# ET's Electricians; Poll- Union or Non-Union



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

360max said:


> Are you union or non union? Not meant to blast either one, and please do not, we all have families to feed either way you look at it.


Non and where is the poll slow-poke....:laughing:


----------



## dthurmond (Feb 7, 2011)

Non union . Don't really see many if any unions close around . Maybe the power plant or GA power .


----------



## phil20 (Apr 30, 2013)

Union


----------



## dawgs (Dec 1, 2007)

Union contractor.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

360max said:


> Are you union or non union? Self employed is non union, union owned shop is union.


Wow, good thing you explained it. :laughing:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I need a third option.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> Wow, good thing you explained it. :laughing:


He had to make it clear for the union guys.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> I need a third option.


Welcome back, how was your trip?


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

Union. I love it here.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Non union hack


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

HackWork said:


> I need a third option.


Welcome back....:thumbsup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

This guy calls me a troll.


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

Shockdoc said:


> Non union hack


Don't worry Doc.........I think you would still be a hack even if you were unionized.:jester::jester:


:laughing::laughing:


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Rollie73 said:


> Don't worry Doc.........I think you would still be a hack even if you were unionized.:jester::jester:
> 
> 
> :laughing::laughing:


If you only saw my conduit work today.........:laughing::whistling2::laughing:


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

HackWork said:


> I need a third option.


I'd give you a third option, but probable get banned for a couple weeks.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

............Holding out for a "Rat" option...............


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

480sparky said:


> ............Holding out for a "Rat" option...............


:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I'd starve to death before I joined a union.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

MTW said:


> I'd starve to death before I joined a union.


 ..why, why has the union turned you off?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Real electricians don't need unions.


----------



## 3D Electric (Mar 24, 2013)

Non union contractor :thumbsup:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

........


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

My local IBEW chapter is notorious for being rude and trying to discourage new applicants from joining the trade. I'll never join, they sicken me.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

360max said:


> ..why, why has the union turned you off?


In my experience the only difference for me was better pay and benefits, I only worked on two large "A" jobs (which was a bit different) the rest has been service.

For an employee working union is generally a better choice.


----------



## SteveBayshore (Apr 7, 2013)

I tried to join the union as a contractor in the late 70s, I was told I had to get rid of 19 electricians of varrying skill levels and they would supply all the labor that I needed. Walked out and never went back.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

SteveBayshore said:


> I tried to join the union as a contractor in the late 70s, I was told I had to get rid of 19 electricians of varrying skill levels and they would supply all the labor that I needed. Walked out and never went back.


Different areas have different requirements many short sighted, our local is new contractor friendly. Existing employees are welcomed, though they may be required to take some courses to get a "A" card.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

Well non union now but if i was starting out i would go union .

Learn more get educated and good pay travel go were the jobs are .

Better jobs you learn more on a union job because of the work they do .

But today it maybe a bit tuff to get in because they have no work so have fun .:thumbup:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

piperunner said:


> Well non union now but if i was starting out i would go union .
> 
> Learn more get educated and good pay travel go were the jobs are .
> 
> ...


Thanks Phil. :thumbsup:


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

MTW said:


> Thanks Phil. :thumbsup:



Well thank you for the advertisement but i dont sell that tool anymore

By the way i dont work for Spring electric LOL :thumbup:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Hard not to notice many of the non union folks in this thread are dropping insults and none of the union folks have.

Curious.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

360max said:


> Are you union or non union? *Not meant to blast either one, and please do not, we all have families to feed either way you look at it*. Self employed is non union, union owned shop is union.





eejack said:


> Hard not to notice many of the non union folks in this thread are dropping insults and none of the union folks have.
> 
> Curious.


..and 1st post asked not to


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

eejack said:


> Hard not to notice many of the non union folks in this thread are dropping insults and none of the union folks have.
> 
> Curious.


That's amazing.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> Hard not to notice many of the non union folks in this thread are dropping insults and none of the union folks have.
> 
> Curious.


Would it make you happier if I added some negativity? :laughing::laughing:


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

eejack said:


> Hard not to notice many of the non union folks in this thread are dropping insults and none of the union folks have.
> 
> Curious.


I'd love to hear a "brother" try and insult someone who works for a merit shop. What's there to say?!


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

eejack said:


> Hard not to notice many of the non union folks in this thread are dropping insults and none of the union folks have.
> 
> Curious.


True enough but I'm hoping most of those comments are all in good natured fun. 






HOPING........








STILL HOPING:laughing:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> Would it make you happier if I added some negativity? :laughing::laughing:


Oh, be my guest, I was just making an observation. :thumbsup:

( I put down union on the poll btw  ).


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

jza said:


> I'd love to hear a "brother" try and insult someone who works for a merit shop. What's there to say?!


I wish you the very best and if you are happy with it, then I cannot see anyone else would be able to complain about it.


----------



## 3D Electric (Mar 24, 2013)

eejack said:


> I wish you the very best and if you are happy with it, then I cannot see anyone else would be able to complain about it.


That stung a little. Lol. Union or non union, it's really what gets your rocks off. Union is good for some and not for others.


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

jza said:


> My local IBEW chapter is notorious for being rude and trying to discourage new applicants from joining the trade. I'll never join, they sicken me.





jza said:


> I'd love to hear a "brother" try and insult someone who works for a merit shop. What's there to say?!


 

You have your opinion as you are certainly entitled to have......and I hate the fact that somewhere along the way you were given reason to form this opinion of the IBEW......and whats worse is was most likely so-called "brothers" that helped you to form this opinion.



It's not what the brotherhood is supposed to stand for and I wish I could convince you and the others that some of us members see things differently.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

eejack said:


> Hard not to notice many of the non union folks in this thread are dropping insults and none of the union folks have.
> 
> Curious.


Is that supposed to be an insult to the non-union folks?

Damn that's weak. Get better insults. 

Union guys drank the kool aid, so they're brains are washed. Nothing to think here boys, move along, the union will call you when you need to think of something.

EEEEEASY... it's just good clean ribbing. Toughen up or go union.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

Most don't really understand the fact's. They have been told that the union is bad, so it must be true. Funny I've never met one organized guy in the local that said they want to go back to the other side. Either way, it's America and your choice, I choose union.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

not unoin, but a lot of my training was from union guys. have freinds on both sides of the track:thumbup:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

360max said:


> Are you union or non union? Not meant to blast either one, and please do not, we all have families to feed either way you look at it. Self employed is non union, union owned shop is union.


I prefer "UNION" but only because the worker is somewhat protected. Non-union people work just as hard and we all have to make a living.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Union guys drank the kool aid, so they're brains are washed.


My brainwashed brain has made me good money, and a good retirement. So be it.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

big2bird said:


> My brainwashed brain has made me good money, and a good retirement. So be it.


Lucky are the boomers.. They'll probably get to reap most of the benefits of their hard work. The younger generations will have to work to death. 

Retire early and collect as much as you can for as long as it's there for collecting!


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

I'm union but my shop is dysfunctional and has some wormy tendencies :laughing:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Lucky are the boomers.. They'll probably get to reap most of the benefits of their hard work. The younger generations will have to work to death.
> 
> Retire early and collect as much as you can for as long as it's there for collecting!


less than 4 more years to go.


----------



## Ty Wrapp (Aug 24, 2011)

Union (retired). Was in the CWA which operates differently than IBEW. My local sux!


----------



## Ty Wrapp (Aug 24, 2011)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Retire early and collect as much as you can for as long as it's there for collecting!


I resemble that remark


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

There is no orthodontics union in the country. Believe me , I checked for it. Cause if there was one , I would have joined it.


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

Non-union.

Very little union presence in NC. I did work on job where The electrical contract was split between our company and another. They were union. We would all take breaks around the same time and shoot the bull, most of them had only joined within the last few years, there didn't seem to be any rrivalry but the did try to get us to go to a bunch of meetings. It wasn't like what the guys up North deal with.

Other than that, I only know about the union from listening to guys on here talk.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Rollie73 said:


> True enough but I'm hoping most of those comments are all in good natured fun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was joking and that was why I thanked your post about being happy where you are at.

I think eejack needs some thicker skin.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Loose Neutral said:


> Most don't really understand the fact's. They have been told that the union is bad, so it must be true. Funny I've never met one organized guy in the local that said they want to go back to the other side. Either way, it's America and your choice, I choose union.


Loose honestly I couldnt GAF one way or the other, I'm good where I'm at your good where your at neither of us fault the other. That's real, these threads on the otherhand are just full of ****. OP is trying to start some drama and most people just don't care.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Still carry a IBEW union card but working in non-union communications company for the last couple of years when industrial electrical work dried up here.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'd start a union, but i'm chicken....:jester:

~CS~


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

SteveBayshore said:


> I tried to join the union as a contractor in the late 70s, I was told I had to get rid of 19 electricians of varrying skill levels and they would supply all the labor that I needed. Walked out and never went back.


That was over 30 years ago,
I'll bet most of them are dead and you are still complaining about it. :laughing:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Indiana Right-to-Work Law Ruled Unconstitutional by State Judge

‘Huge Victory’
“This is a huge victory for the middle class,” Sweeney said in a statement posted on the union’s website. “These laws are nothing but thinly-veiled tools to weaken unions, and this is a big win for workers who rely on unions to provide decent wages and benefits.” The union is based in Countryside, Illinois.

Daniels, a Republican, signed the law on Feb. 1, 2012, after it passed the state senate on a 28-22 vote, making his state the 23rd to enact such legislation.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

jrannis said:


> Indiana Right-to-Work Law Ruled Unconstitutional by State Judge
> 
> ‘Huge Victory’
> “This is a huge victory for the middle class,” Sweeney said in a statement posted on the union’s website. “These laws are nothing but thinly-veiled tools to weaken unions, and this is a big win for workers who rely on unions to provide decent wages and benefits.” The union is based in Countryside, Illinois.
> ...


A huge slap in the face to individual liberty.


----------



## butcher733 (Aug 4, 2012)

Rollie73 said:


> You have your opinion as you are certainly entitled to have......and I hate the fact that somewhere along the way you were given reason to form this opinion of the IBEW......and whats worse is was most likely so-called "brothers" that helped you to form this opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what the brotherhood is supposed to stand for and I wish I could convince you and the others that some of us members see things differently.


I'm union and very happy so far after 2 1/2 years in. 

I have learned that you have to be wary of the guys that toss "brother" around all day. They seem to be the guys that will have a problem and call the hall instead of talking to you face to face about it.


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

union shop and proud 
























wow i could hardly type that from laughing so hard


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

BBQ said:


> A huge slap in the face to individual liberty.


I don't believe you would be making the wages you do if their wasn't a good union presence in your area.

Just sayin...


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

big2bird said:


> My brainwashed brain has made me good money, and a *EXCELLENT* retirement. So be it.


