# Brotherhood Issues



## Speedy Petey

I can't really think of any guys here I would prefer not to work with. The vast majority of folks here I would be proud to work with side by side. 

That said if someone were to say I HAD to join a union to do so, I would decline. Just as I would assume you would do the same in the opposite situation. 
If it were a matter of simply working, there would be no question.

This site is no different with regard to the topic of unions. This is ALWAYS a heated debate on any trade site. I have to say though, for the most part we stay pretty civil. I have seen some nasty discussions that served NO purpose but to simply piss each other off. 
The threats, chest puffing and tough guy attitudes were flat out adolescent.
I like to think we are a more civilized bunch.

Thing is, it is safe to say that no one is going to change their minds or views on this topic just because of an internet message board.


----------



## randomkiller

Speedy Petey said:


> I can't really think of any guys here I would prefer not to work with. The vast majority of folks here I would be proud to work with side by side.
> 
> That said if someone were to say I HAD to join a union to do so, I would decline. Just as I would assume you would do the same in the opposite situation.
> If it were a matter of simply working, there would be no question.
> 
> This site is no different with regard to the topic of unions. This is ALWAYS a heated debate on any trade site. I have to say though, for the most part we stay pretty civil. I have seen some nasty discussions that served NO purpose but to simply piss each other off.
> The threats, chest puffing and tough guy attitudes were flat out adolescent.
> I like to think we are a more civilized bunch.
> 
> Thing is, it is safe to say that no one is going to change their minds or views on this topic just because of an internet message board.


 
That's pretty true. I just don't see why we can all talk back and forth on here so easily and then it turns into a union non union pissing contest so fast.


----------



## nap

Speedy Petey said:


> I like to think we are a more civilized bunch.
> .


at least the UNION guys are.















Sorry, couldn't resist and yes, I am just kidding.


----------



## oldman

i think there is a big difference between guys on these boards and your average electrician (union or non)....thats where the disconnect is....the debates aren't aimed at anyone here specificaly, but rather a general perception. does that make sense?


----------



## 480sparky

I would be willing to work with 'the other side' regardless of whether they post here or not. Just as long as 'they' give a d**n about their work.

There's great electricians working both side of this fence. There's also some numb-nuts playing on each team.


----------



## leland

22 years doing this, licensed (not counting apprenticeship and..)
I don't give hoot.. either way. Some here treat it like a sports team. I would rather not. I don't care who wins.As stated here MANY times, pros and cons to both. A non issue.

The union/non-union issues arise from employers and bennefit availability.
I personaly have never been in a trade local (well, Teamsters, as a truck driver). But some of the best bennefits have been with a non union shop,salary included.
Personaly, I would and do try to stay away from the issue. I meet young guys around here,some in, some out. I'm just proud to pass my knowledge and advice to them.Never do I point them in either direction.Just stick with the trade and learn all you can.

It's a Career (PROFESSION), not a JOB. However, YOU are the one that will make it either one. The individual must decide what it's going to be.You can find a "job" on any side of the fence, if that is what you want.

So in short. The brotherhood is (IMO) Trade related. lets recruit and teach, not polute or sway.


----------



## Super_33

480sparky said:


> I would be willing to work with 'the other side' regardless of whether they post here or not. Just as long as 'they' give a d**n about their work.
> 
> There's great electricians working both side of this fence. There's also some numb-nuts playing on each team.


I agree.

A good electrician is a good electrician whether they're union or not.


----------



## Mountain Electrician

Super_33 said:


> I agree.
> 
> A good electrician is a good electrician whether they're union or not.


Absolutely. Some of the best electricians I have worked with in the last 25 years were union members, and I was proud to call them brother. 

My experience with the IBEW was the same as most other things in life; you get out of it what you put into it.


----------



## brian john

I am a union member and work with union and open shop contractors and their employees all the time. Never been an issue for me.

I think we would be better off here if we just dropped any union VS open shop discussions, one side will never persuade the other of the possible errors of their ways.


----------



## Podagrower

I am not a union electrician, but I have a question that just popped into my mind about the union. I am in the process of opening my own electrical company. At the same time, I am continuing to work full time for another contractor. If you are a union electrician, I understand working "off book" is a huge no-no, the same for side work, but what if you get to the point you want to open your own company?

Not trying to poke the bear, just a question.


----------



## brian john

you do what you are doing (at least that is what is done in my area).

Or you do what I did quit/get fired, start you own thing and sign on.


----------



## rlc3854

The problem with these types of threads is that neither system can fully be explained. As with anyone in our trade we are very hard headed and opinioned as  . I have worked both union, non-union, government union, non-represent and exempt. The conclusion I have come to is an a** hole is an a** hole. Slackers and over achivers are every where, balance and consistencity is what is needed. We now have right to work states that place union and non-union side by side on job sites, training is provided by both unions and associations and vocational trade schools, which is better? That depends on what is required to become certified by the AHJ to licensing. There is the ABC and the WSCA and of course the IBEW. When I started with the IBEW my courses were take at the local junior colleges along with anyone else that desired to take the course. However, I believe my hands on training/work under an IBEW journeyman provided better training than under a open/merit shop operation. I know this is not always the case but in mind it was. The issue of well I want to continue my employment while I start a business is a tough one. In an open/merit shop would your employer keep you on if they knew you were bidding aganist them, or the possibility you won't show up because you need to finish a job you bid? The IBEW is a labor pool with procedures to fill jobs that a signatory contractor. The contractor has a signed collective bargining contractual agreement with the local that provides wages and benefits. A lot of open/merit shops have similar agreements through the ABC and WSCA. I hope this helps a little and please lets all get along, keep passing the information on so we can keep learning.


----------



## micromind

The majority of people who post here I would really enjoy working with. Knowledgable, tactful, hard working, everything I'd want in a co-worker. 

There are a few guys around here I'd work with for free, the education I'd get from them would be worth more than the money. 

Rob


----------



## leland

micromind said:


> The majority of people who post here I would really enjoy working with. Knowledgable, tactful, hard working, everything I'd want in a co-worker.
> 
> There are a few guys around here I'd work with for free, the education I'd get from them would be worth more than the money.
> 
> Rob


Well said. Probably not many arguments here.


----------



## Mackie

I've worked in unrelated union / non-union shops before. The way I see it they both have ups and downs and the ups and downs kind of even out. A good job is a good job union or not and vice versa is true. 

OK, here is a 'Brotherhood Issue' I'm having at the moment:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-americanaxle-labor,1,2112319.story

http://seekingalpha.com/article/67124-american-axle-strike-unions-continue-to-kill-u-s-manufacturing

I work in a non-union shop and because of ^this strike we are no longer getting any vehicle deliveries and I will most likely be laid off next Friday unless the strike ends (which it probably won't).

If you read the articles, you can see how I would have mixed feelings about unions. Especially since these guys - who are costing me my job - are making, and still would be making if the management got their way - a boat load more than I do.


----------



## brian john

> As with anyone in our trade we are very hard headed


:thumbsup: I cannot imagine why you would post such an inflammatory remark, I am not hard headed. Is it wrong when you know you are always right and can back it up with endless pointless arguments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## LGLS

Podagrower said:


> I am not a union electrician, but I have a question that just popped into my mind about the union. I am in the process of opening my own electrical company. At the same time, I am continuing to work full time for another contractor. If you are a union electrician, I understand working "off book" is a huge no-no, the same for side work, but what if you get to the point you want to open your own company?
> 
> Not trying to poke the bear, just a question.


You talk to your BA about opening a shop. The local is aware that upstart companies need a helping hand.


----------



## LGLS

Mackie said:


> I've worked in unrelated union / non-union shops before. The way I see it they both have ups and downs and the ups and downs kind of even out. A good job is a good job union or not and vice versa is true.
> 
> OK, here is a 'Brotherhood Issue' I'm having at the moment:
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-americanaxle-labor,1,2112319.story
> 
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/67124-american-axle-strike-unions-continue-to-kill-u-s-manufacturing
> 
> I work in a non-union shop and because of ^this strike we are no longer getting any vehicle deliveries and I will most likely be laid off next Friday unless the strike ends (which it probably won't).
> 
> If you read the articles, you can see how I would have mixed feelings about unions. Especially since these guys - who are costing me my job - are making, and still would be making if the management got their way - a boat load more than I do.


Your feelings are shared by many. For you it's not about brotherhood or fighting the good fight or workers improving or even maintaining their standard of living. You're against unions, or at least this particular union issue because it has a negative effect on YOU. Because you aren't looking at the big picture. 

When a company profits and those profits increase every year AND the company starts talking about reducing wages and benefits, you have to draw a line somewhere based on what you believe is right and what is wrong.

From your article: 


> Unions had their place in the development of our country’s manufacturing boom as there was an inequity between company and worker. That inequity has flipped somewhat and now is in favor of worker over company.


I have to laugh at this. In the South hardworking Americans are still living in trailers. All over the country corporate profits are up, CEOs compensation has risen 800% on average in the last 10 years. Once "American made" cars & trucks are being built in Mexico at NO savings to the exclusive American consumer (I just dropped 41 grand on a Ford truck) and this reporter has the audacity to claim that the scales of power have tilted in favor of the American worker?

There are more people working today with no pension plan or fringe benefits than in the last 50 years! This is progress? The country is filling up with illegal immigrants forcing American workers to compete with people willing to work and live in 3rd world conditions. 

Everyone who works for a living, union or not, is in the same boat. All working people. I wouldn't hold it against anyone working nonunion as we're all just trying to put food on the table. But a rising tide raises all ships. Were it not for unions, the words vacation, holiday, and weekend wouldn't be in our vocabulary. Many people claim unions have outlived their usefulness. The thought of what will become of the lives of American workers without unions scares the hell out of me.

Unions are not a perfect institution. Yes, they have flaws and faults. And like anywhere else there is power and money, there will be those who take advantage of and abuse their position. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Mountain Electrician

brian john said:


> :thumbsup: I cannot imagine why you would post such an inflammatory remark, I am not hard headed. Is it wrong when you know you are always right and can back it up with endless pointless arguments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:


Exactly....and let me add, that those of you who think you know everything really tick off those of us who do!!:laughing:


----------



## gilbequick

> In the South hardworking Americans are still living in trailers.


Come on, I get where you're trying to go with this but this statement is absurd and extremely misleading. Sure some hard workers live in trailers, but there are countless other factors that go into their decision to live where they want to live, not just what they're getting paid vs what they're spending their money on. 

It has a lot to do with how your family raised you. If you grew up in a trailer that's your standard. Some will want to do better my gut feeling is that for most it was good enough for them as a kid and it's going to be good enough for their kids too. If you grew up middle class then you'll look for at least that for your children because you were ingrained with the idea that a trailer is not good enough for you and your family. If you grew up upper class then your parents have set the bar high and you won't want to take your family a step back. 

Me, I grew up dirt poor and then later on upper-middle class. Right now my wife and I live in a nice home and a nice neighborhood with money being tight because I want what we have to _at least_ be the standard for my children.

People can whine and complain about wages all they want but the bottom line is this: *What someone makes financially is what they accept.* *It is what you ALLOW your employer to pay you.* And that doesn't matter if you're in a union or not. You can try to twist that around all you want to but it's the way it is. It's all about personal responsibilty. We are where we are in life because of the actions of our past. If you don't like how much you're bringing home and think you're worth more than go and find a company that will pay it or go into business for yourself. If you can't find it than maybe _you_ weren't worth it.


----------



## gilbequick

I kind of like the union vs non union debates as long as they don't get personal. I think it's nice to see both sides of the fence and people that are thinking about jumping to the other side for whatever reasons get a better perspective of what they're getting into before they take the leap. 

We're all doing the same kinds of work and we're all ultimately (hopefully) going towards the same goal in life and that's to take care of our families the best we can while staying in a career we enjoy. It's a balance.


----------



## nap

gil, do a little research about wages v. cost of living. Percentage of people that have insurance. Percentage of people that are living at or below the poverty line and on and on ad nauseaum.

now do that for each group in the mid '60's and as recent as you can find.

If you want, you can break that into geographical areas.



Let us know how much life has improved over the last 40 years.......or not.


----------



## gilbequick

All I'm saying is that life has improved as much as the person who wanted to improve it, improved it.


