The US automotive industry is currently undergoing contract negotiations, and I was reading an aticle about it today. The short version is that the majority of hourly workers at General Motors approved the proposed contract, however the majority of skilled trades workers rejected it. Union rules state that a majority of both line workers and skilled trades workers need to approve the contract. However, if the skilled trades reject it, the union heads will meet to decide why they did so. If they decide that it was for “reasons unique to skilled trades workers” (whatever that means) then the vote stands and the contract is not approved. If they decide it was due to economic issues (read: they wanted more money), then the skilled trades vote will be disregarded, and the contract is considered ratified.
Am I the only on who thinks this sounds like a scam? The union is happy to claim the skilled trades workers as members (and take their union dues), but their vote only counts if it suits the union’s purposes. Has anyone here ever been on the receiving end of this arrangement?
Skilled trades have unique clauses/items in the contract for things like job classification, work rules, roles & responsibilities, etc. which don’t apply to production line or general hourly employees.
I don’t see how. The portions of the contract which apply to all hourly employees have been ratified by a majority of the union workers. If the skilled trades voted down the contract over the stuff that applies to everyone equally, they’ve been outvoted and the contract is ratified. If their grievances have to do with things like job classifications or other clauses specific to skilled trades, then they can push to have those and only those portions re-negotiated. The general hourly membership has no input in the matters specific to skilled trades.
I have, although the description in the newspaper article was not the easiest to understand and the actual arrangement could have been simpler. I’ll try to make it easier with the example of my experience.
I used to belong to Giant Municipal Union , with over 100,000 members. Let’s use 100 K for the total membership number. The Citywide/economic contracts applied to all members and dealt with issues that applied across the board like general salary increases. If 50,001 members voted yes, the contracts were ratified.
There were another 60-70 unit contracts , based on actual occupation. They were usually referred to as locals. The social workers were in one, crossing guards in another and so on . Each of those units bargained for things specific to those occupations - tuition reimbursement, uniform allowances, licensing fees, etc.This is also where increase in the salary scale for specific jobs were negotiated. Each unit negotiated its own unit contract- but there was no requirement that a majority of each individual unit ratify the citywide contract. As long 50,001 members ratified that contract, it didn’t matter if every person in a 50 member local or 10,000 member local voted against it. It simply required a majority of members of the whole union. Unlike the UAW, there wasn’t any investigation into whether the social workers voted against it for reasons unique to social workers, becasue those issues were negotiated outside of the main contract.
I’ve never seen a situation where a majority of each group in a union had to vote for ratification. Either the special interests based on occupation leads to a different union altogether ( police officers are in a different union than firefighters, who are in a different union than social workers, who are in a different union than clerical workers etc) , or there are separate negotiations based on those special interests ( as in my case and the UAW’s) or those special interests arent the subject of bargaining at all.
I worked as a stationary engineer for over 40 years. I worked where we were all employees worked under one contract in one local. Be a small number the engineers in this type of contract generally make less much less and have worse working conditions than when the engineers are working under a different contract represented by a craft union.
The arrangement by the UAW and GM is a step between the two. By letting their vote on craft items and have that vote be separate is a definite advantage. By having their vote on economic issues count with the whole is fair. With out that clause a small group could cause a strike trying to get a bigger pay increase than what the majority was willing to accept.
I don’t think I could ever work in a place where I had to join a union. I want to be judged for my own performance not be part of a herd. Herd’s normally get marginalized. And why would I want a portion of my pay going to pay the union administration to negotiate on my behalf?
But that isn’t exactly what it said. (Or rather, it isn’t what he said it said.)
It said the trade workers’ rejection of the contract would be dismissed if they did so for economic reasons.
Which makes this scenario possible: I offer a contract that gives my general employees $15 an hour and my skilled tradesmen $8 an hour. Of course the skilled tradesmen will reject it, but because they did so for “economic reasons”, only the general employees votes count.
Now that was a bit extreme, but I do see the possibility for a system like the one described being used to screw the skilled tradesmen.
Of course, maybe specifying pay for skilled trades separately would count as “reasons specific to skilled trades”. In which case all I have to do is offer to pay ALL employees a wage that is pretty good for unskilled labor and way too low for skilled labor.
