Considering how grossly understaffed and over-worked they are, I’d say they are underpaid. Also, I wouldn’t say ‘a few years experience’ is an easy feat, as many burn out after 2 or 3 years, and never make it to that level.
For many nurses’ unions, pay is definitely not a top priority: it’s quality care and staffing ratios and decent hours.
No, not really. Not as far as the doctors go, anyway. No collective bargaining is done between employer and employee. It’s a different arrangement, really. In those, you get a mix of independent physicians, and physicians who are employed by a health corporation under contract, but without union representation. Certainly the Medical society would not stand up for you if you were being terminated by your employer, nor would it help you bargain for better working conditions or greater re-imbursement from your employer. It wouldn’t help you defend yourself in court for malpractice. It would lobby the government to increase medicare payments, lower malpractice caps, and so forth. It’s much more of a special interest PAC than it is a union. IMHO.
I was, for a time, a member of a bona fide doctor’s union. Physicians employed by the State to work in state prisons. We had collective bargaining agreements, union reps, work rules and regs, disciplinary tracks that had to be followed, union dues, union meetings, the whole nine yards. And it did result in a higher level of pay and professionalism as a result. Previously, pay was abysmal, and attracted only the type of doctor who couldn’t get employed anywhere else.
End result: The union is there to ensure that the members get everything that they’ve been promised by management, and also to see if next time, they can’t get more. Not inherently a bad thing.
The union’s still there, but I’m no longer a part of it, because I moved into management instead. And now I see the other side of it too. It’s hard to fire someone who’s not doing a proper job, because it takes an enormous paper trail to do it, and every ‘i’ must be dotted and every ‘t’ crossed in the right way, at the right time, no exceptions, or go back to the start. It’s harder to give constructive feedback, because now it becomes an issue where the person can demand a union rep be present. So I’m much more a creature of the bureaucracy, making and keeping paper trails, requiring rules be followed, and processes done correctly. Because if they’re not, it’s not the fault of the person who didn’t follow them, it’s the fault of the supervisor who didn’t make them follow procedure!!
Enough, I’m rambling.
Unions: Both good and bad. And neutral.
I never said it wasn’t middle class. I’m not sure what “would own our house” is supposed to prove. If you had tried to buy it 7 or 8 years ago, sure. But not now. If you don’t believe me, use any on-line mortgage calculator. Enter $40K as the yearly income, and see how much you could afford to pay for a house. Then check realtor.com or similar, and see how many houses are listed for that price.
For example, at 40K a year, with a 30K down payment (and being really generous and not counting any existing debt such as a car payment), you could afford a $150,000 house. I GUARANTEE you will not find a house for that price in zip code 90065. (There does appear to be a 477 s.f. condo listed in what looks like an extremely sketchy area right by the freeway - good luck fitting a family of 4 in that.)
No offense intended toward your family. I can’t afford a house either. The point is, $40K is not “damn good money” where I live.
Hmmm…I take part of that back. That might not be a sketchy area; I don’t know that area all that well. I was thinking of that area where the family was murdered just for driving up the wrong street a few years ago, but that’s actually a little further south.
Anyway, the point is you ain’t gonna find a house for that price.
CEOs get their salary by simply negotiating with the board of directors. There’s no tactic that I would characterize as “arm-twisting” involved.
Unions negotiate by what amounts to threats. While I grant the right of employees to collectively bargain, and even to collectively strike, the effort they make to have other people ALSO boycott the company (“No one should EVER cross a picket line!”) goes too far. In addition, it’s well-documented that union workers on strike have directed violence at “scabs” - people willing to work at the jobs left empty by the strike. That tactic, too, is wrong.
You may begrudge the salary paid to the incompetent CEO, but he gains that salary by free and open agreement with the company. The unions should be held to that same standard.
And, of course, no company has ever used violence or intimidation to deal with workers, right?
If you wish to start using the actions of a few to tar the whole movement, we can start dragging out Enron and Wal-Mart and a few others.
There are bad unions and bad executives. Using the actions of the worst does not actually make a real case for the norm.
Except, as is seen in the case of Disney, the CEO negotiating that salary and package (including for his other cronies who work for the company) and the board of directors are often far tighter than they should be. Far too often there really is not arms-length negotiating occuring (yes, I am aware of the outcome of the Disney case - the court basically said that the board was about as sloppy and stupid as it could be, and in Eisner’s pocket, without actually being culpable because of the gross negligence standard).
That does not dispel your valid points regarding the union, however.