----------



## nap

Mackie said:


> I've worked in unrelated union / non-union shops before. The way I see it they both have ups and downs and the ups and downs kind of even out. A good job is a good job union or not and vice versa is true.
> 
> OK, here is a 'Brotherhood Issue' I'm having at the moment:
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-americanaxle-labor,1,2112319.story
> 
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/67124-american-axle-strike-unions-continue-to-kill-u-s-manufacturing
> 
> I work in a non-union shop and because of ^this strike we are no longer getting any vehicle deliveries and I will most likely be laid off next Friday unless the strike ends (which it probably won't).
> 
> If you read the articles, you can see how I would have mixed feelings about unions. Especially since these guys - who are costing me my job - are making, and still would be making if the management got their way - a boat load more than I do.


mackie, just so you don't feel all alone, about 1 or 2 days after that strike hit, a local plant (AM General which assembles the H2 for GM) went totally idle. If I remember correctly, around 400 workers are setting home. 400 UNION workers. 

Now the idiot in the article was quite misleading in his statements. He said American Axle want to reduce the wage AND benefit package:



> to a total of $20 to $30 per hour


from $70/hr.

Did you miss that part. He did not state they want to reduce the man hour costs by that number. He stated they want to reduce the manhour cost TO those numbers. Are you telling us that you are actually being paid less than a total package of $20-$30/hour? If so, I do have sympathy for you. I could not see being able to live on that beyond basic survival.

First, let me toss a couple of numbers out there:
$6.10, $3.50, $3.10, $00000.

the first is what I pay per hour for my health and welfare benefits. (insurance basically), the second, the amount per hour paid towards my pension, the third, the amount that goes into an annuity, and the last, the amount of vacation pay I recieve per my contract.

add them up. $12.70 per hour. If you use these numbers and look at the $20 to $30 an hour, that would make hourly pay from $7.30/hr. to $17.30/hr. As of July of this year, the lower figure would be illegal to pay a worker in Michigan ($7.40/hr). It is already below minium wage in Oregon ($7.95/hr).

Obviously, these folks would be getting a major part of their benefits cut so it would not all be wages but without their numbers to deal with, all I can do is speculate.

Ever try to live on minimum wage mackie? Would you simply roll over and take such a pay cut. Such a cut in benefits? 

The company is actually still profitable. Yes, I do understand they are looking to the future, but so are the workers. They have contracted expenses based upon that $70/hr. How do they simply cut the cost of their mortgage, or their car loans, or anything else without severe problems and changes.

Here is an excerpt from a website post:http://www.workers.org/2007/us/uaw-0802/



> In 2003, the bosses’ own figures pegged labor costs at $52 an hour. Now costs are said to be $70 to $75 an hour. Where did the increase go? Autoworkers aren’t seeing it in their paychecks—in fact, their cost-of-living allowance was cut for two consecutive quarters based on a supposed drop in the Consumer Price Index.
> 
> Inflation in the price of health benefits does not fully explain the alleged huge rise in labor costs.
> 
> The hourly dollar figures include health care for both active employees and retirees. Productivity has risen 50 percent in four years; cars that took 45 hours to build now take 30. There are fewer workers and they are working fewer hours. But health care costs are the same whether they work 40 hours per week, work lots of overtime, or are laid off. So, when they work fewer hours, the average hourly cost of health care is higher. Nevertheless, even trusting the companies’ own figures, productivity has brought actual labor costs per vehicle down.


You see, Mackie, it is not simply the worker grabbing more and more. Productivity has *increased 50% in 4 years. *

*You want to blame somebody? Go yell at your doctor or the hospital. * Of course, they are going to lay the blame on the consumer that sues them so their insurance rates have skyrocketed. So we yell at the attorneys and our legislatures that allow high recovery awards for med malpractice.

How about doctors get rid of the small percentage of yahoos that are respnsible for the majority of med-mal claims. But NOOOO, that can't do that. It would be unethical to out an incompetant doctor.

You can place the blame wherever you want and each of those parties can find a scapegoat to place the blame on. I do not believe the unions are totally without culpability in this quagmire but I also refuse to place total blame on them either.

Everybody was in bed together in the '60's when the companies were flush with profits and very willingly increased wages and benefits. That is our heritage and we must deal with it.

Part of the problem is:

we are no longer playing on a level field. The foreign manufacturers (which as I understand actually have pay and bene's quite comparable to the UAW workers in most cases) do not have retirees to deal with. Health care costs alone add ~$1500 per vehicle for an American manufacturer.

How do we change that and not turn our country into a 3rd world nation.

Do you have an answer?


----------



## nap

gilbequick said:


> All I'm saying is that life has improved as much as the person who wanted to improve it, improved it.


boy if that isn't ducking the point.


----------



## Bkessler

Nap you have just as much right to call the writer in that news story an idiot as I do to call you an idiot. It's easy to tell that you enjoy these threads because you're always stirring the pot. I think you should do a little research and see how many people in this country support unions these days. The union is a dying breed. Thank god.


----------



## BryanMD

Affordability Factors:

In 1970, 36 percent of new homes were less than 1,200 square feet, the National Association of Home Builders reports. Today, 4 percent of new homes are that petite. One in 10 new houses was 2,400 square feet or more in 1970; 42 percent are that large now.​ Perhaps homes would be more affordable to more people if they weren't so huge. Of course, a complicating factor is that big homes are sometimes the only option under local zoning rules in rural and semi-rural places, which is where a fair bit of homebuilding has been going on in the last generation.


----------



## nap

Bkessler said:


> Nap you have just as much right to call the writer in that news story an idiot as I do to call you an idiot. It's easy to tell that you enjoy these threads because you're always stirring the pot. I think you should do a little research and see how many people in this country support unions these days. The union is a dying breed. Thank god.


do youbelieve a wage AND benefit package of $20 to $30 dollars an hour reduced from $70/hour is reasonable? are you willing to take a 60% to 70% rduction in wages and benefits?

I doubt it. If you are, just take that amount every week and send it to your local church or homeless shelter and live what remains. After all, you seem to believe that is a fair reduction for them. Live with it yourself and see how it works for you.

He needs to research this statement:



> Is that right? $70 per hour? Who makes that kind of money in the the auto industry? I am confident it is none of the Toyota, Honda or Hyundai employees. Surely it is not the Tokai Rika or Nippondenso employees either.


The last reporting I read, the companies he speaks of are very near their American counterparts in regards to wages and bene's.

You have also failed to read my entire post. I did not seperate union and non-union into opposing positions, you have just done that. I put many financial considerations into the formula and guess what, none of them were based on UNION vs. non-union.


----------



## miller_elex

*ha ha I'm laughing*

Market share is over 90% here and rising.

Hi-tech is exploding.

They want to come where power is cheap and the sparkies know what they are doing. 

When healthcare goes public, it will be the death knell of non-union shops here. I used to pay $110 a week for my health benefits at one of the biggest non-union shops in town, a top shelf employer. In the union, all that never comes out of my check, I'm paid more on top, and I have a retirement.

When I get to the end of the tunnel, now I have more hope that something will be there when I'm 70.

Truthfully, I don't give a crap about the money, my wife is loaded. I just enjoy working on jobs that are more interesting surrounded by higher quality people.

You got to ask yourself, which side of the fence has more ********, and here that side is the union. The other side is whats leftover, the stoners, dopers, drop-outs, losers, and a few ex-union guys trying to cobble that ragtag band together.


----------



## 480sparky

miller_elex said:


> ....Truthfully, I don't give a crap about the money, my wife is loaded. I just enjoy working on jobs that are more interesting surrounded by higher quality people....


Good for you. But the rest of us must keep working in order to eat, sleep under a roof, buy clothes....


----------



## gse

Podagrower said:


> I am not a union electrician, but I have a question that just popped into my mind about the union. I am in the process of opening my own electrical company. At the same time, I am continuing to work full time for another contractor. If you are a union electrician, I understand working "off book" is a huge no-no, the same for side work, but what if you get to the point you want to open your own company?
> 
> Not trying to poke the bear, just a question.


The only difference is when the union guys open ther own company, they charge eniough to make a living wage and buy their own benifits, the non union guys usually don't do this, why I never could never understand.


----------



## bobelectric

gilbequick said:


> All I'm saying is that life has improved as much as the person who wanted to improve it, improved it.


My kids never went hungry like I did as a kid.I improved my lifestyle.


----------



## Speedy Petey

Does anyone see a trend?

EVERY thread like this _eventually_ turns into the SAME conversation.


----------



## amptech

You are right Petey. There are hardheads on both sides of this issue. The guys that are tirelessly anti-union and the guys that preach that the union way is the only way have two things in common: they're both wrong and they're deeply committed to hold their ground.


----------



## gilbequick

gilbequick said:


> _All I'm saying is that life has improved as much as the person who wanted to improve it, improved it._





nap said:


> boy if that isn't ducking the point.


That's not ducking the point, that is the point.



bobelectric said:


> My kids never went hungry like I did as a kid.I improved my lifestyle.


We live in a free market, so the market will ultimately decide how things are going to be. You've got to learn to roll with the punches and be ahead of the game. We, as avid forumers who like to stay on top of our industry are doing just that. 


It's the companies choice to cut wages if they so chose. It's the employee's decision to accept those cuts or move on.

I'm personally not for or against the union. I'm for the PERSON making their own choice and doing what they feel is best for them.

Free market capitalism, what a beautiful thing.


----------



## leland

BryanMD said:


> Affordability Factors:
> 
> In 1970, 36 percent of new homes were less than 1,200 square feet, the National Association of Home Builders reports. Today, 4 percent of new homes are that petite. One in 10 new houses was 2,400 square feet or more in 1970; 42 percent are that large now.​Perhaps homes would be more affordable to more people if they weren't so huge. Of course, a complicating factor is that big homes are sometimes the only option under local zoning rules in rural and semi-rural places, which is where a fair bit of homebuilding has been going on in the last generation.


 
Land is very exspensive, so you must build a big house to make any money. so say the builders.

I still blame lawyers for all our Ills!!!


----------



## nap

gilbequick said:


> That's not ducking the point, that is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a free market, so the market will ultimately decide how things are going to be. You've got to learn to roll with the punches and be ahead of the game. We, as avid forumers who like to stay on top of our industry are doing just that.
> 
> 
> It's the companies choice to cut wages if they so chose. It's the employee's decision to accept those cuts or move on.
> 
> I'm personally not for or against the union. I'm for the PERSON making their own choice and doing what they feel is best for them.
> 
> Free market capitalism, what a beautiful thing.


No, the point was to compare the cost of living 40 years ago to todays cost of living. Claiming somebody dug their way out of poverty does not do that. The cost of living has little to do, directly, with what you earn, at an individual basis. It does give you a number that you would have to mactch to equal your earning power of 40 years ago..

Then, research poverty levels and the percentage of folks living at or below poverty level. 

Oh ya, they live that way because they want to. I forgot.

The facts are that as somebody had so eloquently said a long time ago," the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". That is not a choice. It is the result of our society and is getting worse. Whether you are union or not, it is getting more difficult to "get ahead". There are more and more jobs going overseas, which itself drives up unemployment which drives up the cost of living because the manufacturer sells fewer of anything and when you lose the savings that mass production allow, it costs more to produce any one item. Thus, price increases and inflation while wages are actually heading down.

I'm glad you are living in a $3m house but the average person is living in much less. It is not simply a matter of working to get ahead. Ask all the IT folks that now work for a small percentage of what they used to earn when they worked in the IT field but now, since so much has gone overseas, they work at Wal-Mart of any other place they can find a job so they and their families can eat. Ya, explain to them that all they have to do is want to live better and it will fall in their laps.

Gil, you are of small mind. You need to look at the bigger picture.

as Dr. Phil says," It's not about YOU, gil"


----------



## Mackie

I said I had _mixed _feelings... not that I was anti-union.

The last job I had was a Teamsters warehouse job. The pay - even for a temp - was great. The benefits for employees were also very good. 

But what I really hated was the invisible wall between labor and management. There was huge animosity and mistrust between the two and the atmosphere was very hostile and unproductive. Management treated the equipment with more respect than the employees. What I also didn't like was that the new hire made exactly the same as the guy that's been there for 12 years. And the attendance policy was abused by both sides. If the work load was especially big on a particular night, a lot of the union boys would just leave and take the points. Another issue was that if an employee went over their alloted attendance points - regardless of the reason - they were out the door. Even if they were the best employee with years of seniority. No questions, no talking - just leave... NOW!