 
FIFY aaaaa

Assuming you started early and worked consistently a retiring IBEW member in good standing should do quite nice in retirement.

And boys not matter what I have said or anyone else that is the best.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Lucky are the boomers.. They'll probably get to reap most of the benefits of their hard work. The younger generations will have to work to death.
> 
> Retire early and collect as much as you can for as long as it's there for collecting!


 
not if they are in the IBEW, to my knowledge the IBEW is not playing the shell game the government is. Though their retirement will be less due to the government Ponzi scheme


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

jrannis said:


> I don't believe you would be making the wages you do if their wasn't a good union presence in your area.


And I have admitted that more than once on this very forum ......

But that does not change the fact the ruling takes away individual liberties.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

BBQ said:


> *And I have admitted that more than once on this very forum ......*
> 
> But that does not change the fact the ruling takes away individual liberties.


 
Yep to both sentences!:thumbsup:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> But that does not change the fact the ruling takes away individual liberties.


From who?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> From who?


From the person who has no interest in joining the union in order to work at an employer.


It is like requiring people to pay dues to the book of the month club as a condition of employment.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> From the person who has no interest in joining the union in order to work at an employer.
> 
> 
> It is like requiring people to pay dues to the book of the month club as a condition of employment.


They have no right to that job, so how is it taking away a liberty? 

If they don't want to be a union member, they can go apply to a non-union company.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> They have no right to that job, so how is it taking away a liberty?


And the union does not have the right to demand dues from someone that is not interested in being in the union.




> If they don't want to be a union member, they can go apply to a non-union company.


Maybe the only job that is open and they are qualified for is at a company that is tied to a union?

Again, a private organization, no matter how noble does not have the right to force people to become members.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> And the union does not have the right to demand dues from someone that is not interested in being in the union.


 Says who? Didn't the courts just say that they have that exact right?

FWIW, I am against any government interaction (protection) with unions. People have a Constitutional right to assemble and collectively bargain, and the employer should have the right to fire them all, IMO. But opinions are just that, and court rulings overrule them




> Maybe the only job that is open and they are qualified for is at a company that is tied to a union?


 So what if the only available job had some other policy that the potential candidate didn't like? Is it really taking away his liberties?



> Again, a private organization, no matter how noble does not have the right to force people to become members.


 You're right. And nothing here is forcing anyone to do anything. 

A person is not entitled to any job they want, they have no right to that job. If they don't want to join a union or go along with a policy of a certain job, they can move on to the next one that doesn't have the same policy or required commitment.


----------



## pudge565 (Dec 8, 2007)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Lucky are the boomers.. They'll probably get to reap most of the benefits of their hard work. The younger generations will have to work to death.
> 
> Retire early and collect as much as you can for as long as it's there for collecting!


That secind statement is why we are where we are. Boomers retired early and collected for years from a system they didty put much into. Now the younger generations have nothing to collect but put the biggest share into.


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

360max said:


> ..why, why has the union turned you off?


I can't speak for Peter, but most of my disdain for the union can be summed up by one word - hypocrisy.

I have worked for companies who have been salted, have had jobsites picketed, have had unfair labor complaints filed against them whose only purpose was to harass and cause financial hardship by spending money needlessly to defend themselves. 

I can't work for a union shop because I'm not a union member, why is it a problem if my non-union shop won't hire a union member because of their union membership?

Why does the union picket a job they lost fair and square to a non-union company, saying we're stealing their work, yet when those same guys leave the picket they stop on the way home for a quick sidejob taking work away legit non-union contractors? 

Why is it that the union agreement has to be followed to the letter by the companies, but the membership can pick and choose when they feel like following the rules and when they don't? 

IMO, if you are in the union you need to follow the rules for better or worse. If you want to enjoy the benefits of the union, you need to accept the down side as well. Doing sidework is prohibited. If you're laid off you are free to work doing anything you want, except electrical work. 

Like I said, hypocrisy.

Of course there are other reasons I hate the union as well, but I won't mention those because we'll just have a bunch of union defenders here telling me I'm making stuff up and the union doesn't do "those" things.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> A huge slap in the face to individual liberty.


No..actually a judge that understands the unfair burdens that right to work laws place on the union members. The union is required to defend the non-member in grievances and things like that without compensation. The union members are forced to pay for that.

The right to work laws are a huge slap in the face to the individual liberty of the union members.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> ...
> It is like requiring people to pay dues to the book of the month club as a condition of employment.


Gee...exactly like what the right to work laws do to union members...make us pay to support the non-members.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> No..actually a judge that understands the unfair burdens that right to work laws place on the union members. The union is required to defend the non-member in grievances and things like that without compensation. The union members are forced to pay for that.
> 
> The right to work laws are a huge slap in the face to the individual liberty of the union members.


They had a choice to join or not .........

If those members did not like the rules of the game they should not have joined.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Says who? Didn't the courts just say that they have that exact right?
> 
> FWIW, I am against any government interaction (protection) with unions. People have a Constitutional right to assemble and collectively bargain, and the employer should have the right to fire them all, IMO. But opinions are just that, and court rulings overrule them
> 
> ...


We are simply not going to agree on this.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> They had a choice to join or not .........
> 
> If those members did not like the rules of the game they should not have joined.


But that would be taking their liberties away :whistling2:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> They had a choice to join or not .........


That does not change anything...take away the requirement for us to support the non members and let the non members negotiate their own contracts...I pay dues to get those services and my rights to free association should not be impacted by requiring me to pay to provide those same services to the non-members.
I can see a number of constitutional issues that could eliminate the right to work laws as they are now structured.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> We are simply not going to agree on this.


Agreeing doesn't matter.

There are no liberties being taken away.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Gee...exactly like what the right to work laws do to union members...make us pay to support the non-members.


And again those members had / have a choice to be part of that union or not.

I do see why the union members do not want to represent people who do not pay dues but a second wrong to cure the first wrong is not the right answer.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Agreeing doesn't matter.
> 
> There are no liberties being taken away.


That is just your opinion, as wrong or right as my own. 

Deal with it.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That does not change anything...take away the requirement for us to support the non members and let the non members negotiate their own contracts...


I would not have any issue with that.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> ...
> I do see why the union members do not want to represent people who do not pay dues but a second wrong to cure the first wrong is not the right answer.


The right answer is to eliminate all of those unfair requirements on the union member...have a right to work law without that part.

That is no requirement for any one to join the union, but also no support of any kind from the union for the person who chooses not to join. That would include the non-members not being covered by the union negotiated contract and they would have to individually negotiate their own.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> That is just your opinion, as wrong or right as my own.
> 
> Deal with it.


It's not really an opinion when you state something as a fact.

You stated that liberties were being taken away. I'd like to hear an actual reasonable argument to support that statement. 

Unless you were just throwing out random anti-union rhetoric... :whistling2:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> ...
> You stated that liberties were being taken away. I'd like to hear an actual reasonable argument to support that statement.
> ...


I tend to agree with Bob...as it stands now it is a constitutional freedom of association issue on both sides....the freedom of association of the union members being unconstitutionally infringed on in the right to work states and the opposite in the non right to work states


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> You stated that liberties were being taken away. I'd like to hear an actual reasonable argument to support that statement.


I did not know you were that slow ...... :laughing:

The liberty to work where someone chooses without having to join or support an organization they may not have any desire to.

It is pretty simple.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I tend to agree with Bob...as it stands now it is a constitutional freedom of association issue on both sides....the freedom of association of the union members being unconstitutionally infringed on in the right to work states and the opposite in the non right to work states


What liberty is taken away from someone because a potential job has a requirement that they don't like?

Is the plumbing trade taking away the liberties of the people who don't want to smell poop?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> I did not know you were that slow ...... :laughing:
> 
> The liberty to work where someone chooses without having to join or support an organization they may not have any desire to.
> 
> It is pretty simple.


And it is exactly the same on the other side...the same impact on liberty. The same impact on freedom of association or free choice or what every you want to call it.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> I did not know you were that slow ...... :laughing:
> 
> The liberty to work where someone chooses without having to join or support an organization they may not have any desire to.
> 
> It is pretty simple.


So on that level the same exact thing could be said for anything?

If a person doesn't want to sit down all day, a job driving a bus is taking his liberties away?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> And it is exactly the same on the other side...the same impact on liberty. The same impact on freedom of association or free choice or what every you want to call it.


I said that in post #78 but Bob ignored it because it blew his entire argument up.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

BBQ said:


> I would not have any issue with that.


nice trolling, well done


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> What liberty is taken away from someone because a potential job has a requirement that they don't like? ...


I see a First Amendment issue to the right of free assemble or free association.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I see a First Amendment issue to the right of free assemble or free association.


But that could be said for anything, correct?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> ...
> Is the plumbing trade taking away the liberties of the people who don't want to smell poop?


Is there any legal requirement that someone become a plumber? 

In non-right to work states there is a requirement to join the union to work on that job. In the right to work states their is a requirement that the union workers support the non-union workers on that job.
Both are unconstitutional under the provisions of the First Amendment.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> But that could be said for anything, correct?


How so?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Is there any legal requirement that someone become a plumber?


 No, the same way as how there is no legal requirement for someone to become an employee of a union company that would require them to join the union.



> In non-right to work states there is a requirement to join the union to work on that job.


 But there is no requirement to work on that job. That's a choice that a person makes. If working on that job requires them to do something they don't want to do, such as smell poop, join a union, work high heights, etc, they have the ability to not take that job. No one has taken their personal liberties away.


----------



## drumnut08 (Sep 23, 2012)

360max said:


> Are you union or non union? Not meant to blast either one, and please do not, we all have families to feed either way you look at it. Self employed is non union, union owned shop is union.


10 years non union , then 10 years union to present day . All for the same company too . Honestly , I thought things were better in my pre union days . The company I worked for was an anomaly . I always made prevailing wage ( which is a hell of a lot more when does aren't coming off the top ) , had a nice 401 k for retirement , tons of overtime , and always worked . I mean never a day off unless I wanted one . Things slowly changed after he organized . Some for the better , some not so much . This started the general work slow down . Lots of unpaid days off and short lay offs . I knew this was just the start of more bad things to come . Unfortunately I was right . Last week in 2011 , a dozen or so long time employees got our last checks . I took it personally at first , but realized quickly , when there's no work , nobody holds on to you because you're a nice guy , lol ! The reality now is nobody seems to be able to stay with a contractor too long . Most of the big companies already have their " core group " of guys and are not usually looking for new members . I've taken a few short calls in my time off , with the hopes someone would hold on to me , but this is a vicious cycle . I had to lay off great electricians too , and it sucks , but it's the name of the game . So , my decision now is to love out my next 20 something years in the union as a part time worker , or do something else ? I don't hate the union and know it offers a lot , but it's not so fun when the work isn't there . My experience so far , was better before I signed .