Not to be snarky, but that isn’t what the question here is - the question is regarding whether unionized workers seem more discontented than non-unionized workers, and why that is. From your perspective of having worked as a unionized doctor and a non-unionized doctor, would you say that the unionized doctors were more dissatisfied, or were they glad to have a union and the jobs they had?
You say that like they’re mutually exclusive statements. They’re not.
Never said it was damn good money. The point is, 40k is not simply getting by. 40k is very easily a livable wage(single), nothing more.
And in a lot of states the per capita income is around $30,000. In several states I’ve lived in $40,000 is solid middle class. $60,000 is upper middle class (and in some of the poorer states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi et al. I know of many union workers making around $65,000 a year, which is a handsome sum for those particular states.)
Anyways, you have to adjust for cost of living. Saying that X amount of money is barely enough to get by in California isn’t really a statement of any value. Some places are more expensive than others.
$40,000 is actually right around average for the United States, certain areas (California and New York being notorious) the cost of living is vastly out of balance with the rest of the country and people living in those regions often have misunderstandings about salary in other parts of the country.
I’m a well-paid union worker, and a damn satisfied one as well. I agree that while many folks don’t understand why button-pushing monkeys or uneducated line workers “deserve” the wages and benefits that have been negotiated for them, I also agree that most of the folks not getting that haven’t worked in those jobs.
I usually feel like I don’t get paid well for the actual work I do but for putting up with the horrific environment, the repetitive work injuries, the mind-destroying boredom, etc. Monkeys could be trained to replace most of the line-workers at my plant, although the ASPCA and PETA folks would have a coronary over the working conditions.
As a happy and satisfied employee, I’m also in the minority. Most of my fellow union members are indeed very complacent and totally out of touch with the real world, particularly those that started union jobs young and never had to actually support a family via a non-union job. I was 24 when I started, and appreciate all of our benefits very much. Folks that never really had to deal with ‘the real world’ of lower pay, less benefits, capricious management, downsizing and layoffs with no notice or severage… yeah, they’re the ones that are the most dissatisfied and most unhappy, constantly bitchin and agitatin.
I was quite satisfied with my union job, which lasted 24 years for me.
The plant was union for all 45 years of its existence and many of the “1954 gang” who opened the place stayed well past their 65th birthdays.
I always knew that I was somewhat better off than the majority of Omaha area industrial workers, but never knew how much until it was gone. I’ll never see HMO coverage with a $ 5 doctor’s co-pay and a $10 prescription co-pay for only $10 a week again.
I work 2 jobs to earn what I used to earn at one, and pay $92.50 every 2 weeks for 400 deductible doctor coverage and 50 deductible drug coverage that has 3 price tiers. ( If it isn’t generic, it isn’t on our formulary, and is therefore $ 45 a refill).
The anti-union propagandists in this state have done an excellent job. Mention the word “union” around even the bitchiest bitcher at my full-time job and the reaction is, " Wouldn’t help! The goddamn Mafia would take all the extra money in dues."
Hey, if I were a union worker who had to listen to all the mud and misinformation thrown at unions (such as the sentiments expressed in this thread), I’d be pissed off too.
One minor quibble. I think it’s inaccurate to say that the company has a bad track record. A better statement would be that the industry has a history of exploiting workers. Many companies have opened in certain unionized industries that have no history at all, and have to work with unionized employees. Others may have a very good record with their workers, but are still held in the same regard as the industry as a whole, regardless of the companies individual circumstances.
Exactly my point. It’s meaningless to spout, “Why are union wages at X amount?” without knowing the particulars of the situation.
I didn’t SAY you did. The OP said it. Surely you understood who I was quoting? I quoted the OP in post #3, before you had even posted anything. C’mon…
O.K., but I never said it wasn’t a livable wage. As I explained, you can’t afford to buy a house on that income, and as I said, I disagree with the OPs assertion that it’s “damn good money”. Other than the fact that we’re obviously using a different definition of “getting by”, I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, other than busting my balls for no reason.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic. Stop over reacting.
no, but you implied, at least to me, that 40k is bare essentials living. I simply challenged that and cited myself as proof.
You seem to speak as if everyone deserves to earn a wage they can support a family on(which I still think can be done on 40k). That seems a bit entitled to me.
If I were management who had to listen to all the mud and misinformation thrown about unions in this thread, I’d be pissed too.
They are no more dissatisfied than people who have no protection. People who work in non-union jobs are simply afraid to complain and need to act satisfied in order to survive. Just let the boss in a non-union job find out you were badmouthing the company during happy hour and see what happens.
There is nothing worst than working in a shop where there is no union.