And, finally, when elections came around it was a little sickening seeing all these guys dressed up in pin striped suits driving Cadillacs handing out pens and hats begging for votes. It was the worst stereotypes of Jimmy Hoffa era union all being true.

But, I also agree with all of the pro-union comments as well. I can only imagine what it would be like if management asked me to cut my standard of living in half over night so they could grow their bottom line and make their shareholders happy. 

Like I said, mixed feelings. The situation just stinks.

BTW: I plan on calling IBEW 96 this week in anticipation of being laid off...

:thumbsup:


----------



## jrclen

randomkiller said:


> I have no idea why there is so much animosity here between union and non union guys. So many threads turn into debates between the two. That being said is, there anyone here that would turn down working with any of the other guys that are regular posters on here if asked?


I've worked a number of jobs where union and non union contractors worked on different parts of the same job site. I never had a problem at all. After work we hit the same bar for some beers too. I have no problem at all. I have run across a few zealots on both sides but only a few.


----------



## gilbequick

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is not a choice"

This is where yours and my opinion differ. Do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?..... most of the time. But this IS a choice! It's the rich's choice to not blow their money on foolish things that don't get them ahead financially and instead choose to invest wisely not just in things that directly make money but invest in education for example learning tax law and accounting and sales strategies. 

It's the poor's choice to blow their money on things that push them to their financial limits like atv's, big screen tv's, fancy cell phones, big wheels for their car and other things that make them look important and cool when they could be using that money to invest in themselves and purchase things that actually make them money.

I don't need to research poverty levels or the cost of living of then vs now and how that differs from what I make to equal the earning power of 40 years ago. That's irrelevant. People today live in larger homes and drive nicer vehicles and wait, here it is.....have more debit because of it!!! Now who's _choice _is this? The person who signed on the bottom line. 

What did all of those IT folks who were making a good living do with their money when they were making good money? Did they pigeon hole themselves in one area or did they have a broader education that allowed themselves to create another oppurtunity for themselves? If when their job went away they were screwed then they obviously didn't invest for the future. 

I'm not going to call you names or tell you that "you are of small mind." You have an opinion and I have an opinion. My opinion rests on the summary that people are where they are because of their own choices in life. Your opinion rests on the basis that we are victims of society. I pulled myself up from my bootstraps a long time ago and decided that I was not nor ever will be any body's victim.


----------



## brian john

> The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


While the rich have been getting richer the middle class has been doing quite well. and America is one of the few countries in the world where the poor, can get fed adequately, have TVs and cars.

There is a book called "Your broke because you want to be"

America where a high school drop out can start a successful company.
Where if you want to you can go to college, money or not. Oh and the rich pay full freight while the less that rich can get a loan or monetary assistance.

America where a guy can become a millionaire pumping crap out of someones back yard. 

America, a country whee you can make it if you want too.


----------



## chefsparky

I am new to this fourm. I joined to learn from other people. I joined the union and was rof ed after a few weeks. I sat at home for 4 weeks before I got a job call. That I was not even suposed to called on. Long story short I found a new job at an open shop. Make more money get treated good allowed to do my job and what I know I can do. I am happer the union was not my thing. That is all. 
There where some good guys there I learned somethings. The union works for some not for others. This is a great site to learn from. Thank you for haveing it.:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## nap

> =gilbequick;21529]". But this IS a choice! It's the rich's choice to not blow their money on foolish things that don't get them ahead financially and instead choose to invest wisely not just in things that directly make money but invest in education for example learning tax law and accounting and sales strategies.


when you are living on the edge, it is tough to invest. I will tell this to the folks I know that cannot go to a doctor. Ya, they watch TV. That old one that I was going to toss out. They really like to watch while they are eating their wonderful dinner of mac and cheese, for the umpteenth time this week.





> It's the poor's choice to blow their money on things that push them to their financial limits like atv's, big screen tv's, fancy cell phones, big wheels for their car and other things that make them look important and cool when they could be using that money to invest in themselves and purchase things that actually make them money.


I can show you a lot of folks that don;t do that. They struggle to pay the bills and once that is done, there isn;t anything to invest.



> I don't need to research poverty levels or the cost of living of then vs now and how that differs from what I make to equal the earning power of 40 years ago. That's irrelevant.


Wrong. Still not irrelevent. It is still the point. You want to toss out the cost of living like it has no meaning. You want to ignore the poeple that are living in poverty simply because you seem to think all they haave to do is ant to be rich.





> What did all of those IT folks who were making a good living do with their money when they were making good money? Did they pigeon hole themselves in one area


No, they trained to be doctors, lawyers, architects and e=ngineers while they were training to be IT techs.

What the hell kind of question is that? People train for a career they think will take them to retirement. I know very few people that cross train enough to deal with people are forced to . You simply can;t do it.



> or did they have a broader education that allowed themselves to create another oppurtunity for themselves? If when their job went away they were screwed then they obviously didn't invest for the future.


Yep. Train for every kind of careetr out there and you are sure to have a job for the rest of your life.

Get real and be realistic.





> I'm not going to call you names or tell you that "you are of small mind."


Right there is proff you are of small mine. It had nothing to do with your intelligence norr calling you names. It was a refernce to what you see when youlook out the window. Apparently you are missing what is happening in this country. That is the small mind I spoke of.



> My opinion rests on the summary that people are where they are because of their own choices in life.


Yep, again, all they had to do was train for every conceivable carrer and they are good to go.


> Your opinion rests on the basis that we are victims of society.


Of course we are victims of society. There are things we cannot control and that is just as simple as it gets.



> I pulled myself up from my bootstraps a long time ago and decided that I was not nor ever will be any body's victim


It is pull yourself up _with_ or _by_ your bootstraps. Bootstraps are the little loops placed on the side of a boot so you can pull it on.

You have apparently lifted yourself up so high you cannot see the real problems of society. Enjoy your lofty view becaue when you fall, it will be that much further to fall.


----------



## nap

> =brian john;21538]While the rich have been getting richer the middle class has been doing quite well. and America is one of the few countries in the world where the poor, can get fed adequately, have TVs and cars.


Oh, I guess these folks are simply wrong:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2003-09-14-middle-cover_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/10/Dobbs.Oct11/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34235-2004Sep19.html

http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/01/the-middle-class-on-the.html





> America where a high school drop out can start a successful company.


True but it more often takes a person with a college degree to get an entry level job in anything white collar regardless what the job is.




> Where if you want to you can go to college, money or not.


I know a lot of kids that would like to know how. Many would take any chancce to go to college. Let me know how to get them in and to pay for college. They would love you for it.



> Oh and the rich pay full freight while the less that rich can get a loan or monetary assistance.


Yep. And it costs me around $40k a year to send 1 kid to IU. Yep, nothing standing in anybodies way to go to school.



> America where a guy can become a millionaire pumping crap out of someones back yard.


and a person doing the same thing can just as easily go broke. Want the name of a person I know that does pump crap for a living and when his son had the front of his skull ripped off and the years of surgeries have drained his bank account. Yep, easy money.





> America, a country whee you can make it if you want too


I see. I;ll buy you a ticket to a few cities I know and you can show them how to get out of poverty. How they can get a job when there are none. How they can start a business and sell their services... to people that are also out of work.


----------



## LGLS

gilbequick said:


> All I'm saying is that life has improved as much as the person who wanted to improve it, improved it.


You keep telling yourself that. 

100,000 computer programmers tried to improve, and then business went to congress and asked for 120,000 H1-B visas to get people for other countries to drive down the wages paid here. 

The result is, Gates is a Billionaire. 

Personal responsibility can only account for so much of an individual's progress. It's about what steps an individual takes. What I'm talking about is where that staircase leads.


----------



## LGLS

BryanMD said:


> Affordability Factors:
> 
> In 1970, 36 percent of new homes were less than 1,200 square feet, the National Association of Home Builders reports. Today, 4 percent of new homes are that petite. One in 10 new houses was 2,400 square feet or more in 1970; 42 percent are that large now.​Perhaps homes would be more affordable to more people if they weren't so huge. Of course, a complicating factor is that big homes are sometimes the only option under local zoning rules in rural and semi-rural places, which is where a fair bit of homebuilding has been going on in the last generation.


That's pretty one sided. Sq. footage may have increased, but lot sizes drastically decreased. Since the 70's, builders stopped with the oak floors, and discovered sheetrock. The cost of boilers and other hard goods has actually decreased. 

And about all these new homes... US population growth since the mid 70's has been ZERO. Every new home built is to accomodate the shifting population increase due to immigration. Now ask yourself why the US is allowing so much legal (not to mention illegal) immigration? Because our economy depends on a huge exploitable class. You don't see anything wrong with that?


----------



## LGLS

Mackie said:


> I said I had _mixed _feelings... not that I was anti-union.
> 
> The last job I had was a Teamsters warehouse job. The pay - even for a temp - was great. The benefits for employees were also very good.
> 
> But what I really hated was the invisible wall between labor and management. There was huge animosity and mistrust between the two and the atmosphere was very hostile and unproductive. Management treated the equipment with more respect than the employees. What I also didn't like was that the new hire made exactly the same as the guy that's been there for 12 years. And the attendance policy was abused by both sides. If the work load was especially big on a particular night, a lot of the union boys would just leave and take the points. Another issue was that if an employee went over their alloted attendance points - regardless of the reason - they were out the door. Even if they were the best employee with years of seniority. No questions, no talking - just leave... NOW!
> 
> And, finally, when elections came around it was a little sickening seeing all these guys dressed up in pin striped suits driving Cadillacs handing out pens and hats begging for votes. It was the worst stereotypes of Jimmy Hoffa era union all being true.
> 
> But, I also agree with all of the pro-union comments as well. I can only imagine what it would be like if management asked me to cut my standard of living in half over night so they could grow their bottom line and make their shareholders happy.
> 
> Like I said, mixed feelings. The situation just stinks.
> 
> BTW: I plan on calling IBEW 96 this week in anticipation of being laid off...
> 
> :thumbsup:


You and about 30% of all nonunion workers will reach out only when the economy slumps. But you are approaching the union with the attitude that nonunion is good enough, unless there is NO work, then the union is OK, which is why you and the 30% who get laid off will hit a brick wall when you look to the union for salvation now in your hour of need. 

Unions don't do too much organizing when there's no work. And they're not going to put a member out of work to thank you for your change of heart. The last thing unions need these days are foul weather friends.


----------



## LGLS

gilbequick said:


> "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is not a choice"
> 
> This is where yours and my opinion differ. Do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?..... most of the time. But this IS a choice! It's the rich's choice to not blow their money on foolish things that don't get them ahead financially and instead choose to invest wisely not just in things that directly make money but invest in education for example learning tax law and accounting and sales strategies.


This is not how the rich get richer. The rich get richer by paying our government to change the rules just as the poor are getting too good at playing the system.

The rich are not especially brilliant or educated.



> It's the poor's choice to blow their money on things that push them to their financial limits like atv's, big screen tv's, fancy cell phones, big wheels for their car and other things that make them look important and cool when they could be using that money to invest in themselves and purchase things that actually make them money.
> 
> I don't need to research poverty levels or the cost of living of then vs now and how that differs from what I make to equal the earning power of 40 years ago. That's irrelevant. People today live in larger homes and drive nicer vehicles and wait, here it is.....have more debit because of it!!! Now who's _choice _is this? The person who signed on the bottom line.
> 
> What did all of those IT folks who were making a good living do with their money when they were making good money? Did they pigeon hole themselves in one area or did they have a broader education that allowed themselves to create another oppurtunity for themselves? If when their job went away they were screwed then they obviously didn't invest for the future.


Their job didn't go away. Their job went to a different person either in or outside this country when the rich got the government to allow the laws of supply and demand to be altered into an unnatural state. 

Suppose the government allowed recriprocal licensing for all electricans worldwide tomorrow? Now you're competing with electricians being imported from India and China who are willing to work for peanuts, because their alternative is to starve to death.

