# who here has been involved in a strike or other action towards contractors



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

I wouldn't touch on this topic with oven mitts.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

blusolstice said:


> First of all i'm out of local 20 DFW in TX, in the last contract negotiations we entered into a modified CIR agreement meaning that both the labor and the contractor side have to want to go to CIR. this means that when our contract is up on November 30th the contractors submit their final offers and then ten days later we either accept it or take action. i was just wondering if anyone has been through this scenario to get an idea of what kind of recourse we might have. bacically the contractors are wanting to lower our wages somewhere between $4-$6 per hr, cut our annuity in half and make insurance a 50/50 contribution. any insight would be appreciated.


WOW! Is the market that bad?
How many men on the bench?
What percentage of the market do you have?
What is scale?
what is the open shop average?

I understand freezing everything but going backwards, that's always tough.


----------



## blusolstice (Sep 17, 2010)

we hover at around 160ish on the books with less than 2000 members, we have roughly 8-10% of the work, scale is 24.15 and open shop is all over the place for journeyman pay..good hands usually make $23-$28 per hr. i'm freshly turned out so it's got me concerned to say the least.


----------



## Nildogg (Jul 29, 2010)

You accept or reject. If you reject it goes to CIR (arbitrator) and then you get a letter telling you what your new contract is.


----------



## blusolstice (Sep 17, 2010)

Nildogg said:


> You accept or reject. If you reject it goes to CIR (arbitrator) and then you get a letter telling you what your new contract is.


that's just it, the contractors have to accept it going to CIR as well, we're under a modified CIR clause. if they don't want it to go to CIR then we have to either accept their offer or attempt to take action against them..i'm not sure of what that includes other than striking.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

I hope you have a nest egg built up.

Ultimatums hardly ever end well.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

blusolstice said:


> we hover at around 160ish on the books with less than 2000 members, we have roughly 8-10% of the work, scale is 24.15 and open shop is all over the place for journeyman pay..good hands usually make $23-$28 per hr. i'm freshly turned out so it's got me concerned to say the least.



Considering the economy your unemployment rate is not that bad._(unless of course, your one of the guy's out of work)_.I would tell NECA to go pound dirt. Lowering the rate never improves market share. Just ask the locals that have done it.

Earlier in the year we were in a similar situation. NECA was making all types of outrageous demands. We told them what we expected and it went to a stalemate. We went to a strike vote with a unanimous vote in favor of a strike. We ended up with an $8 raise over 3 years.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

How about getting rid so called "contractor supplied insurance". You are paying way too much for it. You could probably give back 50% and keep 50% on the check to purchase your own insurance and be better off and have extra money in the bank.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

knowshorts said:


> How about getting rid so called "contractor supplied insurance". You are paying way too much for it. You could probably give back 50% and keep 50% on the check to purchase your own insurance and be better off and have extra money in the bank.




Yeah, so says the contractor.


----------



## blusolstice (Sep 17, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Considering the economy your unemployment rate is not that bad._(unless of course, your one of the guy's out of work)_.I would tell NECA to go pound dirt. Lowering the rate never improves market share. Just ask the locals that have done it.
> 
> Earlier in the year we were in a similar situation. NECA was making all types of outrageous demands. We told them what we expected and it went to a stalemate. We went to a strike vote with a unanimous vote in favor of a strike. We ended up with an $8 raise over 3 years.


this is kind of the outcome i was anticipating, hopefully ours goes as well..thx for responding.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

I been involved in salting against two non-union contractors.

Not quite the same thing.

I am more concerned about people being treated with dignity and respect than I am worried about the package.

Sadly, I have noticed that non-union contractors treat their hands better. Not quite sure if it makes up for the pay disparity though.


