posted on June 9, 2005 03:31:02 PMAFL-CIO Losing Political Grip to Largest Member Union
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 09, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -
An internal struggle between the AFL-CIO and its largest union has already cost the labor federation much of its political clout and could tear the organization apart before it reaches its 50th anniversary next month.
During its three-day meeting in San Francisco beginning Thursday, the executive board of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is expected to give its president, Andrew Stern, the authority to pull that union out of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.
If that happens, the move could lead to the defection of other member unions and be a crushing blow to the AFL-CIO, which currently represents 57 labor unions with about 13 million workers.
One example of the federation's decline over the past several years is the fact that the AFL-CIO was dramatically outspent by the 1.8-million-member SEIU during the 2004 election campaign.
While the SEIU backed the loser last year, Democratic nominee John Kerry, I just LOVE reading those words a press release at the SEIU website boasts that the union "played a critical role in shaping the outcome of the presidential election."
The release states that the SEIU made "the largest investment by any single organization in the history of American politics -- a total of $65 million."
Among other things, union workers took part in the new "SEIU Heroes program, through which more than 2,000 members took time off from their regular jobs to spend several months working as full-time political activists in key battleground states," according to the union's website.
Despite President Bush's re-election, the campaign "had tremendously positive results," the website states. "SEIU members built new relationships in communities and new allies throughout the country. We won the presidential contest in 10 of our key 14 states."
The AFL-CIO parent organization headed by John Sweeney, who ascended to the union helm 10 years ago promising to oust the new Republican majority in the U.S. House, spent much less than the SEIU on the 2004 election. The AFL-CIO spent $45 million and "more on voter education than on campaign contributions," according to The Nation magazine.
"Through our political program, we have invested in our future," said AFL-CIO Political Director Karen Ackerman in a post-election press release. "More unions than ever participated on a large scale in the AFL-CIO's coordinated program. We have now set the stage to bring working family friendly candidates into office throughout the nation."
The disparity between the efforts of the SEIU and the AFL-CIO was greatest in their support of tax-exempt 527 groups. According to OpenSecrets.org, the SEIU spent nearly $40 million, while the AFL-CIO as a whole provided just over $6 million.
'Payback is severe'
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, much of the conflict centers around the re-election bid of Sweeney, whose policies have failed to halt the drop in union membership.
Sweeney's loss of political clout is also the result of his failure to win back control of the House for the Democrats, and led to much criticism in recent years from his union subordinates.
Bruce Raynor, general president of UNITE HERE, Joseph Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers, James Hoffa of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Terence O'Sullivan of the Laborers International Union of North America believe Sweeney should stress union organizing instead of political activity.
Carl Horowitz, director of the Organized Labor Accountability Project of the National Legal and Policy Center, told Cybercast News Service that a break-up of the AFL-CIO would definitely hurt organized labor.
"The secessionists know that they're taking a big risk, that organized labor would be much less effective with two mega-federations instead of one," Horowitz said. "But they have serious strategic differences with Sweeney."
Horowitz sees Sweeney as having a "two-thirds chance" of being re-elected at the AFL-CIO's convention in Chicago during late July, though he said the consequences of any dispute could be harsh.
"[]In union politics, payback is severe and unforgiving," he said. "It's not quite like regular politics, with Democrats and Republicans[/b].
There's bitterness and recriminations and a feeling of everything being done to you and your allies. It's magnified tenfold the way it is in standard party politics.
"When labor people talk about going off to war, they mean that quite literally," Horowitz added.
posted on June 10, 2005 12:16:55 AM
Well, I felt sorry for poor hate monering little linduh so I decided to answer her "troll" post....
Of course she hates unions and adores the unionless sweat shops that provide her with clothes and promote abortions....
How unions help all workers
by Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters
Unions have a substantial impact on the compensation and work lives of both unionized and non-unionized workers. This report presents current data on unions' effect on wages, fringe benefits, total compensation, pay inequality, and workplace protections.
Some of the conclusions are:
• Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
• Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree.
• Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.
• The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.
• The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.
• Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.
• Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions.
• Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays).
Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary complement to legislated benefits and protections.
posted on June 10, 2005 12:23:16 AM
Here linduh I can C&P , too.