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

360max said:


> nice trolling, well done


Says the guy who started the troll thread. :laughing:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> No, the same way as how there is no legal requirement for someone to become an employee of a union company that would require them to join the union.
> 
> But there is no requirement to work on that job. That's a choice that a person makes. If working on that job requires them to do something they don't want to do, such as smell poop, join a union, work high heights, etc, they have the ability to not take that job. No one has taken their personal liberties away.


If you are talking in general, yes, but when it comes down to a specific job that I want to do, I don't agree. 

The rules on both sides violate the free assembly clause of the First Amendment, when you are looking at a specific job I want to do or company I want to work for.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Before right to work, there were both uniuon and non union shops. Right to work laws have only one goal. To weaken the unions. Anyone who disputes that is smoking crack.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> If you are talking in general, yes, but when it comes down to a specific job that I want to do, I don't agree.
> 
> The rules on both sides violate the free assembly clause of the First Amendment, when you are looking at a specific job I want to do or company I want to work for.


Once more:

Requiring someone to join a union against his will in order to take a job is not taking that person's liberties away from him anymore than requiring a person to work around poop against his will in order to take a plumbing job.

In neither case are you taking away that person's liberties. He has no right to that job. A job requirement that goes against someone's principals is not taking their liberties away because no one is forcing them to take that job.

I don't want to wear a toolbelt, I hate it, it goes against everything that I believe in. Harry's electrical company requires it's employees to wear a toolbelt. Is Harry taking my liberties away?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Once more:
> 
> Requiring someone to join a union against his will in order to take a job is not taking that person's liberties away from him anymore than requiring a person to work around poop against his will in order to take a plumbing job.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but I don't see it that way and never will. 

In my opinion, both of the current systems are unconstitutional.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I'm sorry but I don't see it that way and never will.
> 
> In my opinion, both of the current systems are unconstitutional.


What don't you see?

You haven't explained how requiring a union membership to work for a union company is taking away someone's liberties. 

You also haven't explained how that is any different than any other requirement of employment.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

MTW said:


> I'd starve to death before I *re-joined* a union.


Fixed it to suit my experience....


----------



## SteveBayshore (Apr 7, 2013)

jrannis said:


> That was over 30 years ago,
> I'll bet most of them are dead and you are still complaining about it. :laughing:


It wasn't meant as a complaint, just stated what happened and what turned me off. Over the years I'v whittled my shop down to six guys. More than a few of the old guys went on to join the union because of the experience they had.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> What don't you see?
> 
> You haven't explained how requiring a union membership to work for a union company is taking away someone's liberties.
> 
> You also haven't explained how that is any different than any other requirement of employment.


It is not like having to have the skills to do the job, it is not like having to do work you don't like, it is not like having to comply with the safety rules or any other aspect of the job. 

It is just the fact that I am force to do something that has nothing to do with the job requirements to have that job. The same thing applies to the union member being forced to pay dues in a right to work state where those dues provide benefits to nonmembers. 

Like I said both the closed shop and right to work shops, are unconstitutional as I see it. 

Just because you don't like how I explained my views in no way will ever make me change my views on this.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Like I said both the closed shop and right to work shops, are unconstitutional as I see it.


I don't remember any labor laws in the constitution. Enlighten me.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It is just the fact that I am force to do something that has nothing to do with the job requirements to have that job.


 That is incorrect, Sir. Being a member of the union that the company is signed with is definitely a requirement of that job.



> The same thing applies to the union member being forced to pay dues in a right to work state where those dues provide benefits to nonmembers.


 That's a different topic which I have no disagreed with.



> Just because you don't like how I explained my views in no way will ever make me change my views on this.


I am not trying to make you change your views, I am asking you to substantiate the statement you made that requiring an employee of a union company to be a member of that union is taking away liberties. 

I haven't seen a reasonable argument to support that statement yet. All I have heard is people who seem to think they are entitled to any job they want under any condition they want. In reality, you don't own a job and you have no right to it. So if that job has a requirement that you do not like, move on. They have *NOT* taken away any of your liberties.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

HackWork said:


> They have *NOT* taken away any of your liberties.


Case closed! :laughing:


----------



## icemanjc (Dec 25, 2012)

Non-Union.

I've always been non-union and probably will always stay that way. Mainly because about every week, I get some random guy coming up to me at the job site and telling me all the things that he thinks are wrong with my company.

Or the constant emails I get from the union telling me to organize, and get my company to follow. 

Or people from the union personally coming to my house and badgering me over and over about how the union is so much better, and so on and so on. Sometimes they'll even find out when we have company meetings so when everyone leaves the shop, they're right outside waiting to hand out flyers.

I'd be a lot more likely to consider the union if I wasn't badgered about it 24/7, it just completely turns me off.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> That is incorrect, Sir. Being a member of the union that the company is signed with is definitely a requirement of that job.


This is where we part ways...that is not a requirement of the job, it is a requirement of the union. It has nothing to do with the actual job.



> That's a different topic which I have no disagreed with.


Not a different topic..exactly the same topic and exactly the same issue, just from the other side of the aisle.





> I am not trying to make you change your views, I am asking you to substantiate the statement you made that requiring an employee of a union company to be a member of that union is taking away liberties.


I have, but you just don't read what I tell you. 



> I haven't seen a reasonable argument to support that statement yet. All I have heard is people who seem to think they are entitled to any job they want under any condition they want. In reality, you don't own a job and you have no right to it.


No one has said that.


> So if that job has a requirement that you do not like, move on. They have *NOT* taken away any of your liberties.


Like I have been saying it is not a requirement of the actual job. 
It is taking liberties in the exact same manner as the liberties of the union man are taken when he has to pay to support the nonunion workers.

My opinions are sound, I don't see yours as any less sound. I just don't agree with them. If this issue was cut and dried it would not keep coming up in legislation or in the courts, but it is not cut and dried and there is no correct opinion...just differing opinions.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> This is where we part ways...that is not a requirement of the job, it is a requirement of the union. It has nothing to do with the actual job.


 It's a requirement of the job. No matter what the reasoning behind it is, it's a requirement of the job. There's no getting around that.

If you don't like the job requirements, go find another job. 

It's amazing to see the entitlement mentality here. People think that they deserve any job they want and they could dictate the terms, or else their Constitutional rights are being taken away :laughing:

Such as this, this is one of the most entitled statements I have ever read here:


BBQ said:


> HackWork said:
> 
> 
> > They have no right to that job, so how is it taking away a liberty?
> ...


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)




----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

icemanjc said:


> Non-Union.
> 
> I've always been non-union and probably will always stay that way. Mainly because about every week, I get some random guy coming up to me at the job site and telling me all the things that he thinks are wrong with my company.
> 
> ...


Reminds me of a similar story:

*The Drowning Man*

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"


----------



## pudge565 (Dec 8, 2007)

HackWork said:


> It's amazing to see the entitlement mentality here. People think that they deserve any job they want and they could dictate the terms, or else their Constitutional rights are being taken away :laughing:


Funny isn't that exactly what unions are for? Dictate terms backed by larger numbers of employees? :whistling2:


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

jrannis said:


> Reminds me of a similar story:
> 
> *The Drowning Man*
> 
> ...


Cool story

Too bad it has nothing to do with him being harassed by the union.

Perhaps you think the union "saved" you, some of us happen to think completely opposite.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

pudge565 said:


> Funny isn't that exactly what unions are for? Dictate terms backed by larger numbers of employees? :whistling2:


If you don't like it, don't join one. As I said earlier, I don't support any laws protecting unions or their members specifically.


----------



## pudge565 (Dec 8, 2007)

HackWork said:


> If you don't like it, don't join one. As I said earlier, I don't support any laws protecting unions or their members specifically.


I understand I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of that post. Don't join one, but if I don't live in a RTW state I am forced to to work for a union shop, just which side of the fence are you on?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

EBFD6 said:


> Cool story
> 
> Too bad it has nothing to do with him being harassed by the union.
> 
> Perhaps you think the union "saved" you, some of us happen to think completely opposite.


Some people cant put 2 and two together and figure out why wages are better in in some areas than others and those that benefit from others think they are "entitled".

Whats the word for that?

Enjoy the free ride.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

pudge565 said:


> I understand I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of that post.


 Well, you did a bad job of it. Please point out where I was hypocritical...?



> Don't join one, but if I don't live in a RTW state I am forced to to work for a union shop, just which side of the fence are you on?


What does this have to do with a fence? Why does everyone have to pick a side and stay there with everything? Can't you be open minded for once and not toe your party's line all the time?

My point has been very clear this entire time, Pudge. You should go back and read what I said.

All I have maintained is that no one's liberties have been taken away by a requirement of employment. The only way that could happen is if someone had a "right" to that job in the first place, which no one does.


----------



## phil20 (Apr 30, 2013)

The union has its problems but I also get a fair wage with health benefits and a 401k The next poll we should have is how many non union shops give there men health benefits and working rules like overtime after a certain amount of hours


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

phil20 said:


> The union has its problems but I also get a fair wage with health benefits and a 401k The next poll we should have is how many non union shops give there men health benefits and working rules like overtime after a certain amount of hours



Well thats a great idea start one its funny most union members look at non union first low pay and no benefits .

Its also generally a rule location of were you live as to pay the south less then the north higher .

Non union lower educated electricians this is common and true in most cases . 

And what gets better is thats 90 percent its true but there are non union companys who can match or exceed those union benefits . 

Like 401K matched by company , shares in the company , bonus per job , vacation, sick days, holiday pay , health insurance , truck to take home ,continued education paid courses , scale wage. 

And there are companys today who share or select who may have a vested interest in the company by time in grade workers actually own part of or a major part of company given by company .

Bottom line if you work be glad just look around for a good company if you find it stay it might benefit you later on in life .

I have no issues with union in fact there a few on my crew who are union .


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

BBQ said:


> I think eejack needs some thicker skin.


My skin is plenty thick, I was just making an observation. :thumbsup:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

pudge565 said:


> Funny isn't that exactly what unions are for? Dictate terms backed by larger numbers of employees? :whistling2:


Uh nope. No one dictates anything. We collectively negitiate a contract with the NECA contractors. They get what they want. We get what we want. Then the contract clarifies who is responsible for what.
If a CEO negotiates a contract with his company, it's considered the norm.
When a group of people collectively negotiate a contract, some how that is terrible to some people.
No one "dictates" anything. We AGREE to it. We VOTE on it. The contractors VOTE on it. Sounds very democratic to me, and certainly constitutional.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

icemanjc said:


> I'd be a lot more likely to consider the union if I wasn't badgered about it 24/7, it just completely turns me off.