----------



## blusolstice (Sep 17, 2010)

miller_elex said:


> I been involved in salting against two non-union contractors.
> 
> Not quite the same thing.
> 
> ...


from my personal experience, i worked open shop for ten years in florida before moving back to texas and starting the apprenticeship. i worked for the same shop all ten years and was treated very well, the owner was a retired union guy from Jersey. since being union i have noticed a very us and them attitude separating the contractors and the labor, and if someone goes above and beyond they're immediately tagged a suck ass. it's unfortunate that we can't have a better relationship with them..it would definitely be advantageous for both sides.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> Earlier in the year we were in a similar situation. NECA was making all types of outrageous demands. We told them what we expected and it went to a stalemate. We went to a strike vote with a unanimous vote in favor of a strike. We ended up with an $8 raise over 3 years.


Don't you think an $8 over 3 is a little extreme in this economy? The C.O.L. hasn't gone up, what did you use to justify that raise?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

knowshorts said:


> How about getting rid so called "contractor supplied insurance". You are paying way too much for it. You could probably give back 50% and keep 50% on the check to purchase your own insurance and be better off and have extra money in the bank.


Can you explain this further?

What is "contractor supplied insurance" and how could we get insurance for half as much as we are paying now??


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

blusolstice said:


> from my personal experience, i worked open shop for ten years in florida before moving back to texas and starting the apprenticeship. i worked for the same shop all ten years and was treated very well, the owner was a retired union guy from Jersey. since being union i have noticed a very us and them attitude separating the contractors and the labor, and if someone goes above and beyond they're immediately tagged a suck ass. i*t's unfortunate that we can't have a better relationship with them..it would definitely be advantageous for both sides.*



It's funny that you say this. When we had are dispute with NECA earlier this year it was the first time in a long time there was a riff between the labor & the contractor's.

But it wasn't really the contractors per say, Jeff Scarpello who heads the local NECA chapter was trying to make a name for himself by "taking on big bad local 98" (his words). With the backing of only a small handful of contractors. The majority of the contractors were willing to sign up front as to continue working. We said no-way, everyone signs or no one signs.

It turned out he was a piss poor negotiator and started to catch heat from the contractors for not getting a deal done. Especially when word came down that the IO sanctioned our strike vote.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HackWork said:


> Don't you think an $8 over 3 is a little extreme in this economy? The C.O.L. hasn't gone up, what did you use to justify that raise?


We compare the rates of other locals in similar markets, the other mechanical trades in the area, COL (explain to me how it has gone down), not to mention the fantastic job the local does in maintaining a 90% market share in the jurisdiction and even securing large % market share in our suburbs.


----------



## blusolstice (Sep 17, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> It's funny that you say this. When we had are dispute with NECA earlier this year it was the first time in a long time there was a riff between the labor & the contractor's.
> 
> But it wasn't really the contractors per say, Jeff Scarpello who heads the local NECA chapter was trying to make a name for himself by "taking on big bad local 98" (his words). With the backing of only a small handful of contractors. The majority of the contractors were willing to sign up front as to continue working. We said no-way, everyone signs or no one signs.
> 
> It turned out he was a piss poor negotiator and started to catch heat from the contractors for not getting a deal done. Especially when word came down that the IO sanctioned our strike vote.


well i can say that the three contractors i've worked for in our local it's a very us and them atmosphere, and by what i've heard from others the majority of our contractors are the same. the only contractor that's not part of trying to lower our wages and cut benefits is Morley Moss, they're still under the standard CIR agreement. Rosenden has bought an existing office to start bidding work here and they've expressed that they won't be a part of the group trying to move us backwards, otherwise by my knowledge every other contractor is wanting to considerably lower our package.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

blusolstice said:


> well i can say that the three contractors i've worked for in our local it's a very us and them atmosphere, and by what i've heard from others the majority of our contractors are the same. the only contractor that's not part of trying to lower our wages and cut benefits is Morley Moss, they're still under the standard CIR agreement. Rosenden has bought an existing office to start bidding work here and they've expressed that they won't be a part of the group trying to move us backwards, otherwise by my knowledge every other contractor is wanting to considerably lower our package.