The Labor Union Movement in America
The roots of our country's trade unions extend deep into the early history of America. Several of the Pilgrims arriving at Plymouth Rock in 1620 were working craftsmen. Captain John Smith, who led the ill-fated settlement in 1607 on Virginia's James River, pleaded with his sponsors in London to send him more craftsmen and working people.
Primitive unions, or guilds, of carpenters and cordwainers, cabinet makers and cobblers made their appearance, often temporary, in various cities along the Atlantic seaboard of colonial America. Workers played a significant role in the struggle for independence; carpenters disguised as Mohawk Indians were the "host" group at the Boston Tea Party in 1773. The Continental Congress met in Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia, and there the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. In "pursuit of happiness" through shorter hours and higher pay, printers were the first to go on strike, in New York in 1794; cabinet makers struck in 1796; carpenters in Philadelphia in 1797; cordwainers in 1799. In the early years of the 19th century, recorded efforts by unions to improve the workers' conditions, through either negotiation or strike action, became more frequent.
By the 1820s, various unions involved in the effort to reduce the working day from 12 to 10 hours began to show interest in the idea of federation-of joining together in pursuit of common objectives for working people.
As ineffective as these first efforts to organize may have been, they reflected the need of working people for economic and legal protection from exploiting employers. The invention of the steam engine and the growing use of water power to operate machinery were developing a trend toward a factory system not much different from that in England which produced misery and slums for decades. Starting in the 1830s and accelerating rapidly during the Civil War, the factory system accounted for an ever-growing share of American production. It also produced great wealth for a few, grinding poverty for many.
With workers recognizing the power of their employers, the number of local union organizations increased steadily during the mid-19th century. In a number of cities, unions in various trades joined together in citywide federations. The Nation Labor Union, (actually a federation- an organization of local unions) formed in 1866. The NLU eventually persuaded Congress to pass an eight hour day for Federal workers. Never very strong, it was a casualty of the sweeping economic depression of 1873.
Five years later, the Knights of Labor captured the public imagination. Formed in 1869 by Uriah Stephens and expanded rapidly under the leadership of Terrance Powdery, the Knights were an all-embracing organization committed to a cooperative society. Membership was open to all workers, whether they be skilled or unskilled, black or white, male or female. The Knights achieved a membership of nearly 750,000 during the next few years, but the skilled and unskilled workers who had joined the Knights in hope of improvement in their hours and wages found themselves fragmented by the rift between skilled and unskilled workers. Skilled workers tired of labor activity on the part of unskilled workers who were easily replaced. The Knights, an effective labor force, declined after the Haymarket Square riots. In the riot members of the Knights of Labor where accused of throwing a bomb which killed police officers. The Knights, already fragmented, where faced with enormous negative publicity, and eventually disbanded.
The American Federation of Labor was founded by Samuel Gompers in 1886. Gompers, born in 1850, came as a boy with his parents to America from the Jewish slums of London; he entered the cigar-making trade and received much of his education as a "reader" (a worker who read books, newspaper stories, poetry and magazine articles to fellow employees to help break the monotony of their work in the shop) and became a leader of his local union and of the national Cigar Makers Union.
A statement by the founders of the AFL expressed their belief in the need for more effective union organization. "The various trades have been affected by the introduction of machinery, the subdivision of labor, the use of women's and children's labor and the lack of an apprentice system-so that the skilled trades were rapidly sinking to the level of pauper labor," the AFL declared. "To protect the skilled labor of America from being reduced to beggary and to sustain the standard of American workmanship and skill, the trades unions of America have been established." Thus the AFL was a federation that organized only unions of skilled workers.
The Pullman Strike in 1894, at the Pullman plant near Chicago, the American Railroad Union (not affiliated with the AFL and led by Eugene V. Debs, a leading American socialist) struck the company's manufacturing plant and called for a boycott of the handling of Pullman's sleeping and parlor cars on the nation's railroads. Within a week, 125,000 railroad workers were engaged in a sympathy protest strike. The government swore in 3,400 special deputies; later, at the request of the railroad association, President Cleveland moved in federal troops to break the strike-despite a plea by Gov. Aitgeld of Illinois that their presence was unnecessary. Finally a sweeping federal court injunction forced an end to the sympathy strike, and many railroad workers were blacklisted. The Pullman strikers were essentially starved into submissive defeat.
