' entity, pretending to be in it for the common worker, when in fact they run the whole thing like they are a second company which leeches off of the first. Read Animal Farm for a description of this trust effect. For you classic rock guys, this is an example of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". One key difference, as long as you work for a company, you can't quit the union. I guess another key difference is that the company pays you, while you pay the union.

There are greedy bastard companies out there, and unions should always be allowed to right them. Contracts such as these, however, are extremely far reaching, and never would have been signed in a right to work state (they would have just hired other people, a perfectly valid and moral course of action) instead. There are also greedy bastard workers out there, and they aren't the slightest bit less sleazy than the greedy bastard companies.

My opinion is that if the fed got out of this whole thing with regard to labor laws, you'd see a better balance of labor power vs company power, but until then, I moved to a right to work state. Seriously, that was one of my big points when I relocated from New York. I worked in a union shop, and got "grieved" for helping a 60 year old woman lift giant plastic pallets. Seriously.

If you don't like your job, get another one works to a point, and obviously organized labor works to prevent all companies from being run by greedy bastards, and keeps the happy happy joy joy nice guy companies from having to deal with labor (in a right to work state, anyway).

But like others have mentioned, this was understood by the company when they signed the contract. It's stupid, but correct by the letter of the paper they signed. Short termed thinking by the labor? Absolutely - and downright immoral if you ask me. Send the ship down to save my E36 M3ty $10/hour job for a few more weeks. It's not like the company didn't know this, though. They should have moved like I did.

/rant