Don't get me wrong, there is a "us vrs them" sentiment that exists but it is by and large unfounded. Although this could easily be attributed to the 12+ years of full employment we had up until the last 2 years. Things are different now and even the long time shoppies are getting let go. We'll see how the relationship fairs over the next few years.

Hopefully your negotiating team sticks to there guns, you'll never regain what was given up.


----------



## blusolstice (Sep 17, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Don't get me wrong, there is a "us vrs them" sentiment that exists but it is by and large unfounded. Although this could easily be attributed to the 12+ years of full employment we had up until the last 2 years. Things are different now and even the long time shoppies are getting let go. We'll see how the relationship fairs over the next few years.
> 
> Hopefully your negotiating team sticks to there guns, you'll never regain what was given up.


yup..thx


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Don't get me wrong, there is a "us vrs them" sentiment that exists but it is by and large unfounded.


I am not slamming you, I do not want to argue, I am just pointing out from reading your post for a while, YOU COME ACROSS as an us against you kind of guy.

I could be ay wrong and way off base just a personal observation.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> I am not slamming you, I do not want to argue, I am just pointing out from reading your post for a while, YOU COME ACROSS as an us, you kind of guy.
> 
> I could be ay wrong and way off base just a personal observation.



No, I can see that. But you have to take it in context. What do most of the arguments turn into here on this site? An "us vs them" type of throw down with no one ever really budging from there stance. It's quite obvious were I would fall into in one of those types of arguments.

In reality, I'm more concerned with what's fair.(and profitable for both sides).

And from reading my posts for a while on this site, you must admit, I am also critical of my own union at times.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

brian john said:


> I am not slamming you, I do not want to argue, I am just pointing out from reading your post for a while, YOU COME ACROSS as an us against you kind of guy.
> 
> I could be ay wrong and way off base just a personal observation.


Let's be honest, a union is a parasitic organization. It costs billions to run. The only reason we put the money into running unions is because in the real world it truly is an "us vs. them" situation. If it weren't, if we could get along and come to fair agreements that everyone was happy with, we wouldn't need the union.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

HackWork said:


> Can you explain this further?
> 
> What is "contractor supplied insurance" and how could we get insurance for half as much as we are paying now??



Most union guys are under the believe that the contractors pay for their insurance. When in fact, it is paid for by the employees. When there are money allocation meetings, the union heads usually say something like our health funds are getting low. In order to maintain the best insurance for you guys, you must give up $0.50 of this allocation and put it toward medical. 

While it is true the contractors are the ones actual writing the check, they are using money that was already allocated to the membership.

One of the local locals around here has a medical rate of over $8.00 an hour. If you work full time that is over $15000 your missing off your check. I have heard locals on the east coast where it is over $25000. Individual insurance policies are cheaper than group plans. I say give the money to the guys and let them decide if they wish to purchase insurance and how much. 

Young, single guys could get away with a catastrophic only plan for around $1500 a year. A good portion of married guys could be added on to the spouses insurance for around $2500 a year. *But, why not give the membership the choice to make their own decisions?* I know, that's a pretty stupid question.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

Well don't forget what your paying for. Most likely an hour bank and retirees. That's a big part of the equation.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

knowshorts said:


> Most union guys are under the believe that the contractors pay for their insurance. When in fact, it is paid for by the employees. When there are money allocation meetings, the union heads usually say something like our health funds are getting low. In order to maintain the best insurance for you guys, you must give up $0.50 of this allocation and put it toward medical.
> 
> While it is true the contractors are the ones actual writing the check, they are using money that was already allocated to the membership.
> 
> ...



It's not quite that simple. The H&W covers the members, there spouses and children. We cover out of work members and retirees as well. I'm a perfect example. I went out of work on an injury in late 2009. Had two surgery's in 2010. I haven't worked at all in 2010. My workers comp is still tied up in court. Both my surgeries cost over $30,000 each plus all the associated testing, medication, therapy, etc.