The strike illustrated the increasing tendency of the government to offer moral support and military force to break strikes. The injunction, issued usually and almost automatically by compliant judges on the request of government officials or corporations, became a prime legal weapon against union organizing and action.
A better method of federal intervention occurred during a 1902 strike of anthracite coal miners, under the banner of the United Mine Workers. More than 100,000 miners in northeastern Pennsylvania called a strike on May 12, and kept the mines closed all that summer. When the mine owners refused a UMW proposal for arbitration, President Theodore Roosevelt intervened on Oct. 3, and on Oct. 16 appointed a commission of mediation and arbitration. Five days later the miners returned to their jobs, and five months later the Presidential Commission awarded them a 10 percent wage increase and shorter work days-but not the formal union recognition they had sought.
In 1911 a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. on New York's lower east side. About 150 employees almost all of them young women-perished when the fire swept through the upper floors of the loft building in which they worked. Many burned to death; others jumped and died. Why so large a casualty list? The safety exits on the burning floors had been securely locked, allegedly to prevent "loss of goods." New York and the country were aroused by the tragedy. A state factory investigation committee headed by Frances Perkins (she was to become Franklin Roosevelt's secretary of labor in 1933, the first woman cabinet member in history) paved the way for many long needed reforms in industrial safety and fire prevention measures.
Another of the historic industrial conflicts prior to World War I occurred in 1912 in the textile mills of Lawrence, Mass. It was led not by an AFL union but by the radical Industrial Workers of the World-the IWW, or the Wobblies, as they were generally known -an organization in frequent verbal and physical conflict with the AFL and its affiliates. The strike in Lawrence started when the mill owners, responding to a state legislature action reducing the work week from 54 to 52, coldly and without prior notice cut the pay rates by a 31/2 percent. The move produced predictable results: a strike of 50,000 textile workers; arrests; fiery statements by the IWW leaders; police and militia attacks on peaceful meetings; and broad public support for the strikers. Some 400 children of strikers were "adopted" by sympathizers. When women strikers and their children were attacked at the railroad station by the police after authorities had decided no more youngsters could leave town, an enraged public protest finally forced the mill owners not only to restore the pay cuts but to increase the workers' wages to more realistic levels.
posted on June 10, 2005 05:53:52 AM
Unions are passe and I agree have outlived their usefulness. They can look at themselves and ask why manufacturing jobs have gone elsewhere.
posted on June 10, 2005 06:10:21 AM
Ron-I dont agree.I had a union,and although our salary wasnt the greatest we had great health benefits because of the union.I still carry my health insurance with them.I shudder to think what I would have to pay on the outside for major medical.Also if you didnt have a union,what if your boss came to you one day after working many years on the job and he told you to take a hike-what would you do then??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on June 10, 2005 06:12:41 AM
Especially the auto industry. They almost have priced themselves out of jobs. They have priced most americans out of getting a decent car.
posted on June 10, 2005 08:24:02 AM
Personally I think that Unions are no longer the benefit they once were.
In San Diego we had a 6 month plus grocery workers strike. The union told it's workers that if the went on strike right before the holidays they would be able to get what they wanted because the stores would not want t o bring in temp workers around Thanksgiving and Christmas. They were wrong. Their members ended up out of work for over six months, in the end they got very little of what they wanted and when they came back to work they found that most had lost their full time hours. the reason for the strike... the stores were asking the workers to pay $5-10 a week per covered family member for insurance.
The crazy part is that a few months later when the same issue came up in Colorado, the union tried to get their workers to once again vote for a strike, even to the point of canceling a scheduled vote when it looked as if workers would vote against the strike. In the end, the workers were smarter than their leaders and ratified the new contracts, with insurance co-pays, without a strike and to the dismay of their leaders.
Unfortunately I think that these days Unions act in the best interest of the "union" and it's leaders as opposed to the best interest of their workers.
Look at the airlines....You have United who is hanging on to solvency with little more that dried out piece of duct tape and every two weeks one of their unions threatens to strike?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 10, 2005 08:52:30 AMthe reason for the strike... the stores were asking the workers to pay $5-10 a week per covered family member for insurance.