Then CALL the local BM and TELL him that.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Us merit shop guys don't mind carrying the unions dead weight. Someone has to pick up the slack. You guys go out for coffee we'll get it done. :thumbsup:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> Us merit shop guys don't mind carrying the unions dead weight. Someone has to pick up the slack. You guys go out for coffee we'll get it done. :thumbsup:


Thanks, I appreciate that. :thumbsup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Fish on!


ow wait


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> Us merit shop guys don't mind carrying the unions dead weight. Someone has to pick up the slack. You guys go out for coffee we'll get it done. :thumbsup:


:laughing::laughing: I could conversely say I have made a career out of repairing merit crap.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

Can a union guy be denied employment from a non-union contractor? Does the employer have that right? A person doesn't have to tell the employer if they belong to a union if its a non-union company. But I can't get a job with a union company unless I join the union. Doesn't seem quite right.
See NLRB vs Town and Country Electric.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

i can conversly say i have made part of a career out of fixing resi problems done by union ind. people. and some of them are freinds


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

papaotis said:


> i can conversly say i have made part of a career out of fixing resi problems done by union ind. people. and some of them are freinds


And there ya go. :thumbsup:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Mulder said:


> Can a union guy be denied employment from a non-union contractor? Does the employer have that right? A person doesn't have to tell the employer if they belong to a union if its a non-union company. But I can't get a job with a union company unless I join the union. Doesn't seem quite right.
> See NLRB vs Town and Country Electric.


Yes, a union member can be denied employment based on his union membership. Happens all the time, and yes, the employer has the right.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Mulder said:


> But I can't get a job with a union company unless I join the union. Doesn't seem quite right.
> See NLRB vs Town and Country Electric.


Uh, how else would that work?:blink:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

papaotis said:


> i can conversly say i have made part of a career out of fixing resi problems done by union ind. people. and some of them are freinds


I can certainly understand that - many industrial electricians do not have the chops to do residential work. It is almost a different trade.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

I wouldn't hire a union guy, only because I know they're using it for filler.. until the union comes calling with some work.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

and thats why i dont do industrial. well almost never


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

eejack said:


> Yes, a union member can be denied employment based on his union membership. Happens all the time, and yes, the employer has the right.


How would the employer know?


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

Mulder said:


> How would the employer know?


Resume?

People know what companies are union.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> I wouldn't hire a union guy, only because I know they're using it for filler.. until the union comes calling with some work.


That only means you pay less. If you were competitive, they would stay.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Mulder said:


> How would the employer know?


More than likely it would be on the resume or part of the interview. Certainly the potential employee could lie about it.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

big2bird said:


> That only means you pay less. If you were competitive, they would stay.


Yeah I've never heard of any open shops paying union wages around here.

Union guys stick to union and open shops stick to open guys. I've worked with a few union guys who crossed over for work, because they had a good name and gave their word they would stick around a certain length of time, or for the whole project. Usually they were doing it because the job was close to their home or the schedule was more convenient.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Yeah I've never heard of any open shops paying union wages around here.


But I bet there are some that charge the same.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

eejack said:


> Yes, a union member can be denied employment based on his union membership. Happens all the time, and yes, the employer has the right.


Not true.

Even in a RtW state the law recognizes a union member cannot be barred from employment simply because of his affiliation or membership with a union or association. That is discrimination same as barring someone from employment based on their race, gender, sexual orientation.

Proving that was the reason you did not gain employment is a different story.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

TGGT said:


> Proving that was the reason you did not gain employment is a different story.


Therein lies the issue. It happens all the time, but proving it is another story.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

Mulder said:


> Can a union guy be denied employment from a non-union contractor? Does the employer have that right? A person doesn't have to tell the employer if they belong to a union if its a non-union company. But I can't get a job with a union company unless I join the union. Doesn't seem quite right.
> See NLRB vs Town and Country Electric.



Well you can not you must hire or he can take legal action .:thumbsup:


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

big2bird said:


> But I bet there are some that charge the same.



Well thats true but some companys share that profit and that will benefit the workers and the company so we look at it this way pay dues to get a better wage so in a way your paying for that wage .

Or just work for a company that pays better shares in the profit you get better production good jobs and plenty of work year around .

And when i started in this trade if you were union you would never worked non union . I guess its ok today but 30 years ago that was unheard of. Plus you didnt work any other type of job you sat home and waited for a phone call or hung out at the hall .


If you did work non union you were out the door or beaten to death that day your car would be blown up and other fun stuff this was normal .

And today i see folks walk across picket lines you didnt do that ever 
do it and die so yes union has changed from what was years ago .

Theres no power or fear like the old days because of all the rights people have today .

What happen to the good times gee it was fun .:thumbup:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> It's a requirement of the job. No matter what the reasoning behind it is, it's a requirement of the job. There's no getting around that. ...


The job is the actual work and the training and skills needed to do that work...those are the only things that make up the job.
The requirement to join some group is not ever in any way a requirement of the job.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

TGGT said:


> Not true.
> 
> Even in a RtW state the law recognizes a union member cannot be barred from employment simply because of his affiliation or membership with a union or association. That is discrimination same as barring someone from employment based on their race, gender, sexual orientation.
> 
> Proving that was the reason you did not gain employment is a different story.


Actually you can use organizational membership as a bar for employment.

There is no "right" to work for a particular company if they don't want you for whatever reason, as long as it does not run afoul of race, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

You can hire only redheads if you want, or not hire anyone who showed up wearing plaid.


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

eejack said:


> Yes, a union member can be denied employment based on his union membership. Happens all the time, and yes, the employer has the right.


:no:


TGGT said:


> Not true.
> 
> Even in a RtW state the law recognizes a union member cannot be barred from employment simply because of his affiliation or membership with a union or association. That is discrimination same as barring someone from employment based on their race, gender, sexual orientation.
> 
> Proving that was the reason you did not gain employment is a different story.


Exactly


big2bird said:


> Therein lies the issue. It happens all the time, but proving it is another story.


It doesn't matter if they can prove it. They (the union) will file an unfair labor charge against the company which costs the contractor time and money to defend, so even if the union loses the case they still win because they got what they wanted, they cost the company money. 

It is a very common tactic in this area. A non-union company puts an ad in the paper looking for help. The local sends a bunch of guys down to fill out applications wearing IBEW t-shirts and making it well known they are union members. When they don't get hired they file a complaint with the dept. of labor. Theses guys don't really want to work for this company, the whole point is that they know they won't get hired, can file the complaint, and cost the contractor a lot of money in legal fees. I have personally worked for a company that had this happen to them.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

piperunner said:


> Well thats true but some companys share that profit and that will benefit the workers and the company so we look at it this way pay dues to get a better wage so in a way your paying for that wage .
> 
> Or just work for a company that pays better shares in the profit you get better production good jobs and plenty of work year around .
> 
> ...


I have seen the kings and little kingdoms inside of a non union shop.
Their is a wide chasm between the top and bottom workers.
Also, in my thirty years here, I haven't seen the any of the " beaten up and blown up" stuff you mentioned. Are these just fun stories you know about second hand?

My dad worked for an IEC company, was one of the top paid field guys and was given bonus money and stock options. 
The stock options turned out to be worthless as they played a few games with different classes of stock.
I don't think he ever made as much as I did before he retired.
He had a decent amount of cash saved but not enough to pay what his pension would have if he would have stayed union.
Too bad because he was a decent electrician and a very hard worker.


----------



## phil20 (Apr 30, 2013)

I believe we all work hard but being in the union gives me more benefits and protects my rights as a worker. I have nothing against non union I have many friends who work non union


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

My area had one of this countries richest pockets of machinist unions. They enjoyed a long legacy of_ quality_ workmanship and lifestyle

I've a number of local friends who rode it out into the late 80's, early 90's

Then the banksters took over, slowly suckin' the life out of them.

Their pensions & retirement got Enron'd_ (long before Key lay btw)

There was a flurry of cottage industry that sprouted for a while, but the regional development people ended up in the back pockets of legislative fallout created by the politicians who colluded with big $$$


Most of what they accomplished is now museum fare now, inclusive of machines that the older generation lament the younger generation having no clue about


The area has been economically depressed ever since.....

~CS~_


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

phil20 said:


> I believe we all work hard but being in the union gives me more benefits and protects my rights as a worker. I have nothing against non union I have many friends who work non union


I know but I see guys working really hard on jobs and not getting anywhere in a trade that should pay very well.
The jobs I have lost to non union were only by a very few bucks just because they knew our labor rates.
They showed up with one smart guy, making less than a 4th year, as the foreman and used a bunch of helpers.
Everyone of them had crappy harbor freight tools, a crappy car.
Boss rolls up in a Range Rover wearing a 70k Rolex and can't be bothered getting out.
Nice guy.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Couldn't one assume the position of being a _union of one_ (per se') , demanding _better _than prevailing wage on rate jobs

~CS~


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> My area had one of this countries richest pockets of machinist unions. They enjoyed a long legacy of_ quality_ workmanship and lifestyle
> 
> I've a number of local friends who rode it out into the late 80's, early 90's
> 
> ...


_

Very nostalgic but, there is no going back.
Not even the raw stock is handled by humans much less the actual brain work.
Almost every industry has been hit hard by the techno boom._


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

jrannis said:


> Very nostalgic but, there is no going back.
> Not even the raw stock is handled by humans much less the actual brain work.
> Almost every industry has been hit hard by the techno boom.


Worse jrannis...

because the unions sucked up to the very same $$$ and power that did them in, they're synonymous with traitor by much of the recent working generation...


~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The job is the actual work and the training and skills needed to do that work...those are the only things that make up the job.
> The requirement to join some group is not ever in any way a requirement of the job.


You are delusional.

Being a member of the union that a company is signed with is a job requirement. That's all there is to it.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Being a member of the union that a company is signed with is a job requirement. That's all there is to it.


:laughing:

Hack has deemed it so!


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

HackWork said:


> You are delusional.
> 
> Being a member of the union that a company is signed with is a job requirement. That's all there is to it.


 I think Don's point was that it's actually a labor law violation to take action against an employee just because he refuses to participate in the union.

But at the same time, I recognize that a person doing that would probably outlive their usefulness to many organized shops.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Big John said:


> I think Don's point was that it's actually a labor law violation to take action against an employee just because he refuses to participate in the union.
> 
> But at the same time, I recognize that a person doing that would probably outlive their usefulness to many organized shops.


I don't know, that doesn't sound like what we were talking about.

Here's the situation:

I get a call or two a week from youngins looking for a job (they look for local EC websites). 
Let's say today I go to my union hall and sign with them, I'm now a signatory EC.
Tomorrow one of those kids calls me and asks for a job, I say sure, but one of the job requirements is that you join the union, it's a contractual obligation and it's in the company employee handbook.
He says "No, I'd rather not join a union."
I say "Ok, good luck with your job search".