This isn't about wealth - this is about how wealth is divided amongst all those who are responsible for creating it. And there's no denying the fact that today the rich are gaining ground and we're headed back toward the days of the robber barons and the company stores and the employees paying rent to live in company shantytowns. 

If you think millions of American workers have the capability to rise above this trend with sharp wit and education and making sound financial decisions, you're only looking at the problem through rose colored glasses. Yes, an individual or two might make it through, but not the entire American middle class as a group.



> I'm not going to call you names or tell you that "you are of small mind." You have an opinion and I have an opinion. My opinion rests on the summary that people are where they are because of their own choices in life. Your opinion rests on the basis that we are victims of society. I pulled myself up from my bootstraps a long time ago and decided that I was not nor ever will be any body's victim.


----------



## Bkessler

I think this thread should be closed, mostly so nap can go bother other people with his annoying rants.


----------



## Speedy Petey

This is NOT directed at anyone in particular.

One thing Nathan reminded me of when I asked him about adding a "Union" forum, he said no matter what, the basic rules of the site still apply. 
He quoted this from the TOS:



> Users shall treat each other with respect at all times on ElectricianTalk.com. Name calling, personal attacks, or other inappropriate behavior will not be allowed and may cause you account to be banned.


I know most of us are regulars and are very familiar with each other. Sometimes that lends to a more casual attitude. Let's try not to take it beyond that.


----------



## jrclen

randomkiller said:


> I have no idea why there is so much animosity here between union and non union guys. So many threads turn into debates between the two.


:thumbup:


----------



## gse

jrclen said:


> I've worked a number of jobs where union and non union contractors worked on different parts of the same job site. I never had a problem at all. After work we hit the same bar for some beers too. I have no problem at all. I have run across a few zealots on both sides but only a few.


Same here, worked projects where both sides worked, and as you said no problem, once the non union guys realized the union guys went back to the shop when some projects were completed, and , may be out of work for months, they understood the money really was not that much different, and the union guys had to pay some expenses and travel out of their own pocket, on the one job we made more take home then the union guys when you consider we worked year round, while many of them were on the bench.


----------



## randomkiller

jrclen said:


> :thumbup:


 
I just don't see any need or reason for it, I like to bust balls as much or more than the next guy but it isn't ever over what type of shop they work in.


----------



## jrclen

OK, I gotta ask. Can't help it. What is a "new school" Marine? :whistling2:

Old school SeaBee. :thumbsup:


----------



## brian john

As a side note to all this.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324


----------



## brian john

Everybody unfortunately knows of a horror story about how a family lost all they had, and in a country as great as ours this is sad. BUT and I mean a BIG OLD BERTHA BUTT......The majority of Americans are doing better than most of the world. Are times getting harder you bet. BUT bumps in the road are expected. and the majority will make out.

Should we trash a system that works for the most part for socialism that TIME AND again have proven to be a failure.

Lastly what are your yearly salaries, you might be surprised to find out you are consider RICH by many including the government.


----------



## gse

brian john said:


> As a side note to all this.
> 
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324


That article was a breath of fresh air!


----------



## jrclen

brian john said:


> you might be surprised to find out you are consider RICH by many including the government.


You are correct. I never thought I was rich until Bill Clinton said he was only going to raise taxes on the rich. Well, mine went up. Then President Bush cut taxes and the democrats in congress all whined, and claimed the tax cuts only went to the rich. Yep, sure enough, mine went down. So there it is, the government itself affirms, I am rich.

And when I look around at the rest of the world, I have to agree. :thumbsup:


----------



## nap

brian john said:


> Lastly what are your yearly salaries, you might be surprised to find out you are consider RICH by many including the government.


How do you define "rich"?


----------



## brian john

> How do you define "rich"?


Surrounded by friends and family that love or in my case at least tolerate me.


Could not locate the info but will continue to search.


----------



## nap

Bkessler said:


> I think this thread should be closed, mostly so nap can go bother other people with his annoying rants.


The really neat thing about this, and any other forum is, you do not have to post nor read any part of any thread if it bothers you.

I did not seperate union/non-union. I spoke to the cost of living and the wages earned and stated facts. You wanted to respond with "all is well in kesslerville so everybody in the country must be doing great". I gave you writings from accepted (nationally) writers to show you are wrong and all you have to say is you do not care for my rants.

mackie is the one that started the union/non-union situation and complained about "the brotherhood" cauding him to be out of work. Up to that point, everybody was cool. I simply pointed out that the strike he spoke of is also putting union members out of work as well and why I believe the strikers are justified. You then ran with "the streets are gold but if you are too dumb to figure out how to pick it up, it's your fault"

Oh well.

So, to the origianl question, while I could work with most people here, there is one that I am sure would tend to raise my ire and get whacked.

He is too smart and I would feel so out of place working next to him. He could solve all the worlds problems. Hey, maybe he should run for pres.



You guys do know what sarcasm is, right?


----------



## nap

brian john said:


> Surrounded by friends and family that love or in my case at least tolerate me.


be careful. the government will read this and find a way to tax that too.


----------



## leland

Bkessler said:


> I think this thread should be closed, mostly so nap can go bother other people with his annoying rants.


You must not agree.


I have not read past this thread. But I disagree With your request !!!! Read deep.
Expand yourself.

No I do not agree with all stated, but when it's well put. Hidding in the sand does not help!




"NAP:Oh, I guess these folks are simply wrong:"

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...le-cover_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/10/Dobbs.Oct11/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep19.html

http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/01/t...ss-on-the.html----"

Consider the source!!!!! Leftwing LIBERAL WACKOS!!!!! All of them !!!!!!
I thought you were more open minded than this.

But I can look past it.:thumbup:


----------



## leland

Speedy Petey said:


> This is NOT directed at anyone in particular.
> 
> One thing Nathan reminded me of when I asked him about adding a "Union" forum, he said no matter what, the basic rules of the site still apply.
> He quoted this from the TOS:
> 
> 
> 
> I know most of us are regulars and are very familiar with each other. Sometimes that lends to a more casual attitude. Let's try not to take it beyond that.


 
I like that.
Speedy and Nathan. Thanx for the avenue!!!!!!!
Great job, BOTH of you>


----------



## leland

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You keep telling yourself that.
> 
> 100,000 computer programmers tried to improve, and then business went to congress and asked for 120,000 H1-B visas to get people for other countries to drive down the wages paid here.
> 
> The result is, Gates is a Billionaire.
> 
> Personal responsibility can only account for so much of an individual's progress. It's about what steps an individual takes. What I'm talking about is where that staircase leads.


November is comming.
Want more of this?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...le-cover_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/10/Dobbs.Oct11/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep19.html

http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/01/t...ss-on-the.html----"
People are sheep,lemmings morons... how much more before we get pissed off?
Treat it like home! IT IS!!!! Discuss and remeady it before it goes to the dogs!!!!!

VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Inteligently!!!!!!!!!

Take it seriously!!! It realy is life or death!!!!!!


----------



## nap

hey Lee, you can't give me grief about my links and then use them.:no: 

I tend to not get too worked up about left/right wing liberal/extremists until Ann Coulters name comes up. I can usaully see some value in most of the other columnists writings and know there is a grain of truth in there somewhere but Ann.....


----------



## Mountain Electrician

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You and about 30% of all nonunion workers will reach out only when the economy slumps. But you are approaching the union with the attitude that nonunion is good enough, unless there is NO work, then the union is OK, which is why you and the 30% who get laid off will hit a brick wall when you look to the union for salvation now in your hour of need.
> 
> Unions don't do too much organizing when there's no work. And they're not going to put a member out of work to thank you for your change of heart. The last thing unions need these days are foul weather friends.


 Hmmm...I'm getting a mixed message here. :blink:

* IBEW Preamble**:

The objects of the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers are:*

To organize all workers in the entire electrical industry in the United States and Canada,including all those in public utilities and electrical manufacturing,into local unions.
To promote reasonable methods of work.
To cultivate feelings of friendship among those of our industry.
To settle disputes between employers and employees by arbitration if possible.
To assist each other in sickness or distress.
To secure employment. 
To reduce the hours of daily labor.
To secure adequate pay for our work.
To seek a higher and higher standard of living. 
To seek security for the individual.
And by legal and proper means to elevate the moral,intellectual and social conditions of our members,their families and dependants,in the interest of a higher standard of citizenship. 

But only for some???

Mackie is getting laid off due to a union strike, but he's not good enough to join the IBEW? What kind of attitude is that? Does it "cultivate feelings of friendship among those of our industry"? Wow...and we wonder why there is so much friction between non-union and union electricians. Personally, I won't belong to a group that really thinks the way you seem to. 

He certainly doesn't seem to be a "fair weather friend" to me, rather someone who is having some bad luck due to circumstances beyond his control and is trying to better his situation. 

LawnGuyLandSparky, you constantly espouse pro-union ideals on this and other threads, but I'm having a hard time reconciling those ideals (which I agree with) to this post. I just hope Local 96 doesn't have the same elitist attitude.


----------



## leland

nap said:


> hey Lee, you can't give me grief about my links and then use them.:no:
> 
> I tend to not get too worked up about left/right wing liberal/extremists until Ann Coulters name comes up. I can usaully see some value in most of the other columnists writings and know there is a grain of truth in there somewhere but Ann.....


If she winked, then smiled and "purred"... What would you do then??

Personaly, I'd cave!!!!:whistling2:

I only copied: I would never read.( 
hey Lee, you can't give me grief about my links and then use them.:no: 
Sorry if in any way I portraid the fact that I used (or read them).
I KNOW BETTER! XXOOX


----------



## leland

*You folks are GREAT!!!*



randomkiller said:


> I have no idea why there is so much animosity here between union and non union guys. So many threads turn into debates between the two. That being said is, there anyone here that would turn down working with any of the other guys that are regular posters on here if asked?


 
I totaly enjoy all of this.

But did we forget where it started? What the point of the question was!

Anyhow, Carry on!!! Great fun!!!:thumbup:


----------



## nap

nap said:


> So, to the origianl question, while I could work with most people here, there is one that I am sure would tend to raise my ire and get whacked.


I tried to get back there.


----------



## oldman

the animosity comes after a day like today when a rep for the local ibew threatened to sabotage the project we are doing....the entire project is open...all the unions have come on site and did their thing...played the game...no problem...

but when the 'gentleman' from the ibew local literally threatened to cause damage...the animosity began...he didn't care that our guys get union wage...he didn't care about anything other than the fact that we are non-union...

so, for all your talk and questions about why the animosity...the unions bring it on to themselves...

you wanna come on site and tell me why it's advantageous to me to go union? i'm all ears...you wanna tell me how it will benefit me and my people? i'm all ears...but you tell me to watch out and that "things happen" and all bets are off and you are officially a scumbag...

so, randomkiller...wanna know why i have zero respect for union leadership? this is why...


----------



## nap

where do you hail from oldman?

pick the right guy and send him an e-mail.

http://www.ibew.org/IBEW/directory/ivp.asp


I am union and pro-union but I do not agree with threatening and I do not believe the international office will support such action either.


----------



## John

nap said:


> where do you hail from oldman?
> 
> pick the right guy and send him an e-mail.
> 
> http://www.ibew.org/IBEW/directory/ivp.asp
> 
> 
> I am union and pro-union but I do not agree with threatening and I do not believe the international office will support such action either.


A no-union member filing a grievance against a union member? When _ell freezes over will any action be taken on that. :no:


----------



## nap

John said:


> A no-union member filing a grievance against a union member? When _ell freezes over will any action be taken on that. :no:


 
Didn't say file a grievance. I said send an e-mail. 

I was suggesting simply sending an e-mail to the VP in charge of oldmans geographical area. If there is improper, or even illegal actions on the part of a locals management, it does need to be addressed. This method would not require the proof and support a legal investigation would require.


----------



## Speedy Petey

oldman said:


> the animosity comes after a day like today when a rep for the local ibew threatened to sabotage the project we are doing....the entire project is open...all the unions have come on site and did their thing...played the game...no problem...
> 
> but when the 'gentleman' from the ibew local literally threatened to cause damage...the animosity began...he didn't care that our guys get union wage...he didn't care about anything other than the fact that we are non-union...
> 
> so, for all your talk and questions about why the animosity...the unions bring it on to themselves...
> 
> you wanna come on site and tell me why it's advantageous to me to go union? i'm all ears...you wanna tell me how it will benefit me and my people? i'm all ears...but you tell me to watch out and that "things happen" and all bets are off and you are officially a scumbag...
> 
> so, randomkiller...wanna know why i have zero respect for union leadership? this is why...