Fenix, do I understand you right? Is this supposed to be a dumb reason? Or is $40.00 a week (a family of four being supported) pocket change to you? Well, it probably is, but to somebody working in a grocery store for (maybe) 10-12 an hour if they are lucky, I dont think it amounts to chump change, you know.
posted on June 10, 2005 09:44:02 AM
its not DB,but its still a hell of alot cheaper then going thru an insurance company
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on June 10, 2005 10:02:42 AM
Yes Dbl - You understand what I said correctly and I must say that your misrepresentation of the employees saide would do a union official proud
First of all, a family of 4 would only be paying $40 a week for full health coverage if all four of them have a past history of Cancer and major medical expenses. Most families of 4 would have be paying $20 -25 a week. The average wage of the union was about $17 an hour if I remember correctly (although most of those effected by the changes were full times making much more) which means that in exchange for 1.5 hours a week of work on the part of one member the family of hour would have had full health cvoverage. To put this into perspective. My mother is a former hospital administator who is now working part time in her old department in order to have insurance. As a health care worker, she is paying nearly $1000 a month for 2 people. Health care workers do not get free insurance Dbl, why should grocery workers?
Now lets look at the math... we'll even go with your $40 a week estimate
$40 x 4 weeks = $160 a month
$160 x 6 months on strike - $960.00
$960 would have been spent on health care for 6 months
$17 x 30 hours a week (averaging part time and full time employee hour - if they are working 10 hours a week as you stated they don't qualify for the insurance to begin with) = $510.00 a week
$510 x 4 weeks = $2040 a month
$2040 x 6 months on strike = $12,240
They sacrificed $12,240 in order to avoid paying $960 and in the end, they are still paying it and they came back to fewer hours.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 10, 2005 10:04 AM ]
posted on June 10, 2005 10:32:01 AM
Fenix-We had a guy come into our barracks about once a month to clean our audio machines as every transmission and phone call was taped.About 10 years ago when we went digital he lost he job.I'll never forget the day he came in to take the tape machines away and I asked what he was going to do.He said I have been looking around,but the insurance will kill me in the mean time,it will cost me $700.00 a month for 4 people and that was 10 years ago..my mouth just dropped open.I had no idea at the time major medical was so expensive to obtain.My insurance at that time was $16.00 a month for the same coverage.NEVER again did I b*tch that I wasn't getting paid enough.Thats one reason that I like the union-it was a group rate thru the union and it was alot cheaper.Another reason I like them is for your own protection for some assh*ole boss who can fire you for a no good reason.The downside to unions is striking because they are greedy and its also harder to get rid of an assh*le employee who deserves to be fired.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
[ edited by classicrock000 on Jun 10, 2005 10:33 AM ]
posted on June 10, 2005 10:40:50 AM if they are working 10 hours a week as you stated
I meant $10-12 dollars an hour, not working 10-12 hours per week. So in San Diego, grocery store workers make $17.00 dollars an hour - cashier's and all, huh? That must be the hub-bub of the country for uneducated unskilled workers.
And too bad your figures look good except you conveniently left out normal living expenses such as rent food clothing car insurance etc. Sorry, but I dont think a gross of $2,040 a month goes very far for a family of four, or even a family of two, or one. After taxes and insurance premiums, they probably net about 1400 a month. You like to chop figures and stats there, spock, but I bet you have no clue what reality is living on 1400 a month.
posted on June 10, 2005 10:56:53 AM
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing or do you honestly think that the six month strike was a logical action and one that was in their best interest?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 10, 2005 11:00 AM ]
posted on June 10, 2005 11:06:27 AM
My own personal experience with the grocery clerk strike...is that the union members LOST big time. A son of my MIL's boyfriend worked as a meat cutter. Good union wages...but he said that all those he worked with ended up getting the shaft from the union as far as the final settlement went.
He lost money BIG TIME by being out of work for so long and they didn't get what they went on strike for anyway.
The reason unions are shrinking are that they no longer do much for the employees as they did in their 'hay-days'.
Even saw that in the No.CA nurse's union, two different times. Nurse's went on strike for *better patient care*....as the hospitals were beginning to use 'clerks' who got 4-5 weeks of training to give medical advice to patients, rather than the nurse's doing so themselves....and they lost a ton of income while they were out both times. Didn't get any changes made either.