Now Bob and Don say that his liberties were taken away. I find that insane, it's no different than if I told him that he would have to work off of 40' ladders and wear long pants and he objected to those requirements. Don then brought up the semantics of what a "job requirement" is.

I maintain that no one has a right to a specific job and if they don't like one of the requirements, they can move on. No liberties were lost, that entire statement was only used as an anti-union bash from someone who does that often.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Tomorrow one of those kids calls me and asks for a job, I say sure, but one of the job requirements is that you join the union, it's a contractual obligation and it's in the company employee handbook.
> He says "No, I'd rather not join a union."
> I say "Ok, good luck with your job search".
> 
> Now Bob and Don say that his liberties were taken away. I find that insane, it's no different than if I told him that he would have to work off of 40' ladders and wear long pants and he objected to those requirements. Don then brought up the semantics of what a "job requirement" is.


Well IMO you are wrong and the examples you give are nothing alike.

The requirement to climb a ladder is a requirement of the company.

The requirement to pay dues to the union is a requirement of the union.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The requirement to join some group is not ever in any way a requirement of the job.


So doctors don't have to join the AMA?
Lawyers are not required to be a member of the BAR?
Dentists should not join the ADA?
Contractors should not join NECA?

I fail to see any difference. All these folks pay to join these groups.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Well IMO you are wrong and the examples you give are nothing alike.
> 
> The requirement to climb a ladder is a requirement of the company.
> 
> The requirement to pay dues to the union is a requirement of the union.


They are both job requirements.

I just wrote down in the "job requirement" section of my job posting that being a union member is a requirement, now it's a job requirement. 

Either way, no liberties were lost.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

BBQ said:


> Well IMO you are wrong and the examples you give are nothing alike.
> 
> The requirement to climb a ladder is a requirement of the company.
> 
> The requirement to pay dues to the union is a requirement of the union.


And if the company is union, it is also a requirement of the company.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

You apply for a job at Boeing. They tell you you must join a union to work there.
You say I don't want to, and they say then you do not have to work here. And you don't. You can work somewhere else.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

big2bird said:


> So doctors don't have to join the AMA?
> Lawyers are not required to be a member of the BAR?
> Dentists should not join the ADA?
> Contractors should not join NECA?
> ...


They do pay, but I know at least some of those, if not all are voluntary not mandatory.

It may make good business sense to join them but I do not believe they are required to in order to work as a Doc, lawyer, Dentist or EC.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

big2bird said:


> So doctors don't have to join the AMA?
> Lawyers are not required to be a member of the BAR?
> Dentists should not join the ADA?
> Contractors should not join NECA?
> ...


You brought up an excellent point.

Hey Bob, the state requires me to have a licensed journeymen as the first man on the job. So when I go to hire a man, the state is requiring me to hire someone with that license. That's not a "job requirement", it's a state requirement.

Did someone who doesn't have that license lose their liberties because they can't get that job? :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Did someone who doesn't have that license lose their liberties because they can't get that job? :laughing:


Many folks would say yes to that, MDshunk for one.

I am not that far out there, that is a government requirement, not the requirement of a private organization.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

big2bird said:


> And if the company is union, it is also a requirement of the company.


That is your opinion, it is not mine.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

HackWork said:


> You are delusional.
> 
> Being a member of the union that a company is signed with is a job requirement. That's all there is to it.


Nope. I worked for a Union company for two years and refused to join the union. You know nothing.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Many folks would say yes to that, MDshunk for one.
> 
> I am not that far out there, that is a government requirement, not the requirement of a private organization.


The only reason why the private organization has the power to do that is because the government is protecting them, correct?


You still missed the point that I put "union membership" as a job requirement into my job posting. That makes it a job requirement. No matter what reason I put it into the requirements, it's there :thumbsup:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Nope. I worked for a Union company for two years and refused to join the union. You know nothing.


You have no idea what you are talking about, you came into this conversation halfway and you made yourself look like more of an ass than usual.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

HackWork said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about, you came into this conversation halfway and you made yourself look like more of an ass than usual.


It was my right to work there without joining some gay cult that was hurting the company.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> It was my right to work there without joining some gay cult that was hurting the company.


No one said you didn't have that right in the state you were in :laughing:

Again, you have no idea what we are talking about.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> You still missed the point that I put "union membership" as a job requirement into my job posting. That makes it a job requirement. No matter what reason I put it into the requirements, it's there :thumbsup:


I got your point and it is a good one.

But it only fits the companies that make it a requirement.

Can you show in any case where it is officers of the company pushing for forced union membership? 

I am willing to bet in all the court actions on this issue it is the union trying to force membership, not the companies.

As I said a lot of posts ago, we are never going to agree on this.

The fact this is in court numbers of times pretty much proves there is no clear cut answer. If they can't figure it out you are are not either.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

mcclary's electrical said:


> It was my right to work there without joining some gay cult that was hurting the company.


Gay cult? That is just childish mud slinging at best.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

bbq said:


> i got your point and it is a good one.
> 
> But it only fits the companies that make it a requirement.


bingo


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

big2bird said:


> Gay cult? That is just childish mud slinging at best.


Yeah, you caught that. It was kind of subtle. :laughing:




_Bobs forum tip of the day: When someone says something off the charts outrageous they are just screwing with you. Don't take it to heart. :laughing:_


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

big2bird said:


> Gay cult? That is just childish mud slinging at best.


That was directed toward that particular union.....not all. I'm sure sticking your head under the steward's desk only works in 95% of places....


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Unless you could show how someone has a right to a specific job, how they are owed that job, how they are entitled to that job... I can not see how any liberties were taken away from them because they didn't like a requirement of that job (no matter who requires it, or who says it, or where it's written, etc.).


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

big2bird said:


> bingo


And ......... do you know of _'companies'_ making it a requirement?

Seriously, do you think any company has gone to court to try to get forced union membership approved? :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Unless you could show how someone has a right to a specific job, how they are owed that job, how they are entitled to that job... I can not see how any liberties were taken away from them because they didn't like a requirement of that job (no matter who requires it, or who says it, or where it's written, etc.).


Well that sums it up.




> (no matter who requires it, or who says it, or where it's written, etc.).


This is where we, and obviously the courts cannot come to agreement.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I want a better argument. This is getting boring.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HackWork said:


> I want a better argument. This is getting boring.


Ninth month abortions, the answer for indecisive teenage girls or a slap in the face to the baby daddy priests?


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

mcclary's electrical said:


> That was directed toward that particular union.....not all. I'm sure sticking your head under the steward's desk only works in 95% of places....


Still childish.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

BBQ said:


> And ......... do you know of _'companies'_ making it a requirement?
> 
> Seriously, do you think any company has gone to court to try to get forced union membership approved? :laughing:


Two different questions. 
Yes to #1
No to #2


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

Contractors aren't forced to be signatory. Its all voluntary.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> You are delusional.
> 
> Being a member of the union that a company is signed with is a job requirement. That's all there is to it.


Being a member of the union may be an employment requirement, but it is not a job requirement. They are not the same thing, but you are treating them as the same. 

I am no more delusional than you are.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Being a member of the union may be an employment requirement, but it is not a job requirement. They are not the same thing, but you are treating them as the same.
> 
> I am no more delusional than you are.





> Job Posting
> 
> HackWork Electric LLC
> ** ********** **
> ...


You lose, I win, abortions for everyone!


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> You lose, I win, abortions for everyone!


You said you agreed with me that making me, as a union member, to pay dues that support the nonmembers in my work place was an infringement on my liberties. However using your same logic as to required union membership, then your response should be that the union member does not have to take that job. You should not be agreeing with me on that side and disagreeing me with on the other side. They are both the exact same issues, just from opposite sides of the fence.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Abortions make more sense than that post.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Abortions make more sense than that post.


It is as clear to me as your comments are to you.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It is as clear to me as your comments are to you.


Like a dirty shower door!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Loose Neutral said:


> Contractors aren't forced to be signatory. Its all voluntary.


Hmmmmm, new can of worms has been opened.

Do explain...


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

I want to thank the folks who participated in the adult discussion that occurred in this thread. It goes to show that even a hot topic like this can be courteous and considerate, at least for a time.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

BBQ said:


> And ......... do you know of _'companies'_ making it a requirement?
> 
> Seriously, do you think any company has gone to court to try to get forced union membership approved? :laughing:


Actually it is occurring right now in South Carolina.

http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/1304578/vw-letter-us-workers-confirms-talks-union


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

let freedom reign....:whistling2:

~CS~


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

I started out non union I had training in the Air Force and the rest was OJT . I moved to a union area and a friend got me on with a union contractor off book 4. I worked six months and was forced layoff when boss needed to get rid of a slug from the hall he said if he went I had to go and that was the rule. I stopped at the hall and said thanks for the work but I need a paycheck so they found a place for me. I tested in a month later and worked 10 years.

I started my business and was a signatory and things were good until the economy tanked. I closed up shop sent guys to the hall and went in search of work.

Shortly after the wife founded her business and I went to work in it things were great for about a year then she gets this letter from the union lawyers demanding her books a list of employees and all her customer information. She told them to pound sand. They threatened a lawsuit .She told them to pound more sand. They filed a suit and she hired a lawyer. 

She will now spend several thousand dollars to end this and the union will dip into that great pool of dues to pay their lawyers and all just to hurt a small business.

Don't ask me how I now view unions.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

so you pissed off the unions rewire? 

~CS~


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> so you pissed off the unions rewire?
> 
> ~CS~


 at every chance I get:thumbsup:


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

This year I am contacting all the non union shops and directing them to the Dept of Labor site so they can submit wage reports so "prevailing wage" will actually reflect what is being paid in our counties.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

rewire said:


> I started out non union I had training in the Air Force and the rest was OJT . I moved to a union area and a friend got me on with a union contractor off book 4. I worked six months and was forced layoff when boss needed to get rid of a slug from the hall he said if he went I had to go and that was the rule. I stopped at the hall and said thanks for the work but I need a paycheck so they found a place for me. I tested in a month later and worked 10 years.
> 
> I started my business and was a signatory and things were good until the economy tanked. I closed up shop sent guys to the hall and went in search of work.
> 
> ...


Most likely when you became signatory, you signed on for life. Since you had your wife restart the business, you most likely knew this, and tried to circumnavigate this fact, and they aren't buying it. (Just a guess).


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

rewire said:


> This year I am contacting all the non union shops and directing them to the Dept of Labor site so they can submit wage reports so "prevailing wage" will actually reflect what is being paid in our counties.


In other words, you want to lower prevailing wages and the standard of living in that area. How noble.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

big2bird said:


> In other words, you want to lower prevailing wages and the standard of living in that area. How noble.


Bird to mess with a man's bread and butter, (actually legally his wife's) is hardly noble.