If I was on a single payer system I could have very easily been denied coverage OR had my rates increased, not to mention since I'm not working I probably wouldn't have been able to afford to keep paying for the coverage any way.

Before I was union I bought my own insurance. It was lousy, overpriced, and complicated. And I'm a young, healthy guy. I couldn't imagine affording the type of coverage I have now that covers my wife, children and myself.

And what about the people that can't *be added on to the spouses insurance for around $2500 a year.* Because the spouse is dependent upon our plan.(you know, like her work doesn't have health coverage).Sounds to me you just want to dump the burden of health care anywhere else besides the contractor.(typical)

For the money I have the best health care on the planet. No co-pays for prescriptions, No co-pay's for doctor's visits, $20 for the emergency room, $10 for a specialist, no referrals, no bull sh*t. The way health insurance should be.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

In DC over 1/2 my men would be covered under their wives plans for less that they/WE/I pay.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> It's not quite that simple. The H&W covers the members, there spouses and children. We cover out of work members and retirees as well. I'm a perfect example. I went out of work on an injury in late 2009. Had two surgery's in 2010. I haven't worked at all in 2010. My workers comp is still tied up in court. Both my surgeries cost over $30,000 each plus all the associated testing, medication, therapy, etc.


I know every local is different. All I can go by is the locals nearby me. Take an apprentice for example. He works 5 years, solid. 1st year he contributes $7.00 per hour. 2nd through 5th years he contributes $8.54 per hour. (numbers found on CA DIR website). So 2000 hours at $7.00 is $14000 for the 1st year and 8000 hours at $8.54 an hour is $68320. For a total of $82320 spent by an apprentice for health care. Now, all he really needed for those 5 years of coverage is 100 hours a month. So he only needed to work 6000 hours to earn that same coverage. But after all that hard work, he can only "bank" 6 months (or 600 hours) worth. This underpaid, barely making ends meet apprentice just gave up almost $30000. For what? This local doesn't pay insurance for the unemployed members. Once your bank hours are gone, you're done, go see mr. overpriced cobra. Retirees are screwed also. They only get a supplemental package until medicare takes over. They still have the option to continue past that, but the rates for an 83 year old married couple with medicare and a supplemental are still thousands cheaper than the union retiree's benefits. 


> If I was on a single payer system I could have very easily been denied coverage OR had my rates increased, not to mention since I'm not working I probably wouldn't have been able to afford to keep paying for the coverage any way.


If you had the option to keep your money, invest it, you could have paid your medical bills in cash at probably more than 50% savings, and had a nice tax deduction. That's right, even though members are paying for their own medical insurance, they do not get the right to claim that expense on their 1040's. 



> Before I was union I bought my own insurance. It was lousy, overpriced, and complicated. And I'm a young, healthy guy. I couldn't imagine affording the type of coverage I have now that covers my wife, children and myself.
> 
> And what about the people that can't *be added on to the spouses insurance for around $2500 a year.* Because the spouse is dependent upon our plan.(you know, like her work doesn't have health coverage).


I don't know what kind of coverage you needed. I am somewhat young and healthy too, and can get by with $1500 a year policy. For basic stuff, it's easier and cheaper just to pay cash.

I understand a lot of women aren't very independent and rely on their man. I don't want to sound sexist, but who's gonna pay for insurance if we up and leave or get killed?



> Sounds to me you just want to dump the burden of health care anywhere else besides the contractor.(typical)


I wanted to address this sentence separately. Yes, I am a contractor. Whoop de fricken do. All that separates me from you is a piece of paper in my wallet. I am still an electrician. I get up before the roosters, go to work, come home, see the family, eat dinner, and go to bed. Why did I do it? So I can have my own hours, not miss school plays, watch pop warner football games, take a week off and do nothing without worrying if I have a job when I get back. Not having to worry about other co workers stabbing me in the back.