My son worked in a union....his opinion was that they did absolutely nothing to help any of the workers who filed OSHA complaints against his company. And these were life threatening violations too.
They collect your union dues...decided which party [dems] they will contribute it too and you have no 'vote' or say in the matter at all.
There's a reason union membership is shrinking...they don't do as much as they used to do for the 'common man' and companies that don't want their workers go become a union shop...treat their employees better so they won't vote to do so.
posted on June 10, 2005 11:26:30 AM
I'll post the link in a minute...but for now...here's part of what happened in the grocery clerk's strike.
And it wasn't only about medical insurance...it was about the proposed two tiered wage system. Grandfathering in the wage scale for the longer term employees...but setting up a different pay scale for the new-hires. Saying they needed to do so in order to compete with other stores.
Despite showing heroic steadfastness for months on the picket line, on February 28th and 29th members voted by 86% -- mostly from exhaustion and despair -- to ratify a contract little different from the company's final proposal in October.
Yet the International and the AFL-CIO claimed victory. ``We went on strike to protect affordable health care, preserve our pensions and assure job security, and we achieved all three of those principles,´´ union spokeswoman Ellen Andreder said. Douglas Dority, president of the UFCW, said the dispute was "one of the most successful strikes in history."
The members saw things differently, wondering why the length of their brave fight had yielded so little. Those interviewed by the media all saw the final contract as virtually the same as the company's pre-strike final offer.
The excuse used by the bosses for their concessions demands was competition from WalMart, which will be opening stores in the region in coming years. The union showed that the three chains were profitable enough for that to be a phony excuse. The three chains have been making billions in profits in recent years, and their CEOs millions in salaries and stock options. In fact a part-owner of Albertson's made the number three spot on the Forbes 500 list of richest people in the world for 2003 (announced the last week of the strike).
Yet it was their own concern for the chains; profitability nationwide that hamstrung union leaders' strategy. The strike defeat was due primarily to the three chains willingness, with the urging of Wall Street, to use their national revenues to last "one day longer" than the strikers, and the UFCW national leadership determination despite that to keep the fight local. The UFCW boasts of being the largest public-sector union in the US, with over a million members, and has hundreds of thousands of members just in the three chains. Yet dozens of distinct locals around the country bargain separate contracts with different expiration dates and wildly varying terms. Despite this variety the expiration of contracts shortly before, during and shortly after the southern California strike could have been turned into a union strength, with rolling pickets or even a nationwide strike at the three chains.
The exact opposite occurred. For instance, on February 13th, with the strike in danger of being lost, the seven locals on strike agreed to extend the contract of Kroger subsidiary Food 4 Less, set to expire on February 28th, until April 4th. Of course the members were never consulted on such treacherous tactics nor were there meetings where they could be voted on or alternatives proposed.
Some critics of the union tops claim "They just didn't anticipate the hardball style that the supermarket industry would adopt (in Southern California)." Other union staff admit the union knew what was coming down the pike and refused to prepare.
Nonetheless the strikers showed admirable fortitude throughout the strike with low levels of scabbing, and local consumers by and large showed an equally admirable degree of support. Members continued to walk the picket lines while they were losing their homes and cars, their health insurance and their ability to pay for child care (one form of strike solidarity became bringing toys and books to entertain the kids on the picket lines).
There were six member suicides and hundreds of homes and cars lost.
posted on June 10, 2005 11:34:55 AMand companies that don't want their workers go become a union shop...treat their employees better so they won't vote to do so...
Yes Linda this is true. It has also been observed as you stated they (the unions) do not wield the type of influence they once did for the American Worker. In my opinion, and this is short-sighted because I havent studied it or read up on it, but I think the real problem is neither the companies, nor workers who want to hold onto an extra 200 a month in their pockets, but the culprit of the this is the insurance companies. They as corporations are not hurting one bit.
Fenix, I do not argue whether the strike was profitable, obviously it wasnt - but for the fact that you think it's dumb for workers who net probably in the vicinity of 1500 a month with 700-800 of that alone (maybe more)going for the cost of a semi-decent housing arrangement. To object to losing another $160.00 a month of their income in the long range is not stupid. People only lose what they are willing to give up. Now you probably burn away more than 160 a month on cigerattes, but for some people that is the differnce of putting gas in your car for the month or paying your phone or electric bill.