I understand your point and I understand his, turn around is fair play?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> I want to thank the folks who participated in the adult discussion that occurred in this thread. It goes to show that even a hot topic like this can be courteous and considerate, at least for a time.


THank you, I'll take that as a compliment!:thumbsup:


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

big2bird said:


> Most likely when you became signatory, you signed on for life. Since you had your wife restart the business, you most likely knew this, and tried to circumnavigate this fact, and they aren't buying it. (Just a guess).


I didn't sign for life. I was a signatory contractor now I am not. The fact my wife choose to start a business has nothing to do with the scum bag union. They know this and she will win but not after having to spend money and the scum union knows this.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

big2bird said:


> In other words, you want to lower prevailing wages and the standard of living in that area. How noble.


 That is stupid how would paying the true prevailing wage for this area lower the standard of living?


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

big2bird said:


> Most likely when you became signatory, you signed on for life. Since you had your wife restart the business, you most likely knew this, and tried to circumnavigate this fact, and they aren't buying it. (Just a guess).


But someone said........ 


Loose Neutral said:


> Contractors aren't forced to be signatory. Its all voluntary.


Sounds like it isn't "all voluntary" after all. Of course we all knew that anyway.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

brian john said:


> Bird to mess with a man's bread and butter, (actually legally his wife's) is hardly noble.
> 
> I understand your point and I understand his, turn around is fair play?


What rewire did is no different than a union factory firing all its employees, closing shop, and then reopening shop under a different name around the corner and hiring all new nonunion employees at half price.

He made an agreement, he broke that agreement, and then he hid behind his wife to get out of his contractual obligations.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

jrannis said:


> I have seen the kings and little kingdoms inside of a non union shop.
> Their is a wide chasm between the top and bottom workers.
> Also, in my thirty years here, I haven't seen the any of the " beaten up and blown up" stuff you mentioned. Are these just fun stories you know about second hand?
> 
> ...


Well my brother worked for Con Ed for 35 years local 3 was a electrician before that local 3 NYC .

I was in Local 3 for a few years thats how i started with my brother.

My father worked local 701 teamsters from 1950s to 1971 he was a shop steward for many years .
Remember the union fund freeze when my dad was 62 he had to go back to work all bank accounts frozen do too Jimmy Hoffa spending the teamsters money on other things . 

Sorry i dont have photos but when i was a kid i remember a few strikes and they were violent to say the least .

Baseball bats were loaded in the car trunks off to the picket line i wanted to go with my brother i thought they were playing ball but not that kind of ball game.

I remember seeing in the paper the next day news car blown up 
26 in the hospital during a strike that was the electrical brotherhood back then .

When i worked in NYC as a green helper it was corrupt no physical inspections on site . Money passed hands electrical inspector never walk the job he was scared .

Because the mob ruled construction back then who supplied the job with material with there trucks & teamsters who would not deliver unless money was payed .

You need concrete pay me .

You need steel pay me .

You need your trash picked up pay me. 

Plus the unions were controlled by the local mob you pay us or your going to have a labor issue .

You need to go back a few years look at what went on not just NYC it was all over the country.

You payed 500 bucks to the hall you had to have a family member already in the local and you were in .

Trust me ive been in the union my family has and can tell you stories which the union labor folks today just dont accept.

But fact is union members have dropped 50 % in the last 20 years and thats bad news for the members .

Weres your money going will it be there when you need it .


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> What rewire did is no different than a union factory firing all its employees, closing shop, and then reopening shop under a different name around the corner and hiring all new nonunion employees at half price.
> 
> He made an agreement, he broke that agreement, and then he hid behind his wife to get out of his contractual obligations.


 So are you a union contractor?

I signed my wife did not. In this country anyone can start a business any time they choose. It should be my wifes choice or is she not allowed that?

should you be forced to become a union shop?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

rewire said:


> I started out non union I had training in the Air Force and the rest was OJT . I moved to a union area and a friend got me on with a union contractor off book 4. I worked six months and was forced layoff when boss needed to get rid of a slug from the hall he said if he went I had to go and that was the rule. I stopped at the hall and said thanks for the work but I need a paycheck so they found a place for me. I tested in a month later and worked 10 years.
> 
> I started my business and was a signatory and things were good until the economy tanked. I closed up shop sent guys to the hall and went in search of work.
> 
> ...


So, when you closed your shop, did you give notice, or odd you just think you had no obligation to do so?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

rewire said:


> So are you a union contractor?
> 
> should you be forced to become a union shop?


No, I wasn't silly enough to sign with them.



> I signed my wife did not. In this country anyone can start a business any time they choose. It should be my wifes choice or is she not allowed that?


Like I said, you hid behind your wife to get out of your contract. Quit pulling the innocent act, you've been caught.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

jrannis said:


> So, when you closed your shop, did you give notice, or odd you just think you had no obligation to do so?


 notice to who?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

piperunner said:


> Well my brother worked for Con Ed for 35 years local 3 was a electrician before that local 3 NYC .
> 
> I was in Local 3 for a few years thats how i started with my brother.
> 
> ...


That was way before your and my time. 
I like to think of gas at 25 cents a gallon but that ain't gonna happen either.
Those are just nice ol stories.
Nothing to do with 2013. Just nice stories.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> No, I wasn't silly enough to sign with them.
> 
> Like I said, you hid behind your wife to get out of your contract. Quit pulling the innocent act, you've been caught.


 still trolling:thumbsup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HackWork said:


> What rewire did is no different than a union factory firing all its employees, closing shop, and then reopening shop under a different name around the corner and hiring all new nonunion employees at half price.
> 
> He made an agreement, he broke that agreement, and then he hid behind his wife to get out of his contractual obligations.


But it seems to be legal and I am not sure on the UNION for life?


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

HackWork said:


> Like I said, you hid behind your wife to get out of your contract. Quit pulling the innocent act, you've been caught.


Rewire, that's the ONLY reason it's in your wifes name, and it's obvious as all hell.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

EBFD6 said:


> But someone said........
> 
> 
> Sounds like it isn't "all voluntary" after all. Of course we all knew that anyway.


Apples and oranges. No one has to sign. However, there are conditions if you do. It's called a contract.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

big2bird said:


> Rewire, that's the ONLY reason it's in your wifes name, and it's obvious as all hell.


That and he went bankrupt. 


Rewire do or did any of your employees become your wifes employees?


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

Goldagain said:


> That and he went bankrupt.
> 
> 
> Rewire do or did any of your employees become your wifes employees?


 still trolling:thumbsup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rewire said:


> still trolling:thumbsup:


Dude

F U

I was asking you a question trying to be civil but you can **** right off.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

big2bird said:


> Apples and oranges. No one has to sign. However, there are conditions if you do. It's called a contract.


 its blood in blood out and with and endless pile of dues money to throw at lawyers they can force a company to sign. I have no doubt if my wife offered to sign it would all go away or she could spend thousands in lawyer fees to win and in this country loser does not have to pay .Costing my wife money and hurting the business is the union goal if she refuses to sign. 

The godfather , make an offer you cant refuse


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

rewire said:


> notice to who?



The elephant in the room?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

brian john said:


> But it seems to be legal and I am not sure on the UNION for life?


What do you think happens when the union organizes a company? :laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

jrannis said:


> That was way before your and my time.
> I like to think of gas at 25 cents a gallon but that ain't gonna happen either.
> Those are just nice ol stories.
> Nothing to do with 2013. Just nice stories.


Well it happen and thats how the union operated iam saying the union had a no real choice no one had a choice in the matter.

And i think my age is passed your age kid how old are you iam going on 61 years this year bro ?

You may be right its 2013 just think in another 20 years i think there will be no unions in this country we really dont need it .

You get paid by what you can do for the company we have rights today were not in the sweat shops anymore or dark ages .

If a company needs a worker to make them money doing a job for them and your doing that fairly well there making a profit they will pay for the service .

Its all about money bargain yourself dont play the market if you cant play outside the honest world .


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

rewire said:


> still trolling:thumbsup:


Don't you realize that doesn't work. Everyone sees right thru your lies, accusing me of trolling doesn't change anything.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Goldagain said:


> Rewire do or did any of your employees become your wifes employees?


You do realize why he won't answer this, right? :laughing:


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

Goldagain said:


> Dude
> 
> F U
> 
> I was asking you a question trying to be civil but you can **** right off.


 You had to be a d#ck and say I went bankrupt so I treated you like a troll.
If you don't want to be shlt on keep your head out of the toilet. 


Now you want to act all butt hurt


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Don't you realize that doesn't work. Everyone sees right thru your lies, accusing me of trolling doesn't change anything.


 I am not accusing you of trolling , you are trolling,:laughing::laughing:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

rewire said:


> I am not accusing you of trolling , you are trolling,:laughing::laughing:


Maybe I am, but you are still hiding behind your wife in order to get out of your union contract :laughing:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

rewire said:


> its blood in blood out and with and endless pile of dues money to throw at lawyers they can force a company to sign. I have no doubt if my wife offered to sign it would all go away or she could spend thousands in lawyer fees to win and in this country loser does not have to pay .Costing my wife money and hurting the business is the union goal if she refuses to sign.


Sounds more like breech on contract to me. I doubt the lawyers would pursue it unless there was merit to the case.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Maybe I am, but you are still hiding behind your wife in order to get out of your union contract :laughing:


 and you are stabbing all your union brothers in the back. 
:whistling2::whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

piperunner said:


> You may be right its 2013 just think in another 20 years i think there will be no unions in this country we really dont need it .
> 
> You get paid by what you can do for the company we have rights today were not in the sweat shops anymore or dark ages .
> 
> ...


Totally what piperunner is saying. Unions are going, going, gone. We're in between going and gone.

The workforce is going free market. Individualists, working for themselves, contracting work. Nobody joins a company when they're 18 anymore and expects to stay there until they retire. Now we flip jobs quicker than we flip homes. 

The workforce is changing and the employers are changing. The free rides are ending, soon you'll have to produce or take lesser pay. Good workers will make good money, and bad ones won't. We're all going to be our own business and some businesses will thrive, and others won't.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rewire said:


> You had to be a d#ck and say I went bankrupt so I treated you like a troll.
> If you don't want to be shlt on keep your head out of the toilet.
> 
> 
> Now you want to act all butt hurt


I told you before I can't keep track of what lie you tell on what forum. 

Correction he didn't go bankrupt (unless your a member of one of the other two or three places where he did go bankrupt. wtf ever.


Yes Hax of course I know why he didnt answer.

Next he'll be threatening to sue someone to get Mr Rewire removed from this forum too.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

big2bird said:


> Sounds more like breech on contract to me. I doubt the lawyers would pursue it unless there was merit to the case.