I suspect the real union rules are specific enough to minimize that danger. You can’t build loophole-proof rules (gamers gonna game), but you can make it hard enough to not be worthwhile except as an intellectual exercise.
No in this case it would be more than just economic. The skilled workers are being treated different just because they are trade workers. Discrimination. So the trade workers could reject on that basis and the union heads should see it that way and say the contract is rejected.
But if the company was offering a 2% pay raise across the board, and the skilled workers rejected the offer because they wanted a 3% raise, the the union heads could declare it a economic issue and not override the majority of the lmembers.
There are fewer skilled workers than hourly workers, correct? So it seems the idea is that skilled worker votes only count more on skilled worker issues, and count the same as everyone else in other situations.
And, even if not, those were the terms they agreed to when they joined.
They could try, but then “accidents” might happen.
Seriously, I do see the point that only skilled trades get to vote on the parts that effect them. But the way the rules are written still feels kinda dishonest. I’ll be extremely surprised if the union forces additional negotiations over this. This same situation happened in 2011 (to Chrysler that time) and the union overruled the skilled trades after what looked (from the outside, at least) like a rather cursory review.
You should do it out of self-interest. Unionized employees generally get paid more and get more benefits than non-unionized employees. So forming and/or joining a union is the smart thing for employees to do.
It’s no different that a businessman setting the highest price he can get on his products. Free market capitalism is based on the idea that everyone is acting in their own self-interest.
No they would not be allowed to do that under the NLRB. If the skilled workers wanted to break away from the union and contract they are working under, they would have to petition the union. If the union was willing (and which would not be in the union’s best interest) the workers can petition the NLRB to decertify from the existing union. And if 50+% of all employees vote in favor of decertifying the union, then the skilled workers then can try and organize under a different union. This is done by the skilled workers approaching a skilled workers union about representing them. Then the workers and the union could petition the NLRB for a election. The NLRB would then rule if it was a proper group. If the NLRB approves of the group then the union would have to have to get 51% of the skilled employees to sign “pledge cards”. Then the NLRB would set a date for the election. And if on the date of the election 50+ percent vote in favor of the skilled worker’s union, then the skilled workers union can represent the workers.
But between the time that the skilled workers get the permission to try and organize and the election management will try everything in the book to get the skilled workers to vote against the union. They will threaten, lie, bribe, and even give raises and other benefits that will disappear after the election.
But again this is dependent on the union that represents all the workers agreeing to split the contract and weaken themselves.
I did not mind paying someone to get me a better retirement, health plan, vacations, and working conditions. I got friends who work non union and think that saving the union dues makes them in a better position than me. We both make about the same pay. When I was working I had about $9 and hour going into my retirement fund. He claimed he had better because he had a 401K and the company matched funds. Sounds good on paper. But that meant out of his wage he had to deduct for 1/2 of his retirement, now he is making less than I did. My son just got into the insurance business and according to him 401K are bad investments. If the company pays into the 401K then they can use all the funds in the plan as collateral for loans, and if they default on the loan there goes the 401K. And my retirement plan is not a company retirement plan but a multiemployer fund. Company plans that are over 50% funded do not trigger any federal action. A multi employer fund that drops below 90% will trigger federal checks requiring the fund be brought back to a green status. I retired last year after about 15 years in the plan, my retirement check over $3500 a month, how much would I have set aside in a 401K to get that pay out. 15 years ago I worked for a major department store and the Chief Engineer retired after 34 years with the company plan his retirement was $1002 a month.
My union dues were bases on my wage. It was 2 times my hourly rate. So for my giving up two hours of my wage every month I got more than what it cost me.
You do realize that when you buy insurance part of the premiums go to the agent?
ERISA requires when your 401(k) contribution is withdrawn from your paycheck that the funds be deposited in a trust account, separate from your employer’s assets and separate from any financial institution’s assets.
This requirement protects you in the event your employer, or the financial institution that holds your retirement assets, runs into financial trouble.
This rule also protects 401(k) savings if you find yourself in the unfortunate circumstance of filing personal bankruptcy. This risk has always been an issue for business owners and professionals subject to malpractice lawsuits, but more people are benefiting from this protection in today’s difficult real estate market.
There are two creditors, however, that even ERISA cannot protect you from: the IRS and a former spouse. The law states that if you owe either of these parties money, they can collect by a forced liquidation of your 401(k) account."