All I can say is I can directly relate to this story, and this feeling. It's one of the main reasons for my feelings. This was years ago in Queens NYC. 
Problem is I hear it again and again. If it was a one time thing I would chalk it up to a rogue BA. But it wasn't, and it's not a one time thing. 

And yes Random, he did get the verbal equivalent to the one finger salute. I was much younger then.


----------



## randomkiller

jrclen said:


> OK, I gotta ask. Can't help it. What is a "new school" Marine? :whistling2:
> 
> Old school SeaBee. :thumbsup:


 
One that went to basic after the inception of the kindler gentler Marine DI. It's kind of like driving on a flat tire.


----------



## LGLS

Mountain Electrician said:


> Hmmm...I'm getting a mixed message here. :blink:
> 
> *IBEW Preamble**:*
> 
> *The objects of the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers are:*
> 
> To organize all workers in the entire electrical industry in the United States and Canada,including all those in public utilities and electrical manufacturing,into local unions.


Presicely. But a local is not going to organize when they're laying off. 



> To promote reasonable methods of work.
> To cultivate feelings of friendship among those of our industry.
> To settle disputes between employers and employees by arbitration if possible.
> To assist each other in sickness or distress.
> To secure employment.
> To reduce the hours of daily labor.
> To secure adequate pay for our work.
> To seek a higher and higher standard of living.
> To seek security for the individual.
> And by legal and proper means to elevate the moral,intellectual and social conditions of our members,their families and dependants,in the interest of a higher standard of citizenship.
> 
> But only for some???
> 
> Mackie is getting laid off due to a union strike, but he's not good enough to join the IBEW? What kind of attitude is that? Does it "cultivate feelings of friendship among those of our industry"? Wow...and we wonder why there is so much friction between non-union and union electricians. Personally, I won't belong to a group that really thinks the way you seem to.
> 
> He certainly doesn't seem to be a "fair weather friend" to me, rather some*one* who is having some bad luck due to circumstances beyond *his* control and is trying to better *his situation.*


Part of brotherhood is looking at the big picture and doing what is best for everyone. Taking on hands when there's no work is pointless. 



> LawnGuyLandSparky, you constantly espouse pro-union ideals on this and other threads, but I'm having a hard time reconciling those ideals (which I agree with) to this post. I just hope Local 96 doesn't have the same elitist attitude.


----------



## LGLS

oldman said:


> the animosity comes after a day like today when a rep for the local ibew threatened to sabotage the project we are doing....the entire project is open...all the unions have come on site and did their thing...played the game...no problem...
> 
> but when the 'gentleman' from the ibew local literally threatened to cause damage...the animosity began...he didn't care that our guys get union wage...he didn't care about anything other than the fact that we are non-union...
> 
> so, for all your talk and questions about why the animosity...the unions bring it on to themselves...


Not for nothing, but this sounds like BS to me. In this day and age, every cellphone can record. Little pens with 120GB of memory. Informational pickets instructed always keep it clean. 

The goon squads are from decades past Oldman. 



> you wanna come on site and tell me why it's advantageous to me to go union? i'm all ears...you wanna tell me how it will benefit me and my people? i'm all ears...but you tell me to watch out and that "things happen" and all bets are off and you are officially a scumbag...
> 
> so, randomkiller...wanna know why i have zero respect for union leadership? this is why...


----------



## LGLS

John said:


> A no-union member filing a grievance against a union member? When _ell freezes over will any action be taken on that. :no:


That's not true. And there are other avenues available to Oldman.


----------



## oldman

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Not for nothing, but this sounds like BS to me. In this day and age, every cellphone can record. Little pens with 120GB of memory. Informational pickets instructed always keep it clean.
> 
> The goon squads are from decades past Oldman.


of course you don't believe it...it's contrary to your fantasy....it wasn't a picket- he wasn't dumb enough to say it in public...and i wasn't able to get him to repeat it into my phone...so, push your propaganda....defend your fantasy...but it's reality


----------



## chrisdoan1

OK nonunion what happens to you when you get laid off and have to look for another job do you think your going to get everything you got from the last guy NO.:wallbash: with this day and age the buisnessman is going to beat up on everything from pay to insurance :boxing: all i am saying is if your union and you get laid off you may sit for a while but you will come back with the same pay. it is a different situation than it was 5 years agoit is in favor for the buisnessman :euro:


----------



## oldman

chrisdoan1 said:


> OK nonunion what happens to you when you get laid off and have to look for another job do you think your going to get everything you got from the last guy NO.:wallbash: with this day and age the buisnessman is going to beat up on everything from pay to insurance :boxing: all i am saying is if your union and you get laid off you may sit for a while but you will come back with the same pay. it is a different situation than it was 5 years agoit is in favor for the buisnessman :euro:


speak for yourself...not everyone needs or wants someone to protect them....someguys would be hurt by colective barganing....they would have to take a paycut...

in addition, truly good employees are few and far between...they will always get what's rightfully theirs...because they earn it...union or nonunion


----------



## gilbequick

If you're in a union and get laid off, can you still collect unemployment?


----------



## Mountain Electrician

gilbequick said:


> If you're in a union and get laid off, can you still collect unemployment?


Absolutely.


----------



## LGLS

oldman said:


> of course you don't believe it...it's contrary to your fantasy....it wasn't a picket- he wasn't dumb enough to say it in public...and i wasn't able to get him to repeat it into my phone...so, push your propaganda....defend your fantasy...but it's reality


Ok, so let's keep this fair and balanced. How many employees have been threatened by their employers if they're even seen talking to "the union?"

I don't know what you're referring to as being my "fantasy."


----------



## LGLS

oldman said:


> speak for yourself...not everyone needs or wants someone to protect them....someguys would be hurt by colective barganing....they would have to take a paycut...


I'd like you to tell us how mony Nonunion electricians in New York State earn prevailing wage or higher on every job they do? My best guess is NONE.

Truth is, as an employee I earn more than many local nonunion contractors, not to mention their employees. I've been there Oldman and I know what goes on. 

As for the protection comment, the idea that an employee doesn't want or need someone to protect them is a typical psychological mind game nonunion contractors like to play with their employees. The underlying suggestion that you're not man enough to bargain head to head with your employer. Don't be a sissy. All this talk about paying people on their merit is laughable, when in truth the pay rate for nonunion electricians is based more on other factors having absolutely nothing to do with their actual skillset or level of production. 



> in addition, truly good employees are few and far between...


This is a personal opinion based on what YOU determine is a "truly good employee." 



> they will always get what's rightfully theirs...because they earn it...union or nonunion


Again, it's really you determining what is and isn't rightfully their's. 

Our differences here are not black and white, or right vs. wrong. These are mostly philosophical differences were discussing. So as others have pointed out, I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. You're position is to pay the least you can get away with. Mine is to secure the highest wages and benefits possible.


----------



## randomkiller

chrisdoan1 said:


> OK nonunion what happens to you when you get laid off and have to look for another job do you think your going to get everything you got from the last guy NO.:wallbash: with this day and age the buisnessman is going to beat up on everything from pay to insurance :boxing: all i am saying is if your union and you get laid off you may sit for a while but you will come back with the same pay. it is a different situation than it was 5 years agoit is in favor for the buisnessman :euro:


I have never been laid off unless I wanted to be. I liked being laid off in order to go on vacation and collect UE, then get called back to the same company after a couple of weeks. I have been paid over scale by all but my last company, which I wanted to be laid off by for a month before it happened.


----------



## LGLS

gilbequick said:


> If you're in a union and get laid off, can you still collect unemployment?


And the construction industry being seasonally cyclical, this is a realistic expectation. Under the premis that a union electrician is worth X amount per hour, you're paid that every hour there is work, and paid nothing when there isn't any work. 

On the nonunion side, the premis is an electrician is worth X, but since there are slow periods, we'll pay you X-Y and keep you employed. The funny thing is, you could work 3-4 years without hitting a slow period so that entire time you were underpaid and never sat idle. 

Even nonunion contractors claiming to pay at, near or above union scale conviently leave out the fact that they're not paying any kind of pension benefit, their health coverage is dismal if it exists at all, or the employee actually has to pay a deduction from their hourly wage to maintain the coverage provided. So when making comparisons the devil is in the details.

When a nonunion contractor needs to reduce their workforce, they typically don't layoff, because they don't want their unemployment insurance to increase. So they figure out a way to either fire their unneeded staff, or make their experience so miserable they they quit.


----------



## Thomp

As someone who started in a open shop, but has been in the union for 20 years, I can tell you there are only two kinds of electricians: Those who are in the union and those who want to be. But the union needs to make more avenues for independents to join and feel apart of it.


----------



## Mountain Electrician

Thomp said:


> As someone who started in a open shop, but has been in the union for 20 years, I can tell you there are only two kinds of electricians: Those who are in the union and those who want to be.


What??!!! You've got to be kidding!! That has to be the most asinine statement I've ever heard. Wow!!

You're putting us on, right? You :devil2:, you.

This is getting good.


----------



## Thomp

Mountain Electrician said:


> What??!!! You've got to be kidding!! That has to be the most asinine statement I've ever heard. Wow!!
> 
> You're putting us on, right? You :devil2:, you.
> 
> This is getting good.


But you missed the most important part: But the union needs to make more avenues for independents to join and feel apart of it.


----------



## nap

oldman said:


> of course you don't believe it...it's contrary to your fantasy....it wasn't a picket- he wasn't dumb enough to say it in public...and i wasn't able to get him to repeat it into my phone...so, push your propaganda....defend your fantasy...but it's reality


so what have you done except gripe here about it? If he did this once, he would easily be tricked into doing it again. I gave you the e-mails of every IBEW VP in the country. If you have some proof, write them. Then call the newspapers and the prosecutors office. Threatening is not only useless, it is illegal.

but i'm betting you have done nothing about it.



> oldman:
> 
> speak for yourself...not everyone needs or wants someone to protect them....someguys would be hurt by colective barganing....they would have to take a paycut...
> 
> in addition, truly good employees are few and far between...they will always get what's rightfully theirs...because they earn it...union or nonunion


well, then all I can say is enjoy. I have no problems taking my union scale and bene's and paying my bills.

another thing that is a really great part of the union gig;

whatever signatory contractor I work for, my pension plan, my insurance plan, my annuity, and any benefit all travel with me. My pension is building working with whom I work with now and it is added to the pension I was earning with the last employer and will continue to build regardless which contractor I work for.

My insurance travels with me as well. I do not have to start anew each time I work for a different contractor.

You know what's even better? I can go anywhere in the country and those bene;s follow me.
Do your or any non-union sparkies have those benefits.


----------



## amptech

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> And the construction industry being seasonally cyclical, this is a realistic expectation. Under the premis that a union electrician is worth X amount per hour, you're paid that every hour there is work, and paid nothing when there isn't any work.
> 
> On the nonunion side, the premis is an electrician is worth X, but since there are slow periods, we'll pay you X-Y and keep you employed. The funny thing is, you could work 3-4 years without hitting a slow period so that entire time you were underpaid and never sat idle.
> 
> Even nonunion contractors claiming to pay at, near or above union scale conviently leave out the fact that they're not paying any kind of pension benefit, their health coverage is dismal if it exists at all, or the employee actually has to pay a deduction from their hourly wage to maintain the coverage provided. So when making comparisons the devil is in the details.
> 
> When a nonunion contractor needs to reduce their workforce, they typically don't layoff, because they don't want their unemployment insurance to increase. So they figure out a way to either fire their unneeded staff, or make their experience so miserable they they quit.


Blanket statements like these as well as ones from the anti-union side are laughable. You simply can't lump everyone from either group into one pile. If you really think there are no open shops that possess any integrity, just Google Gaylor Electric. I'm not anti-union, I just didn't choose that path. It wasn't the best fit for where I wanted to go. I have had some negative experiences with the unions but I have also had some negative experiences with non union shops. To claim that there is one side that is absolutely right over the other is to be profoundly narrow-minded.