And a little news flash...The burden of health care is always on the employees. A union contractor doesn't pay for it, his employees do. A non union contractor doesn't pay for it, his employees do. Even if employees are led to believe the company is buying their medical, they are getting less on the check



> For the money I have the best health care on the planet. No co-pays for prescriptions, No co-pay's for doctor's visits, $20 for the emergency room, $10 for a specialist, no referrals, no bull sh*t. The way health insurance should be.


Fine, but you're most likely paying an arm and a leg for it. 

All I was saying, is why isn't there choices?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

> knowshorts;309397]I know every local is different. All I can go by is the locals nearby me. Take an apprentice for example. He works 5 years, solid. 1st year he contributes $7.00 per hour. 2nd through 5th years he contributes $8.54 per hour. (numbers found on CA DIR website). So 2000 hours at $7.00 is $14000 for the 1st year and 8000 hours at $8.54 an hour is $68320. For a total of $82320 spent by an apprentice for health care. Now, all he really needed for those 5 years of coverage is 100 hours a month. So he only needed to work 6000 hours to earn that same coverage. But after all that hard work, he can only "bank" 6 months (or 600 hours) worth. This underpaid, barely making ends meet apprentice just gave up almost $30000. For what? This local doesn't pay insurance for the unemployed members. Once your bank hours are gone, you're done, go see mr. overpriced cobra. Retirees are screwed also. They only get a supplemental package until medicare takes over. They still have the option to continue past that, but the rates for an 83 year old married couple with medicare and a supplemental are still thousands cheaper than the union retiree's benefits.


I can not comment on what other local's do with there health care packages. But what your not taking into consideration is, what a union is. It's a group concept. Those young apprentices who are remaining healthy and working are in essence paying for the older guy's who have health problems, the kids who have chronic illnesses or the wife with cancer. All these things cost much more to treat then the $14,000 a year spent on health care by the contractor.




> If you had the option to keep your money, invest it, you could have paid your medical bills in cash at probably more than 50% savings, and had a nice tax deduction. That's right, even though members are paying for their own medical insurance, they do not get the right to claim that expense on their 1040's.


I doubt it. I'll venture to say that my total cost this year for treatment was close to $90,000 maybe more. Have you ever seen what they charge for 45 minute MRI. Around $5,000. I have had no less then 6 MRI's this year with two of them requiring an Arthrogramy. (that's extra).



> I don't know what kind of coverage you needed. I am somewhat young and healthy too, and can get by with $1500 a year policy. For basic stuff, it's easier and cheaper just to pay cash.


What's basic stuff? And how is it cheaper to pay cash? Doctor's visit's $75 a visit maybe more. How about prescriptions, or god forbid a specialist. It all equals cash. Chances are if you can't afford to buy your own health care your not gonna be able to afford paying these things in cash.

Let's not forget one thing, the protection of the group plan. I can not be dropped by the insurance company. There under contract, however as an individual purchaser of insurance they can refuse to pay the bill and drop me when ever they wish. 



> I understand a lot of women aren't very independent and rely on their man. I don't want to sound sexist, but who's gonna pay for insurance if we up and leave or get killed?


Now this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.(and there's a lot of dumb things on this site). Now your contradicting yourself. On one hand your suggesting that the men could save money by getting on there wife's insurance but the other way around, the women are needy???




> I wanted to address this sentence separately. Yes, I am a contractor. Whoop de fricken do. All that separates me from you is a piece of paper in my wallet. I am still an electrician. I get up before the roosters, go to work, come home, see the family, eat dinner, and go to bed. Why did I do it? So I can have my own hours, not miss school plays, watch pop warner football games, take a week off and do nothing without worrying if I have a job when I get back. Not having to worry about other co workers stabbing me in the back.


This has nothing to do with this conversation. But you being a contractor has everything to do with not wanting to make contributions to pay for the employee's health care.