Lawyers do what they are paid by the union to do, my wife will win but not before the union costs her money. The union lawyer just wants paid and the union just wants to cost my wife money if they had to pay if they lost this would not be happening.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

Goldagain said:


> I told you before I can't keep track of what lie you tell on what forum.
> 
> Correction he didn't go bankrupt (unless your a member of one of the other two or three places where he did go bankrupt. wtf ever.
> 
> ...


tag team trolling:whistling2:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Totally what piperunner is saying. Unions are going, going, gone. We're in between going and gone.
> 
> The workforce is going free market. Individualists, working for themselves, contracting work. Nobody joins a company when they're 18 anymore and expects to stay there until they retire. Now we flip jobs quicker than we flip homes.
> 
> The workforce is changing and the employers are changing. The free rides are ending, soon you'll have to produce or take lesser pay. Good workers will make good money, and bad ones won't. We're all going to be our own business and some businesses will thrive, and others won't.


Just wait till some Republican introduces legislation to bring Chinese electricians over here for $10 an hour. They already tried it in San Franciso. 
Walmart will be the top paying job here.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

big2bird said:


> Just wait till some Republican introduces legislation to bring Chinese electricians over here for $10 an hour. They already tried it in San Franciso.
> Walmart will be the top paying job here.


They're doing it in Canada. They advertise jobs for length of time, with super low pay. Nobody wants the jobs, then they claim they can't get workers. So they get permission from the government to bring in foreign workers.

Happens too much here. That's the new reality.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

rewire said:


> Lawyers do what they are paid by the union to do, my wife will win but not before the union costs her money. The union lawyer just wants paid and the union just wants to cost my wife money if they had to pay if they lost this would not be happening.


The moral of the story? You shouldn't have weaseled out of your contract by having your wife open a new company.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> The moral of the story? You shouldn't have weaseled out of your contract by having your wife open a new company.


 in this corner weighing 123 1/4 /lb in pink and purple trunks the Troller :laughing::laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HackWork said:


> The moral of the story? You shouldn't have weaseled out of your contract by having your wife open a new company.


Actually, I have heard that done several times successfully. A large Union GC in DC did that in the 70-80's was all union then opened a open shop, worked double breasted, then shut down the union shop. 

I have no idea about the legality of all this with the contracts signed, but if it is his wife's company?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Threads yours rewire.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

big2bird said:


> Just wait till some Republican introduces legislation to bring Chinese electricians over here for $10 an hour. They already tried it in San Franciso.
> Walmart will be the top paying job here.


Except the Dems are pushing open immigration at present.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> They're doing it in Canada. They advertise jobs for length of time, with super low pay. Nobody wants the jobs, then they claim they can't get workers. So they get permission from the government to bring in foreign workers.
> 
> Happens too much here. That's the new reality.


If no one makes any money, who buys the products they are making?:blink:


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

Walmart did that in Canada when one of their stores in Quebec unionized. They just closed it.

Opened up another one somewhere down the road. Employees learned not the unionize the second time if they wanted to keep their jobs.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

brian john said:


> Actually, I have heard that done several times successfully. A large Union GC in DC did that in the 70-80's was all union then opened a open shop, worked double breasted, then shut down the union shop.
> 
> I have no idea about the legality of all this with the contracts signed, but if it is his wife's company?


Think about it.

His wife may have started the new company, but it's still under his license, he is the electrician with the experience, not his wife. It's the same tools from the old company, working out of the same house, employing some of the same men. It's pretty obvious...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

rewire said:


> in this corner weighing 123 1/4 /lb in pink and purple trunks the troller :laughing::laughing:


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Think about it.
> 
> His wife may have started the new company, but it's still under his license, he is the electrician with the experience, not his wife. It's the same tools from the old company, working out of the same house, employing some of the same men. It's pretty obvious...


 so how much of what you said is true or just your speculation? 

Our state requires no license. So she does not need any

I sold my tools ,big bender,threader, tugger all construction stuff.

She bought a few ladders a bag of battery tools and that's pretty much all you need to do resi service.

She operates out of the building she bought not our house.

All new people work for her

Not so obvious....


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

big2bird said:


> Just wait till some Republican introduces legislation to bring Chinese electricians over here for $10 an hour. They already tried it in San Franciso.
> Walmart will be the top paying job here.


 We should get Right to Work this year :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

big2bird said:


> If no one makes any money, who buys the products they are making?:blink:


It's usually big companies doing large construction projects or mining.. that sort of thing. Or it's any and all service jobs in towns that booming from construction, mining and oil/gas. 

So it could be Chinese trades guys for big projects/mines. Or it could be Filipino workers for the service sector. Those are two examples up here.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

rewire said:


> so how much of what you said is true or just your speculation?
> 
> Our state requires no license. So she does not need any
> 
> ...


Lies, all lies, and you know it.

Your company hasn't done a single thing that having a woman as the owner could help with. The only reason why you put your wife in that position was to try to weasel out of your contract. Only rewire would even attempt to deny this :thumbup::thumbup::laughing:


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Lies, all lies, and you know it.
> 
> Your company hasn't done a single thing that having a woman as the owner could help with. The only reason why you put your wife in that position was to try to weasel out of your contract. Only rewire would even attempt to deny this :thumbup::thumbup::laughing:


 So if you repeat a word over and over does it become true in your mind?

Well it is her money:whistling2::thumbsup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

rewire said:


> So if you repeat a word over and over does it become true in your mind?
> 
> Well it is her money:whistling2::thumbsup:


NEXT TOPIC.........aaaaaaaa


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

rewire said:


> So if you repeat a word over and over does it become true in your mind?
> 
> Well it is her money:whistling2::thumbsup:


 the old rewire is back!:laughing:


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

piperunner said:


> Well it happen and thats how the union operated iam saying the union had a no real choice no one had a choice in the matter.
> 
> And i think my age is passed your age kid how old are you iam going on 61 years this year bro ?
> 
> ...


I'm in my mid 50s so, that means that I have worked with guys 30 years ago that we're in their 50s and 60s. I've never heard of a first hand story about any of these union car burning a or what ever. 

Also, some here seem to believe that if you are a union electrician and are sent to a job, they roll out a red carpet, hand you a donut and coffee and ask you to please strap one peace of EMT per week, and if you don't, we can't fire you. :laughing::laughing:

Every %100 union job I have been on required you to be on the job, ready to work at 7 or 8 what ever the starting time was.
Depending on the foreman, a 15 minute break, no breaks are in the contract, and lunch was 12 sharp. You were expected to be back working at 12:31.
Everyone had to produce, we were well managed and pushed.
Materials were there, tools were there and incredible amounts of work got done.
I was fresh out of the Marine Corps when I was an apprentice and saw good hard structure on those jobs and loved it.

Now that most of these jobs here are non union, I have noticed that they are grabassicly managed just due to the fact that labor isn't as valuable and can be redone at the workers expense mostly because they are treated as third world piece workers. 
This is the transition I have seen in the trade.
Maybe your 8years experience on me is different and maybe that's how they did it up north but here, I know better.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

In 43 years I have worked open shop and union. I can truly say that I have seen skunk quality work, mismanaged projects and slackers on both sides of the line. No one all encompassing group owns any special knowledge, secret to quality or extra skills because they belong or don't belong to any group.

I will say there are a wider variety of classes available to union members, though the percentage of members that takes these classes seems low (no scientific poll), just my experience.

What I tell young men (I have spoken at local Votech*1 classes) is, you have to work 40 hours a week, typically another 40 or more years, you may as well get as much per hour with transferable (it is yours) insurance and retirement. If you work 40 years 50 weeks a year and the difference is 10.00 an hour you will make an additional $800,000 in your pocket.

*1-In the two votech classes I use to speak at the teachers were as anti-union as it gets.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

brian john said:


> In 43 years I have worked open shop and union. I can truly say that I have seen skunk quality work, mismanaged projects and slackers on both sides of the line. No one all encompassing group owns any special knowledge, secret to quality or extra skills because they belong or don't belong to any group.
> 
> I will say there are a wider variety of classes available to union members, though the percentage of members that takes these classes seems low (no scientific poll), just my experience.
> 
> ...


Were they as anti union as you?


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

HackWork said:


> Think about it.
> 
> His wife may have started the new company, but it's still under his license, he is the electrician with the experience, not his wife. It's the same tools from the old company, working out of the same house, employing some of the same men. It's pretty obvious...


He's trying to operate as an alter ego.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

EBFD6 said:


> But someone said........
> 
> 
> Sounds like it isn't "all voluntary" after all. Of course we all knew that anyway.


I don't see the link. 2 Different things. Nice try though.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

But the Piped one is _right_ about Union busting Jrannis. I'm in my mid 50's and have been witness to it my whole working career. The globalists in effect having instituted open season on them, starting with public unions , knowing it'll affect all else.

These captains of commerce are the same folks who _howl _about labor shortages, in the middle of our longest depression. Their aim is to have the middle class fighting with _each _other , over mere crumbs while the disparity grows ,landing in the coffers of those few elites on top.

One's gotta be fairly numb to _buy into it_ all, have zero recall of any history, or just be a political tool

Unfortunately, however,the unions do.

Imho you're are all folks who put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us, yet you've some rather polluted sorts that just _have to_ create divisions

Your reps are obviously in bed with the very elements out to dismantle the entire ideal of unions , historically siding with any and all legislative elements that would _kill off _smaller weaker IBEW competition in America 

and after a generation of it, now it's biting YOU in the azz, leaving your leaders with the _unmitigated gall_ to talk like this>



> "As global economic policies have sucked good-paying jobs overseas, we have more than enough men and women willing to learn and take jobs in growing fields, including our own trade," President Hill said. "It makes me raging mad to hear politicians talk about jobs that 'Americans won't do' when they fail to add the words 'at poverty wages.'"


And because some of us understand very well that we, the non-union contingent, are also going to be subjected to the decline of labor upon your demise , we've become a tad upset about it

You folks need to understand the _concept_ you were founded on , we're _all_ in this together.....get your sh*t in one sock!

~CS~


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

brian john said:


> Actually, I have heard that done several times successfully. A large Union GC in DC did that in the 70-80's was all union then opened a open shop, worked double breasted, then shut down the union shop.
> 
> I have no idea about the legality of all this with the contracts signed, but if it is his wife's company?


You say it was done several times, yet your example is one from the 70's. Man your old.:laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Loose Neutral said:


> You say it was done several times, yet your example is one from the 70's. Man your old.:laughing:


Yeah, but those are the only examples I know of, sorry. It seems (and I do not work construction regularly) the large GCs we use to have in the 60's and 70's around here had laborers and carpenters that is no longer the case. GCs seem to strictly manage, with very few employees working with their hands.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Loose Neutral said:


> Were they as anti union as you?


I have no clue as I am not anti-union, I am pragmatic and see both sides of the discussion, not blinded by rhetoric or BS promoted by either side. They were directing their students to work open shop and were getting them jobs with large open shops.