----------



## Mountain Electrician

Thomp said:


> But you missed the most important part: But the union needs to make more avenues for independents to join and feel apart of it.


I didn't miss that part, I deleted it because I wanted to address the part of the post that I did. Not everyone who isn't in the union wants to be. I don't.


----------



## leland

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Ok, so let's keep this fair and balanced. How many employees have been threatened by their employers if they're even seen talking to "the union?"
> 
> I don't know what you're referring to as being my "fantasy."


Since 1987, I have heard no reports.
If so, call the bluff! Grow a set!.

Right back to Lawyers are the route of all our ills.


----------



## oldman

nap said:


> so what have you done except gripe here about it? If he did this once, he would easily be tricked into doing it again. I gave you the e-mails of every IBEW VP in the country. If you have some proof, write them. Then call the newspapers and the prosecutors office. Threatening is not only useless, it is illegal.
> 
> but i'm betting you have done nothing about it.
> 
> 
> well, then all I can say is enjoy. I have no problems taking my union scale and bene's and paying my bills.
> 
> another thing that is a really great part of the union gig;
> 
> whatever signatory contractor I work for, my pension plan, my insurance plan, my annuity, and any benefit all travel with me. My pension is building working with whom I work with now and it is added to the pension I was earning with the last employer and will continue to build regardless which contractor I work for.
> 
> My insurance travels with me as well. I do not have to start anew each time I work for a different contractor.
> 
> You know what's even better? I can go anywhere in the country and those bene;s follow me.
> Do your or any non-union sparkies have those benefits.


at this point it was a one shot deal...i don't think he was stupid...i think it was a calculated move...proof? read my earlier post...

my point to this whole thing is simply this....randomkiller asked why the animosity? guys like this are the reason why....simple as that...


----------



## oldman

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I'd like you to tell us how mony Nonunion electricians in New York State earn prevailing wage or higher on every job they do? My best guess is NONE.
> 
> Truth is, as an employee I earn more than many local nonunion contractors, not to mention their employees. I've been there Oldman and I know what goes on.


and the next time you do a side job that you take away from a legitimate contractor, think about the effects...



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> As for the protection comment, the idea that an employee doesn't want or need someone to protect them is a typical psychological mind game nonunion contractors like to play with their employees. The underlying suggestion that you're not man enough to bargain head to head with your employer. Don't be a sissy. All this talk about paying people on their merit is laughable, when in truth the pay rate for nonunion electricians is based more on other factors having absolutely nothing to do with their actual skillset or level of production.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a personal opinion based on what YOU determine is a "truly good employee."
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's really you determining what is and isn't rightfully their's.
> 
> Our differences here are not black and white, or right vs. wrong. These are mostly philosophical differences were discussing. So as others have pointed out, I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. You're position is to pay the least you can get away with. Mine is to secure the highest wages and benefits possible.


your 'fantasy' is that you know so much, yet you are so completely wrong....

if a guy is worth his salt, whether i see it or not, someone will...and they will reward him handsomely...

the latest situation is that it appears that the hospital (who is not who our contract is with by the way) will be paying approximately $50,000 in labor costs for all of us Non-Union companies (all the trades) to put on 1 union guy each for the last 2 weeks of the job (all the trim work)..this seems to be an appeasement from the hospital to the unions...

now, personally, I don't care...i'll make money on him even without him doing anything...any productivity is just a bonus...but do you honestly think that they will send me someone who really qualified? 

but tell me that this sits right with anybody? kind of sounds like extortion if you ask me...


----------



## leland

A GOOD electrician will always be paid Handsomely, If they want to be.

A union electrician will always be paid handsomely, regardless.

If a Good one wants to work beside the one who only knows how to bend pipe or pull MC or mount cabinets..and nothing else (after 20 yrs), and be paid the same. Wheres the problem.
It's a personal choice.

I've no vested interest. I make more than the union guys, I have, a 401K (matched) 4 wks PAID vacation, 72hrs sick, paid,40 hrs personal time and a company truck.Flexable hrs when needed. Respect from my employer.

(negotiated by me, for me, Today)

Aside from that,.....


----------



## BryanMD

This has been fun (as these threads usually are).

A consistent error in the logic applied is equating the motivations and outlook of an employee with those of an employer.

Some guys (most) are going to be employee's their entire work life and of them some will be happy with that choice; the happier ones are those that are paid better and have defined parity.

The reasons to become a businessman & company owner (who happens to deal in electrical work) are a whole other can of worms.


----------



## leland

*True!*

I am smart enough to do what I do, Inteligent enough to stay away frrom what I don't know.

I do know however, as a previous poster stated, I don't have the self discapline to be self employed. $100 bucks now... when i need more I'll go back.

That is no way to live life. So I offer my services to those that cna meet both our needs.

PS: you guys are great!!! Alot of very smart wise and deep thinkers here.:thumbup:


----------



## LGLS

oldman said:


> at this point it was a one shot deal...i don't think he was stupid...i think it was a calculated move...proof? read my earlier post...
> 
> my point to this whole thing is simply this....randomkiller asked why the animosity? guys like this are the reason why....simple as that...


OK so you don't have any anti-union issues, it's threats that bother you. Otherwise, you all for unions, right? :whistling2:


----------



## jrclen

Thomp said:


> I can tell you there are only two kinds of electricians: Those who are in the union and those who want to be.


You really need to get out more. :no:


----------



## LGLS

oldman said:


> and the next time you do a side job that you take away from a legitimate contractor, think about the effects...


What I do on the side has absolutely zero effect on any union contractor. The only negative effect is on nonunion mom & pops, and, truth be told the union is OK with that. Because the residential construction and service market here is flooded with hundreds of nonunion contractors, the local has no marketshare in anything residential.



> your 'fantasy' is that you know so much, yet you are so completely wrong...
> 
> if a guy is worth his salt, whether i see it or not, someone will...and they will reward him handsomely...


If that were true, then the average wage for a nonunion electrician wouldn't be 20 - 25 bucks an hour around here. (Unless this is an admission that that's all a nonunion electrician is worth. )



> the latest situation is that it appears that the hospital (who is not who our contract is with by the way) will be paying approximately $50,000 in labor costs for all of us Non-Union companies (all the trades) to put on 1 union guy each for the last 2 weeks of the job (all the trim work)..this seems to be an appeasement from the hospital to the unions...
> 
> now, personally, I don't care...i'll make money on him even without him doing anything...any productivity is just a bonus...but do you honestly think that they will send me someone who really qualified?


To do trim work?

Since whatever the situation is here hasn't been fully explained by you, I really cannot comment on anything specific about it. But from what you're saying that the hospital is paying extra for you to take on a union hand, and that sounds to me that either you or a number of nonunion contractors were caught NOT paying prevailing wages, or the hospital is union and you're not even supposed to be there, whether you pay prevailing wages or not. 



> but tell me that this sits right with anybody? kind of sounds like extortion if you ask me...


If you believe that, and it's not all empty huff & puff because you can't call the shots, why don't you contact the DA and report a crime?


----------



## LGLS

amptech said:


> Blanket statements like these as well as ones from the anti-union side are laughable. You simply can't lump everyone from either group into one pile. If you really think there are no open shops that possess any integrity, just Google Gaylor Electric. I'm not anti-union, I just didn't choose that path. It wasn't the best fit for where I wanted to go. I have had some negative experiences with the unions but I have also had some negative experiences with non union shops. To claim that there is one side that is absolutely right over the other is to be profoundly narrow-minded.


You're right, it was a blanket statement. It is quite possible YMMV in a different socioeconomic area. But not by much.

So I google Gaylor electric and what do I find but a self-promoting Associated Builders & Contractor's affiliated company website. Oh, and this:

Noblesville OKs Gaylor Electric tax break - Topix

Seems Gaylor needs taxpayer subsidized corporate welfare to call itself a success.


----------



## randomkiller

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You're right, it was a blanket statement. It is quite possible YMMV in a different socioeconomic area. But not by much.
> 
> So I google Gaylor electric and what do I find but a self-promoting Associated Builders & Contractor's affiliated company website. Oh, and this:
> 
> Noblesville OKs Gaylor Electric tax break - Topix
> 
> Seems Gaylor needs taxpayer subsidized corporate welfare to call itself a success.


 
Sounds like another case of a wolf in sheeps clothing.


----------



## oldman

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> What I do on the side has absolutely zero effect on any union contractor. The only negative effect is on nonunion mom & pops, and, truth be told the union is OK with that. Because the residential construction and service market here is flooded with hundreds of nonunion contractors, the local has no marketshare in anything residential.
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, then the average wage for a nonunion electrician wouldn't be 20 - 25 bucks an hour around here. (Unless this is an admission that that's all a nonunion electrician is worth. )
> 
> 
> 
> To do trim work?
> 
> Since whatever the situation is here hasn't been fully explained by you, I really cannot comment on anything specific about it. But from what you're saying that the hospital is paying extra for you to take on a union hand, and that sounds to me that either you or a number of nonunion contractors were caught NOT paying prevailing wages, or the hospital is union and you're not even supposed to be there, whether you pay prevailing wages or not.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that, and it's not all empty huff & puff because you can't call the shots, why don't you contact the DA and report a crime?


can you even see the end of your nose?

how can 1 person be so slanted that no matter what you will not admit that your view may not be correct?

project is privately funded...no prevailing wage....no union requirement....the conclusion you jump to are way wrong...

as for in general..i'm putting you back on ignore because you can't even intellectually debate...simply follow the party line...

lawnguy...you are part of the problem


----------



## Mountain Electrician

The "brotherhood issue" seems to vary geographically. 

Years ago, a non-union contractor I worked for was awarded a job Wyoming. We were able to make a single job agreement with the local and man the project with union electricians. It was a positive experience all the way around, from the local's management down to the electricians the manned the project. One of their foreman even came down to New Mexico and helped us on some other projects with the understanding that he was salting. He was one of the best electricians I have had the pleasure to work around, and really changed the way I thought about labor unions.

When I joined the IBEW in NM, my experience was a little different. The electricians I worked with were not of the same caliber, and the local's management left a lot to be desired:

http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=1993

I've drank beer with that guy after meetings, glad I didn't tick him off!
After my first layoff, it wasn't much of a choice for me...I went back to work in the non-union sector. Much safer that way! :thumbsup:

Maine isn't a very industry friendly state, and I actually know union electricians who left the union to stay with a certain contractor when he was no longer signatory. They get better pay and benefits. I don't know what the union residential scale is, but it can't be much if they are willing to leave.

If you live where the union is thriving, it makes sense to be a member. Otherwise, why? Lofty ideals of brotherhood and solidarity are great, but at the end of the day everyone has to eat.


----------



## amptech

randomkiller said:


> Sounds like another case of a wolf in sheeps clothing.


They don't give tax abatements to businesses who invest long-term in your area? They sure do in Indiana. What makes them a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? As for the "Self-Promoting" comment, are you going to tell me the IBEW isn't self-promoting? For that matter, what's wrong with self-promoting if you're selling a good product? The benefits page on Gaylor's web site listed standard employee benefits offered. It didn't give specific wages. That info comes to me from Gaylor employees I know personally. I have personal friendships with several of their employees and have never heard a bad word from any of them about their company. One man fought and won a 3 year battle with throat cancer while employed there. It was nothing short of amazing how they took care of him and his family through it all. He was ready to retire when he was diagnosed at the age of 58. After he recovered Gaylor put him in a teaching position at Gaylor U at an elevated pay rate until he was ready to retire. He still teaches ladder logic classes part-time in the winter. Not because he needs the income, but because he loves the trade and has a passion to help younger guys up the trail. This guy left the IBEW after 20 years to work for Gaylor. He doesn't have anything bad to say about the IBEW, he just saw something more to his liking at Gaylor. What's with the YMMV Sparky? Maybe I do live in a different socioeconomic area. The IBEW doesn't get too much of the market here but I still manage to make a good living, fund my 401K, buy medical insurance and send my wife and kids to college. Maybe I'm just missing the point now that I think about it. I am a one man shop among about a dozen one man shops in my area. Even though we are all theoretically in competition with each other we are all friends. On large jobs we often sub-contract each other and sometimes 2 or 3 of us will partner to tackle a really large job. We all make it clear what we have to have on these projects and everybody benefits. Plus, we have a great time working with each other and trying to do things better, faster, prettier than each other on a shared project. I guess we're like a union among ourselves. I just don't understand why this issue can't be seen as simply a personal choice.