.
spelling
.
posted on June 10, 2005 11:39:02 AM
Thanks, Linda for the story and the link. I was going to go look it up myself because knowing fenix she misrepresents the facts - like she did when she stated Medicaid and the state was paying for Terry Schiavo's care.
posted on June 10, 2005 11:41:32 AM
I will tell you classic if a company didn't want me to work for them I would leave. What kind of an environment would it be for that worker. Unions only protect the employee that doesn't want to work or does sub work. The employee that wants to work has no problems so therefore will continue to work and doesn't need that union.
posted on June 10, 2005 11:44:35 AM
The only winners in a strike is the company. Workers are the losers. They will never make up the money they lost during a strike no matter how long the strike is.
_________________
posted on June 10, 2005 11:51:07 AM
dbl...I'm not sure on how much they were being asked to pay for their medical insurance. Without looking it up I can't verify those numbers.
BUT what I do know is that our family didn't think it was worth Bill voting to go on strike for. What the companies were asking for was to bring the employees medical insurance to a point where MOST companies already were....what MOST employees of major companies were already paying.
See...they paid nothing at all for their insurance...the company paid it all.
So to us, asking for a small co-payment [again, I'm don't remember how much it was] it didn't seem to be unreasonable in order to keep their jobs.
But I understand what you're saying...no one wants to lose benefits....no one. But they sure did in this strike. Many never got their jobs back as when the strike was over....sales were down...and they didn't hire all those who went out back.
posted on June 10, 2005 11:59:15 AM
I agree with both of your posts, Libra.
And think more and more employees are beginning to realize just how little the unions really do, do for them.
I know for our Bill, if you took his wages as a meat cutter which were around $28.00 an hour....and multiply that by 6 months...not counting the overtime he lost....that's pretty big bucks to make up...in addition to paying union dues for what amounted to no gains at all.
posted on June 10, 2005 12:03:11 PM
Linda, it seems like this was a very bad and terrible outcome all around. Screwed up for sure and if by the representing unions, I am throughly disgusted at their performance.
Now I agree, most everyone with the exception of the self-employed, pays a co-pay now-a-days. However according to how long they've been without this said taxation of their income; it may have been the one thing that seemed lucrative to the job. I remember as a kid certain jobs if you got in there (and I suppose they were mostly union?) there were pluses that other jobs didn't offer. So it was kind of a big deal to work at xxxx. To me, it's almost like why a judge will award a spouse alimony to the level of lifestyle they are accustomed to. Why? Because you are accustomed to it why should you now forfeit it that level of lifestyle a partnership formed -you know?
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Jun 10, 2005 12:12 PM ]
posted on June 10, 2005 12:07:22 PM
::with low levels of scabbing, and local consumers by and large showed an equally admirable degree of support.::
I don't know what community they were referring to but I never noticed a drop in service or in the lines during that time.
::you think it's dumb for workers who net probably in the vicinity of 1500 a month with 700-800 of that alone (maybe more)going for the cost of a semi-decent housing arrangement. To object to losing another $160.00 a month of their income in the long range is not stupid.::
First of all, Most of the people I know that worked at the stores were making $20 an hour. and working full time so we are looking at $3200 a month, not $1400. Also in your hypothetical family of four, shouldn't the other adult also be employed?
Yeah I do think that the strike was ridiculous and completely devoid of common sense. What other job were these people going to go to where they were going to get free medical care for themselves and their family with the low skill levels required of most grocery workers? We can argue the "in a perfect world" concept all day long but I think the last job that I worked at that offered insurance wanted about 200 a month for 1 person so you are not going to convince a much smaller amount for 4 times as many family members is an unfair amount.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 10, 2005 12:19:13 PM
pffst! fenix, I notice you like to talk gross and not net. You also dont mention the cost of decent housing there. Why dont you break that down for yourself and the other readers of this board? No because it dilutes your argument totally. And A family of four is about as far a concept in any reality to you as me doing 5 grand a month in ebay sales. Get real with some practical application of what youre talking about. Anybody can throw numbers on a page, too bad real life rarely follows the plan.
posted on June 10, 2005 01:29:34 PM
::pffst! fenix, I notice you like to talk gross and not net. You also dont mention the cost of decent housing there.::
$3200 a month filing married with two dependents...take home is approx $2500. Decent 3 bedroom apartment - $1000-1200. Your family of four does include a second income right? I'm not seeing where paying $160 a month for full medical coverage for all four members is a horrible hardship.