I was trying to give them an informed choice.


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

Loose Neutral said:


> I don't see the link. 2 Different things. Nice try though.


Of course you don't. I wouldn't expect you to.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

Loose Neutral said:


> He's trying to operate as an alter ego.


 That is their claim but case law does not support them the 6th district ruled that being related is not enough . The suit is in discvery and when she provides all the proof that she has separate vans,tools,location,employees and is servicing a different market segment the case should be dropped . But not after costing her thousands in lawyer fees which she cannot recover .


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

rewire said:


> That is their claim but case law does not support them the 6th district ruled that being related is not enough . The suit is in discvery and when she provides all the proof that she has separate vans,tools,location,employees and is servicing a different market segment the case should be dropped . But not after costing her thousands in lawyer fees which she cannot recover .


What credentials does your wife have to be an electrical contractor? How many years did she work as an apprentice? A journeyman? What qualifies her as a master electrician? There may not be a license, but electrical contractors are still made up of electrician. Except for the times when that EC owner is just a paper owner in order to deceive :whistling2:

You can try to paint it any way that you want, but the true story is still very apparent.

Here's the thing, if you went to the union like a man and discussed this, told them how you failed and your wife was going to give it a try, you wouldn't be having these issues now. The only reason why the union is going after you is because you purposely deceived them, you use low-life tactics to get around your contract. You hid behind your wife instead of facing your problems. 

And even now that you have been caught, you are still going to waste the union member's money to fight you instead of just complying with what you owe. Instead of completing your contract. You said that all they wanted was to look at her books, something that you should have just showed them because you knew you were at fault. If you did that, maybe you wouldn't be having the legal troubles that you are having now. But instead of doing it the right way, this is your attitude:



chicken steve said:


> so you pissed off the unions rewire?
> 
> 
> rewire said:
> ...


So you deserve what you get. :thumbsup:


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

rewire said:


> That is their claim but case law does not support them the 6th district ruled that being related is not enough . The suit is in discvery and when she provides all the proof that she has separate vans,tools,location,employees and is servicing a different market segment the case should be dropped . But not after costing her thousands in lawyer fees which she cannot recover .


Did you owe any benefit money?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Loose Neutral said:


> Did you owe any benefit money?



I was wondering the same thing.

In theory tho if a contractor owed benefits/wages and did go bankrupt wouldn't they still have to pay those benefits/wages?

Seems like one of those things that would be paid first after liquidating assets (in 7) etc etc.

Not saying anyone in this thread did or didn't go bankrupt...


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

EBFD6 said:


> Of course you don't. I wouldn't expect you to.


If you made sense, I might have shot.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

Goldagain said:


> I was wondering the same thing.
> 
> In theory tho if a contractor owed benefits/wages and did go bankrupt wouldn't they still have to pay those benefits/wages?
> 
> ...


yup, very common. Owe money, then try to open up as an alter ego. We will aggressively pursue and collect what's owed, just like any other debt.


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

Loose Neutral said:


> Did you owe any benefit money?


 no all my payments were timely and done through our payrole service


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> What credentials does your wife have to be an electrical contractor? How many years did she work as an apprentice? A journeyman? What qualifies her as a master electrician? There may not be a license, but electrical contractors are still made up of electrician. Except for the times when that EC owner is just a paper owner in order to deceive :whistling2:
> 
> You can try to paint it any way that you want, but the true story is still very apparent.
> 
> ...


 Stick to facts and not your made up BS


----------



## rewire (Jul 2, 2013)

HackWork said:


> What credentials does your wife have to be an electrical contractor? How many years did she work as an apprentice? A journeyman? What qualifies her as a master electrician? There may not be a license, but electrical contractors are still made up of electrician. Except for the times when that EC owner is just a paper owner in order to deceive :whistling2:
> 
> You can try to paint it any way that you want, but the true story is still very apparent.
> 
> ...


 Do you think your union brothers are going to let you slide for stabbing them in the back and opening a non union shop? Don't you swear some obligation? You ever become a real contractor and they will put you in their cross haitrs then I hope you get what you deserve


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

Goldagain said:


> I was wondering the same thing.
> 
> In theory tho if a contractor owed benefits/wages and did go bankrupt wouldn't they still have to pay those benefits/wages?
> 
> ...


...are union contractors bonded as a requirement of joining the union?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

rewire said:


> Do you think your union brothers are going to let you slide for stabbing them in the back and opening a non union shop?


 Yes, I do think they are going to "let me slide". I did not stab anyone in the back. ALL new shops are opened non-union. 

My hall knows that I am an unsigned contractor. My hall provided the study courses for me to get my contractor license, they also provide the CEU courses for me to maintain it. They are extremely helpful in getting members into business. They also understand that a brand new contractor can't just sign with them and compete with union contractors at the beginning before becoming established and certainly can't pay the $25,000 bond. That growing process is something that they help you with.

As for my brothers, I have put 4 to work at different times and I currently have one working for me as steady as I could make it. 



> Don't you swear some obligation?


 And I am abiding by it. My work is done at the discretion of the Business Manager and does not compete with signatory contractors. 

The hall knows that I have an active electrical business permit in NJ and they could require me to deactivate it at any time, or bring me up on charges if I don't. They have the discretion to allow it. 



> You ever become a real contractor and they will put you in their cross haitrs then I hope you get what you deserve


I am a real contractor. They will only go after me if I knowingly did something against the union, which I have not. 

I've been around NJ unions for a long time, they are relatively strong when compared to other unions around the country. I could be very critical of unions at times, but one thing that I have to give them credit for is that they are always willing to work with you if you are willing to work with them back. In your case, when they asked to see your wife's books, instead of trying to clear it up (since you were wrong in the first place) you went on the offensive and that is why the union will pound you into the ground.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

360max said:


> ...are union contractors bonded as a requirement of joining the union?


Sometimes money owed can exceed the bond.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

rewire said:


> I didn't sign for life. I was a signatory contractor now I am not. The fact my wife choose to start a business has nothing to do with the scum bag union. They know this and she will win but not after having to spend money and the scum union knows this.


What qualifications does your wife have that enables her to run an electrical contracting business?
Sounds very fishy to me.




brian john said:


> I have no idea about the legality of all this with the contracts signed, but if it is his wife's company?


Can she legally run this business without being an electrician?



brian john said:


> Except the Dems are pushing open immigration at present.


With immigrants getting green cards and paying taxes. This way they are not so easy to take advantage of.



rewire said:


> so how much of what you said is true or just your speculation?
> 
> Our state requires no license. So she does not need any
> 
> ...


I smell fish.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

John Valdes said:


> What qualifications does your wife have that enables her to run an electrical contracting business?
> Sounds very fishy to me.
> 
> *...what if she is a business major and has the money?*
> ...


Just because you own a business does not mean you need to be an expert in a specific field. Do GC's bid on entire projects, and then sub out work to licensed professionals? Just a thought.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

This is a pretty comical thread when you realize the Unions most commonly used word is "re-negotiate".:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Loose Neutral said:


> Sometimes money owed can exceed the bond.


It shouldn't. The hall has the ability to pull all of your workers off the job for non-payment of benefits. 

Our bond is $10k per worker. I thought that amount was part of the common contract language agreed to by NECA and the International.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It shouldn't. The hall has the ability to pull all of your workers off the job for non-payment of benefits.
> 
> Our bond is $10k per worker. I thought that amount was part of the common contract language agreed to by NECA and the International.


Sometimes they get in the rears and you try to work with them. If it doesn't work you pull the men


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It shouldn't. The hall has the ability to pull all of your workers off the job for non-payment of benefits.


And then what happens? The company goes under and the men never get their benefit money anyway.

Working with the contractor is a much better method than pulling the guys sand halting the business the second they get behind.


----------



## Charlie K (Aug 14, 2008)

HackWork said:


> And then what happens? The company goes under and the men never get their benefit money anyway.
> 
> Working with the contractor is a much better method than pulling the guys sand halting the business the second they get behind.


Most Locals will work with the contractor. They pull the men as a last resort. When a contractor has benefit-payroll problems the local will go after the bond to pay the employees wages and benefits. If the job has a performance bond they will go after that also to repay the men.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Loose Neutral said:


> Sometimes they get in the rears and you try to work with them. If it doesn't work you pull the men


Here the guys are pulled when they get close to the $10,000 per person bond limit. That gives some time to work with the contractor, but not a lot with the bennies running about $24 per hour.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Charlie K said:


> Most Locals will work with the contractor. They pull the men as a last resort. When a contractor has benefit-payroll problems the local will go after the bond to pay the employees wages and benefits. If the job has a performance bond they will go after that also to repay the men.


I don't see how they can go after the performance bond. That is paid for by and intended to protect the owner, making sure his job can be completed if the contractor cannot complete the job.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It shouldn't. The hall has the ability to pull all of your workers off the job for non-payment of benefits.
> 
> Our bond is $10k per worker. I thought that amount was part of the common contract language agreed to by NECA and the International.


It happens. 

The local wants the members employed, sometimes they need to be flexible with a contractor. One month late might save a project for a contractor allowing for many more months of employment from some workers.

The other part of it is the local does not know what it is owed until the union report is submitted by the contractor ( typically weeks into the next month ). If a project goes into lots of overtime the benefits due might double or triple a typical month.

A common scenario is the construction management company decides that some arbitrary deadline needs to be met, forcing the EC to put on massive overtime, then they dangle a payment for a week or two. Now the EC just drained his accounts to make payroll and is not getting paid right away - benefits are due on the 20th of the next month - you can understand them getting behind.

Most locals understand that and will work with a contractor. 

Occasionally a contractor will not pay up, ever. 

Now, that is really really bad - because that money doesn't go to the local, that money goes through the local and into general health and welfare funds and INDIVIDUALS' retirement and vacation funds etc. 

So the actual employee gets hosed ( usually the local makes up for it ).

Chances are good if the local did not get paid, social security and federal/state withholdings did not get paid either.

Damn straight a local is going after someone who reopens after doing that.

Turn it around, you work for Corner Bakery and they stiff you. They close and reopen in a couple of days as The Corner Bakery and claim it is an entirely different business, go pound salt. Would you not pursue it?


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

360max said:


> Just because you own a business does not mean you need to be an expert in a specific field. Do GC's bid on entire projects, and then sub out work to licensed professionals? Just a thought.


In some states the business owner must be a licensed electrician

That is why


----------



## Cl906um (Jul 21, 2012)

pretty crazy to bid a job when you cant do the work. did some lightening protection which had to be ul approved. pretty sure con lost their ass. i learned a few things and it probably took me twice as long,but its all good. got to ride a 200 ft. jlg. took some nice pics while up there. specialty training is out there for a reason. i dont blame myself for not knowing any better.


----------