> And a little news flash...The burden of health care is always on the employees. A union contractor doesn't pay for it, his employees do. A non union contractor doesn't pay for it, his employees do. Even if employees are led to believe the company is buying their medical, they are getting less on the check


Your not a union contractor. And your speculating how the cost work. The health and welfare is negotiated separately. The negotiations are between the local, the contractors, and the health care provider. Our last contract with the provider was a year longer then the rest of the agreement. We negotiated a great deal with the provider that the contractors were very happy with.



> Fine, but you're most likely paying an arm and a leg for it.


I'm not saying it isn't expensive but there's no way to get comparable coverage for less. I could only imagine what the hospital bills would look like if I didn't have the coverage I have now.



> All I was saying, is why isn't there choices?


Choice of what? Being union means collective bargaining, as in a group contract. It's the general philosophy of being union.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Whoa, I agree with Vic :blink::laughing:


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

HealthNet is a racket. 

I am glad to know that my plan is not run for profit. That helps a little bit I guess. I know my plan is far superior the HealthNet, you won't find anyone to disagree with that.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

miller_elex said:


> HealthNet is a racket.
> 
> I am glad to know that my plan is not run for profit. That helps a little bit I guess. I know my plan is far superior the HealthNet, you won't find anyone to disagree with that.


Wait till you find out that will be taxed as your total gross income 1 jan 2011:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

HARRY304E said:


> Wait till you find out that will be taxed as your total gross income 1 jan 2011:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


:laughing: Harry, I'll be checking my paystub! If it doesn't happen, I'll be sure to remind you about every 15 minutes or so, that it hasn't happened yet. Better hide gramma in the cellar, they're coming to euthanize her by lawful decree!


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

miller_elex said:


> :laughing: Harry, I'll be checking my paystub! If it doesn't happen, I'll be sure to remind you about every 15 minutes or so, that it hasn't happened yet. Better hide gramma in the cellar, they're coming to euthanize her by lawful decree!


 1 JAN 2011 your heath insurence will be TAXED on your total gross income so if your HI is 20,000 then that will be added and all other bni's as well. It's in the health care bill you can look it up


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

HARRY304E said:


> 1 JAN 2011 your heath insurence will be TAXED on your total gross income so if your HI is 20,000 then that will be added and all other bni's as well. It's in the health care bill you can look it up


Remember folks, you heard it here first, from Harry. Harry, I want to become aware to the same information as yourself. Please share with me the websites you frequent. 

I already browse World Net Daily. :laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Harry as part of the unpopular Big "O" BS healthcare plan, I thought unions were exempt from this provision only open shop people were CHIT on.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Don't you think an $8 over 3 is a little extreme in this economy? The C.O.L. hasn't gone up, what did you use to justify that raise?


Funny how the most realistic post in the thread is completely ignored. 

I'm sure everybody would live a raise. I'm not sure it's justified given the state of economic conditions.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> Funny how the most realistic post in the thread is completely ignored.
> 
> I'm sure everybody would live a raise. I'm not sure it's justified given the state of economic conditions.


That HAS NOTHING to do with unions want, ask the steel mills and their union, oh wait they are almost non-existant.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

brian john said:


> That HAS NOTHING to do with unions want, ask the steel mills and their union, oh wait they are almost non-existant.


Yes Brian, we are a CRAFT union, not an INDUSTRIAL union. We don't have such things as, seniority, like they do. They serve one employer, we serve many. Its not apples to apples.

You can balk at the raise all you want, but they have the market share, the work, and the contractors accepted it. It defies explanation, but it is working for all involved. Vic says 98 is thriving.

Back to the subject of health insurance:
I don't mind giving back to society when it comes to healthcare. If I needed it, I would surely appreciate the generosity of society. My problem is that healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies don't feel mutually generous. We as a society need a check and balance against the healthcare industrial complex, where as now we are stuck with what is offered by the employer.

My plan was to have our local's healthcare plan buy drugs from Canada, and do surgeries in Thailand. That would really stir the pot!


----------