I just finished paying off $10k in personal medical expenses because I don't have insurance. That's 1 person, 1 event. That same amount would pay for your hypothetical family of four for 5 years. Hardly a bad deal.
::And A family of four is about as far a concept in any reality to you as me doing 5 grand a month in ebay sales.::
I am guessing there is an imcomplete thought in there because there really are families of four out there. Oh yeah, and I do that much most months
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 10, 2005 01:56:27 PM an imcomplete thought in there because there really are families of four out there
What you missed is the words:about as far a concept in reality TO YOU as ....
And why does it NOT surprise me that a comparison of my reality doing 5 grand to your ability to actualize what it takes to be involved in a family somehow offers you the opportunity to boast of what you do on ebay? Because youre a big egg head - and that is what appeals to you. That's why. But go ahead an blame it on dylexia or AADD. But do save the winks and the tnick-tsknick gun-slinging fingers for your mirror instead of toward me. I would not want to be like you or have your life for all the tea in china. Get it? tsnicknik!!!
posted on June 10, 2005 02:15:58 PM
YuP! Those big bad unions that drive down wages, drive up hours that people spend away from their families, that steal pension funds (unlike Enron.)
Unions helped the American worker and now because of the attitude that "nothing happened before I was born" unions are getting bad mouthed.
Obviously some haven't seen the slow erosion of worker's rights in America....sending this country towards third world status and/or back to 19th century standards.
Did it ever occur to you neocons that it might just be the COMPANY that forced a strike?
Do you really think worker's should take everything a company dishes out???
Do you think by asking management very nicely for more money or better conditions really works !!!?????
Anti-union people won't be happy until 8 year-olds work a 12 hour day with no paid sick days, no vacation, no pension. They won't be happy until everyone but CEO's are making minimum wage, swelling the ranks of the poor until we look just like Bangladesh.
Well, under this administration you may get your wish which I'm sure will make you happy.
Funny..there was this woman at work who got mad at the company about a new policy and said "If we all get together they'll listen...I can't do it alone."
I looked at this rabid Republican and said," You mean united...as in UNION?"
posted on June 10, 2005 02:20:21 PM
So in other words despite asking for the nubmers breakdown and then recieving them, you don't actually give a rats ass about the topic at hand - you just wanted to argue with me. You may not want to be me dbl - but you sure as hell seem to want be to acknowledge you.
You would think that someone with this amazingly fulfilling life that you like to hold above others as some sort of thing to be envied would have better thigs to do.
At least I admit I have a crazy life that revolves around business right now and that this room is my distraction from the monotony.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 10, 2005 02:35:35 PM
::Anti-union people won't be happy until 8 year-olds work a 12 hour day with no paid sick days, no vacation, no pension.::
Crow - just out of curiosity... Does grey exist in your life? It's like if someone disagrees with even a degree of what you believe in you automatically assign the worst imaginable extreme to them. I don't believe in Unions because I think somewhere along they lost track of reality. They started looking out for the best interest of the union as opposed to the best interest of the union members.
Using the grocery workers union again as an example. The six month strike in California hurt their workers. They lost six months worth of pay, and most came back to fewer hours and a loss in seniority while gaining the same things they were offered before they went on strike.
OK, so we give them the benefit of the doubt... they made a mistake.. but they learned from it right? NO. The same national union leaders battling the same issues against the same companies in Colorado again recommended that their members strike. Luckily their members learn from the past even if they did not.
Now look at United Airlines. They are a hairs breath from having to shut their doors and doing everything in their power to avoid it and their employees unions keep threatening strikes? A strike sends that airline over the edge, no more United, no more employment. How is that beneficial to the union members? The only thing that accomplishes is strenthening the stick that the union swings at other airlines but in the meantime, whose paying all those people they just sacrificed to create the bigger stick?
If someone could bring the unions back down to earth I have no problem supporting them but these days they seem to be more interested in serving their leader egos than the member best interests.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