----------



## LGLS

oldman said:


> can you even see the end of your nose?
> 
> how can 1 person be so slanted that no matter what you will not admit that your view may not be correct?
> 
> project is privately funded...no prevailing wage....no union requirement....the conclusion you jump to are way wrong...
> 
> as for in general..i'm putting you back on ignore because you can't even intellectually debate...simply follow the party line...
> 
> lawnguy...you are part of the problem


My view cannot be incorrect or correct, it is simply my view. But it's not your view, and because of that you think I'm wrong? You've still yet to answer what the problem was that caused you to hire a union member as resolution. C'mon man, give me the deatils so I can tear your "story" apart. Because at this point, you've claimed tht you're paying the prevailing wages but the union still has a beef, now you're saying the project isn't subject to prevailing wages... c'mon which is it?

Oldman are you a shop owner, a working electrician or an employee?


----------



## LGLS

amptech said:


> They don't give tax abatements to businesses who invest long-term in your area? They sure do in Indiana. What makes them a "wolf in sheep's clothing"?


How does abating taxes for a 6-year period "create" jobs within an electrical contracting firm? You do realize that all Gaylor is doing is moving from point A to point B, right? 



> As for the "Self-Promoting" comment, are you going to tell me the IBEW isn't self-promoting? For that matter, what's wrong with self-promoting if you're selling a good product? The benefits page on Gaylor's web site listed standard employee benefits offered. It didn't give specific wages. That info comes to me from Gaylor employees I know personally. I have personal friendships with several of their employees and have never heard a bad word from any of them about their company. One man fought and won a 3 year battle with throat cancer while employed there. It was nothing short of amazing how they took care of him and his family through it all. He was ready to retire when he was diagnosed at the age of 58. After he recovered Gaylor put him in a teaching position at Gaylor U at an elevated pay rate until he was ready to retire. He still teaches ladder logic classes part-time in the winter. Not because he needs the income, but because he loves the trade and has a passion to help younger guys up the trail. This guy left the IBEW after 20 years to work for Gaylor. He doesn't have anything bad to say about the IBEW, he just saw something more to his liking at Gaylor. What's with the YMMV Sparky? Maybe I do live in a different socioeconomic area. The IBEW doesn't get too much of the market here but I still manage to make a good living, fund my 401K, buy medical insurance and send my wife and kids to college. Maybe I'm just missing the point now that I think about it. I am a one man shop among about a dozen one man shops in my area. Even though we are all theoretically in competition with each other we are all friends. On large jobs we often sub-contract each other and sometimes 2 or 3 of us will partner to tackle a really large job. We all make it clear what we have to have on these projects and everybody benefits. Plus, we have a great time working with each other and trying to do things better, faster, prettier than each other on a shared project. I guess we're like a union among ourselves. I just don't understand why this issue can't be seen as simply a personal choice.


I don't have an issue with your personal choices. My issue is when the company line to it's employees is parroted by it's employees because they don't see the entire picture, just the pieces the boss is willing to divulge. Like this prevailing wage issue with Oldman - who in one post says he's done nothing wrong, pays the correct wages, in the next says the resolution was taking on an extra union represented hand for the finish, and this it isn't a PW project. 

You aren't an journeyman electrician employee, so in that respect you aren't the "nonunion electrician" I refer to when I point out the differences between working union and not.


----------



## amptech

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> How does abating taxes for a 6-year period "create" jobs within an electrical contracting firm? You do realize that all Gaylor is doing is moving from point A to point B, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with your personal choices. My issue is when the company line to it's employees is parroted by it's employees because they don't see the entire picture, just the pieces the boss is willing to divulge. Like this prevailing wage issue with Oldman - who in one post says he's done nothing wrong, pays the correct wages, in the next says the resolution was taking on an extra union represented hand for the finish, and this it isn't a PW project.
> 
> You aren't an journeyman electrician employee, so in that respect you aren't the "nonunion electrician" I refer to when I point out the differences between working union and not.


If you browsed Gaylor's site you would see they have operation bases in several locations across Indiana as well as a few other states. They have been growing and needed additional space. Gaylor isn't moving from point A to point B. They are adding to their existing facilities in the area.
As far as employees parroting the company line because they don't see the big picture, that does happen all too often. But most people in our trade are pretty smart and catch on sooner or later. The company that takes advantage of its employees usually doesn't make it over the long haul. I've seen several start-ups in the last 20 years that looked first rate on the outside and ran all over the area boring with a big auger and under-cutting me on price. I held my ground on price refusing to wear out my tools and equipment as well as my body trading dollars. The market eventually took care of them and I'm still here. Maybe I'm not what you're thinking of when you talk about a working journeyman electrician employee but I am the guy designing, installing and maintaining electrical distribution systems, equipment and machinery as well as voice/data/fiber networks every day. I am an employee. Anybody with a checkbook can be my boss if my conditions are met.


----------



## randomkiller

amptech said:


> They don't give tax abatements to businesses who invest long-term in your area? They sure do in Indiana. What makes them a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? As for the "Self-Promoting" comment, are you going to tell me the IBEW isn't self-promoting? For that matter, what's wrong with self-promoting if you're selling a good product? The benefits page on Gaylor's web site listed standard employee benefits offered. It didn't give specific wages. That info comes to me from Gaylor employees I know personally. I have personal friendships with several of their employees and have never heard a bad word from any of them about their company. One man fought and won a 3 year battle with throat cancer while employed there. It was nothing short of amazing how they took care of him and his family through it all. He was ready to retire when he was diagnosed at the age of 58. After he recovered Gaylor put him in a teaching position at Gaylor U at an elevated pay rate until he was ready to retire. He still teaches ladder logic classes part-time in the winter. Not because he needs the income, but because he loves the trade and has a passion to help younger guys up the trail. This guy left the IBEW after 20 years to work for Gaylor. He doesn't have anything bad to say about the IBEW, he just saw something more to his liking at Gaylor. What's with the YMMV Sparky? Maybe I do live in a different socioeconomic area. The IBEW doesn't get too much of the market here but I still manage to make a good living, fund my 401K, buy medical insurance and send my wife and kids to college. Maybe I'm just missing the point now that I think about it. I am a one man shop among about a dozen one man shops in my area. Even though we are all theoretically in competition with each other we are all friends. On large jobs we often sub-contract each other and sometimes 2 or 3 of us will partner to tackle a really large job. We all make it clear what we have to have on these projects and everybody benefits. Plus, we have a great time working with each other and trying to do things better, faster, prettier than each other on a shared project. I guess we're like a union among ourselves. I just don't understand why this issue can't be seen as simply a personal choice.


I said that because he is getting a tax break for having a business that is supposed to bring in new jobs, when all he is doing is moving, what new jobs will there be? It's a crock. He maybe a good guy, so what? Your a good guy, do you get a tax break on your business? Why not? You pay yourself well, correct? You work hard and pay your families bills. If you live in the area, how do you feel about your tax dollars being used to help out another contractor? Why don't you get tax incentives? I don't think you do get the issue.


----------



## amptech

Like I said in my last post, they're not moving, they're adding another location. Yes, other contractors right here in my own town have gotten tax abatements for expanding their facilities. These abatements aren't "no strings attached" deals. Adding x number of employees @the pay and benefit rate of y are a stipulation. If the conditions aren't met the abatement is revoked and back taxes are due. I don't know how it is where you are but Indiana's property tax system got way out of control over the last 30 years and just last month was re-worked by the legislature with the drafting of an amendment to the state constitution. Indiana has had to resort to tax abatements the last 10 years to get any kind of business or industry to stay here or new ones to locate here. The Honda plant in Greensberg was a big one. The TS Tech plant to supply the Honda plant located here in my county was drawn by tax abatements. My property taxes, after Homestead credit were $700.00 per year but move my place 5 miles north and they would be $3500.00 per year. We're not talking mansion/estate here either. 1600 sq.ft. alum sided single story house, 24 x 36 detached garage on 2 acres. No city water/sewer. No fire dept within 7 miles. There are prime building lots in a commercial zone along the major state hiway that they can't get a fast food franchise to build on because the assessed property tax estimate would have McDonalds paying $30k a year in property taxes. Hopefully the restructuring done in the legislature last month will make Indiana competitive with neighboring states as far as luring businesses here.


----------



## oldman

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> My view cannot be incorrect or correct, it is simply my view. But it's not your view, and because of that you think I'm wrong? You've still yet to answer what the problem was that caused you to hire a union member as resolution. C'mon man, give me the deatils so I can tear your "story" apart. Because at this point, you've claimed tht you're paying the prevailing wages but the union still has a beef, now you're saying the project isn't subject to prevailing wages... c'mon which is it?
> 
> Oldman are you a shop owner, a working electrician or an employee?


you are truly illiterate...go reread the posts then ask questions intelligent questions...right now, your view about me, my company and the situation is wrong, since you are unable to comprehend the facts...


----------



## oldman

oldman said:


> the animosity comes after a day like today when a rep for the local ibew threatened to sabotage the project we are doing....*the entire project is open.*..all the unions have come on site and did their thing...played the game...no problem...
> 
> but when the 'gentleman' from the ibew local literally threatened to cause damage...the animosity began..*.he didn't care that our guys get union wage.*..he didn't care about anything other than the fact that we are non-union...
> 
> so, for all your talk and questions about why the animosity...the unions bring it on to themselves...
> 
> you wanna come on site and tell me why it's advantageous to me to go union? i'm all ears...you wanna tell me how it will benefit me and my people? i'm all ears...but you tell me to watch out and that "things happen" and all bets are off and you are officially a scumbag...
> 
> so, randomkiller...wanna know why i have zero respect for union leadership? this is why...





oldman said:


> at this point it was a one shot deal...i don't think he was stupid...i think it was a calculated move...proof? read my earlier post...
> 
> my point to this whole thing is simply this....randomkiller asked why the animosity? guys like this are the reason why....simple as that...





oldman said:


> and the next time you do a side job that you take away from a legitimate contractor, think about the effects...
> 
> 
> 
> your 'fantasy' is that you know so much, yet you are so completely wrong....
> 
> if a guy is worth his salt, whether i see it or not, someone will...and they will reward him handsomely...
> 
> * the latest situation is that it appears that the hospital (who is not who our contract is with by the way) will be paying approximately $50,000 in labor costs for all of us Non-Union companies (all the trades) to put on 1 union guy each for the last 2 weeks of the job (all the trim work)..this seems to be an appeasement from the hospital to the unions...*
> 
> now, personally, I don't care...i'll make money on him even without him doing anything...any productivity is just a bonus...but do you honestly think that they will send me someone who really qualified?
> 
> but tell me that this sits right with anybody? kind of sounds like extortion if you ask me...





oldman said:


> can you even see the end of your nose?
> 
> how can 1 person be so slanted that no matter what you will not admit that your view may not be correct?
> 
> * project is privately funded...no prevailing wage....no union requirement.*...the conclusion you jump to are way wrong...
> 
> as for in general..i'm putting you back on ignore because you can't even intellectually debate...simply follow the party line...
> 
> lawnguy...you are part of the problem


now, this is what you got out of that



lawnguy said:


> My view cannot be incorrect or correct, it is simply my view. But it's not your view, and because of that you think I'm wrong? *You've still yet to answer what the problem was that caused you to hire a union member as resolution. C'mon man, give me the deatils so I can tear your "story" apart. Because at this point, you've claimed tht you're paying the prevailing wages but the union still has a beef, now you're saying the project isn't subject to prevailing wages*... c'mon which is it?



didn't they teach you how to read and comprehend? because it's obvious from your post that you are unable to do either...


----------



## oldman

randomkiller said:


> I said that because he is getting a tax break for having a business that is supposed to bring in new jobs, when all he is doing is moving, what new jobs will there be? It's a crock. He maybe a good guy, so what? Your a good guy, do you get a tax break on your business? Why not? You pay yourself well, correct? You work hard and pay your families bills. If you live in the area, how do you feel about your tax dollars being used to help out another contractor? Why don't you get tax incentives? I don't think you do get the issue.


http://burbsbiz.lohudblogs.com/2008/03/24/all-bright-electric-acquires-three-companies/

oh, yeah, this is a union shop
http://www.nyssbdc.org/success/HallFame/HallFameClients/AllBright/allbright.html

abatements, incentives, tax breaks, etc are available to everyone...it shouldn't be an issue...as the kids today say "stop hatin'"


----------



## LGLS

amptech said:


> If you browsed Gaylor's site you would see they have operation bases in several locations across Indiana as well as a few other states. They have been growing and needed additional space. Gaylor isn't moving from point A to point B. They are adding to their existing facilities in the area.


OK let me simplify this for you. Gaylor may be growing, but it's because Gaylor is increasing market share. Not because their existence in the market causes more work to materialize out of thin air. 

When contractor A gains marketshare, it's because contractors b, c, d, e etc... have lost it. There is no NEW business, just the same old business being done by someone else.

Now I'm not going to start researching the sociopolitical aspects of this particular situation, because I'm sure I'll find the same thing is going on with Gaylor as goes on elsewhere. Gaylor greases the correct political palms to get a tax abatement, which puts Gaylor in a better financial position to overtake and outbid it's competition, putting it's competition out of business, which causes job losses, but those jobs losses become job gains for Gaylor, but no net gain for society. 

Get it? Some of your local's posts more intimately familiar with the situation:

You gotta be kidding
Indianapolis, IN 
Reply » 
|
Report Abuse |
#10 Nov 28, 2007


This company is already here! Ask how many of the employees live or will work in the county. Just another private company reaping a benefit on the tax payers back. This building would have been built with or without this tax handout! Citizens do your homework on this one. 




Scott
Anderson, IN 
Reply » 
|
Report Abuse |
#11 Nov 28, 2007


I don't understand. Gaylor Electric has been in business for a number of years. So, he decides to build a new office/ warehouse, and he gets a six year tax break. For what? Those jobs he speaks about are existing jobs within his Company. Sounds like a wise move for the folks in Noblesville. Another note- in doing some research, there is no way the average salary is 59,000. Unless ofcourse, that includes all of their benefits as well as their weekly take home pay. This would be more than union scale, and we know he doesn't pay that much. 

indy event
AOL 
Reply » 
|
Report Abuse |
#14 Nov 28, 2007


Gaylor does pay a hand full of his friends a decent wage. But for the majority of his workers he doesn't pay much more than $7-8 an hour and no benefit. Remember Gaylor is the one who want to do away with prevailing wage law in Indiana. You want great electrical work done....hire an IBEW electrician 



Bill E Bob
Lexington, KY 
Reply » 
|
Report Abuse |
#26 Nov 28, 2007


Robbing Peter to pay Paul....did the City of Indianapolis sign off on the memorandum of understanding regarding any relocation of capital investment from Indianapolis? 

Noblesville needs to get out into the world and attract new business that benefits all of central Indiana, not just provide an easy outlet for businesses seeking tax relief from Marion County. Robbing Peter to pay Paul costs us all more in the long run.

Would Gaylor have made this investment in another region if it weren't for the Noblesville tax incentives? Doubt it..... 




> As far as employees parroting the company line because they don't see the big picture, that does happen all too often. But most people in our trade are pretty smart and catch on sooner or later.


All I'm trying to do is help people see it sooner rather than later.



> The company that takes advantage of its employees usually doesn't make it over the long haul. I've seen several start-ups in the last 20 years that looked first rate on the outside and ran all over the area boring with a big auger and under-cutting me on price. I held my ground on price refusing to wear out my tools and equipment as well as my body trading dollars. The market eventually took care of them and I'm still here. Maybe I'm not what you're thinking of when you talk about a working journeyman electrician employee but I am the guy designing, installing and maintaining electrical distribution systems, equipment and machinery as well as voice/data/fiber networks every day. I am an employee. Anybody with a checkbook can be my boss if my conditions are met.


In order for you to do what you do you MUST be an employee at least for as long as required to go out on your own. That fact alone means that EVERY licensed electrician today is or was once a contractor's employee.


----------



## LGLS

oldman said:


> now, this is what you got out of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't they teach you how to read and comprehend? because it's obvious from your post that you are unable to do either...


 
You're dodging the question. Why is the hospital paying you to take a union hand on?


----------



## oldman

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You're dodging the question. Why is the hospital paying you to take a union hand on?


i can't make it any clearer...


me said:


> * the latest situation is that it appears that the hospital (who is not who our contract is with by the way) will be paying approximately $50,000 in labor costs for all of us Non-Union companies (all the trades) to put on 1 union guy each for the last 2 weeks of the job (all the trim work)..this seems to be an appeasement from the hospital to the unions...*


Definition
ap·pear (







)play_w("A0375700")_intr.v._ *ap·peared*, *ap·pear·ing*, *ap·pears* *1. * To become visible: a plane appearing in the sky.
*2. * To come into existence: New strains of viruses appear periodically.
_*3. To seem or look to be*_: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem.
_*4. To seem likely*_*:* They will be late, as it appears.
*5. * To come before the public: has appeared in two plays; appears on the nightly news.
*6. * _Law_ To present oneself formally before a court as defendant, plaintiff, or counsel.


* 
is that clear enough for you? it's not even a done deal yet...it just appears to be what's going to happen...

what their reasoning is, i don't know...not my call
*


----------



## oldman

Randomkiller....guys like Lawnguy are the reason for the animosity...

on site with us are 3 union shops (there are 4 projects going on in this building)...they have been nothing but gentlemen, same as us...the animosity isn't with them, or the union in general...it's the individuals that give you all a bad name.

the company you work for is a great company...if i were to go work for someone, it would be for a company like yours (albeit, not with tools)

but that's not because your company is union, it's because it seems to be a well run company that does interesting work. There are large non union companies that also fit that bill, and that I would also be happy to work for..

there you have it...it's not the group that's the problem...it's the individuals that ruin it for everyone else...

good luck


----------



## amptech

Wow Sparky, a while back you asserted that any negative experience I may have had with the union was BS that I had heard second or third hand from some rumor monger. So it shocks me that you would ignore facts and dismiss them as lies. I do actually know Gaylor employees personally. Journeymen, supervisors, apprentices and crew leaders. Real people I know and have no reason not to believe. The fact is they do make above IBEW scale, have equivalent health and retirement benefits and a few other fringes I don't know if an IBEW member has such as tuition reimbersement regardless of the field of study. Gaylor was the main EC on large Indy projects like the Dow Elanco plant, the maintenance hub at Indpls Int'l airport and Eli Lilly. The IBEW watches Gaylor like a hawk so believe me, if they didn't shoot straight they'd be toast. 
As for your statement that there's no new business, are you serious? Surely not or else you would be asserting that there are only a finite number of electricians needed, ever. One reason I question the accuracy of your perspective is I watched Edwin Hill's video presentation a few months ago. I have the utmost respect for Edwin Hill and what he has done for the electrical industry. I respect his point of view and agree with him about 90%. Evidently you disagree with his perspective.


----------



## randomkiller

oldman said:


> Randomkiller....guys like Lawnguy are the reason for the animosity...
> the company you work for is a great company...if i were to go work for someone, it would be for a company like yours (albeit, not with tools)
> 
> but that's not because your company is union, it's because it seems to be a well run company that does interesting work. There are large non union companies that also fit that bill, and that I would also be happy to work for..
> 
> there you have it...it's not the group that's the problem...it's the individuals that ruin it for everyone else...
> 
> good luck


 
I hate seeing that kind of stuff going on. We are all Americans and just need to stick together. Are you familiar with the North American Union or the Amero? These are up coming fights we will all have to deal with soon enough. 

I feel lucky to be in the shop I am. It's night and day from the last contractor I worked for. It's a rare feeling now a days to feel appreciated by your boss. I usually only hit the office once every other week but I talk to my boss twice a day, he actually says "thanks" when hanging up. As for working with the tools, they have asked me to do more estimating and that type of thing but, I push to stay with the tools. I have a thing for not being stuck inside an office or cubicle for more than a meeting.


----------



## nap

amptech said:


> As for your statement that there's no new business, are you serious? Surely not or else you would be asserting that there are only a finite number of electricians needed, ever. One reason I question the accuracy of your perspective is I watched Edwin Hill's video presentation a few months ago. I have the utmost respect for Edwin Hill and what he has done for the electrical industry. I respect his point of view and agree with him about 90%. Evidently you disagree with his perspective.


 A service company does not bring new jobs to an area, they simply provide a service for whomever is there. If you don;t believe me, start a company that manufacturers widgets in the middle of a very uninhabited area. Guess what, they bring new money to the area. Start a large electrical comapny in the same area (you know, the one that nobody lives near). See what happens. They go broke because there is nobody that needs their services. A service of any sort will only support a finite number of servicemen. No matter how many you employ, they do not bring work to the area.

It is that way with any service oriented business.



That is why offering a service company a tax abatement is dumb. If there is work there, some company will man it. If there is no work there, you don't need the servicemen there. Why pay to bring a company to an area when not paying them to come will provide the same result?


----------



## amptech

Random, I hate this whole discussion. There are 2 union electrical contracting firms in my area. We all know each other very well and have been friends for years. We loan specialty equipment back and forth and consult with each other often when we have odd situations come up on the jobsite. We worked together to get qualified inspectors in our county. We worked side by side restoring power in the aftermath of the last ice storm in 05 never worrying about who got the lion's share, just get folks back on ASAP. I'm thankful we have what we have here. The adversarial vibe displayed by some here just doesn't exist in my neck of the woods. Thank God.


----------



## amptech

nap said:


> A service company does not bring new jobs to an area, they simply provide a service for whomever is there. If you don;t believe me, start a company that manufacturers widgets in the middle of a very uninhabited area. Guess what, they bring new money to the area. Start a large electrical comapny in the same area (you know, the one that nobody lives near). See what happens. They go broke because there is nobody that needs their services. A service of any sort will only support a finite number of servicemen. No matter how many you employ, they do not bring work to the area.
> 
> It is that way with any service oriented business.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why offering a service company a tax abatement is dumb. If there is work there, some company will man it. If there is no work there, you don't need the servicemen there. Why pay to bring a company to an area when not paying them to come will provide the same result?


Service company. Is a construction company a service company? When new construction is booming do you not need more tradesmen? With an aging infrastructure maintenance service demand rises. Between 1965 and 1979 school consolidation exploded in Indiana. Those facilities are now at the age where major retrofit is needed. Demand for upgrading existing facilities and new school construction has created a shortage of skilled construction tradesmen. If you think the demand for service remains at a constant, you are missing a big piece of the economic puzzle. New housing starts=retail facility expansion=service industry demand. We have been in a new housing boom here since 1992 that is just now slowing. Well, it doesn't really matter anyway. You and Sparky think I'm a moron and I think you guys are completely unwilling to consider an opposing opinion. If you are happy where you are and I'm happy where I am it all doesn't really matter anyway, does it?


----------



## nap

amptech said:


> Service company. Is a construction company a service company? When new construction is booming do you not need more tradesmen? With an aging infrastructure maintenance service demand rises. Between 1965 and 1979 school consolidation exploded in Indiana. Those facilities are now at the age where major retrofit is needed. Demand for upgrading existing facilities and new school construction has created a shortage of skilled construction tradesmen. If you think the demand for service remains at a constant, you are missing a big piece of the economic puzzle. New housing starts=retail facility expansion=service industry demand. We have been in a new housing boom here since 1992 that is just now slowing. Well, it doesn't really matter anyway. You and Sparky think I'm a moron and I think you guys are completely unwilling to consider an opposing opinion. If you are happy where you are and I'm happy where I am it all doesn't really matter anyway, does it?


in essence and for this discussion, yes, a construction company is a service company. It does not make jobs itself. You can look at it as they are employed by others while a manufacturing company is not. The people that are buying the buildings are providing the jobs. If there are no other people that need these tradesmen, there are no jobs for them.


Like I said before but will alter for the construction company situation.

Put a 500 man construction comapny in the middle of nowhere. What are they going to do? 

Nothing until somebody else needs something built.

A manufacturing company provides jobs all on its own and this results in the old trickle down theory which results in other jobs part of which are construction companies that fulfill the need for buildings to be built. They do not build them for themselves. Thye build for others and if there are no others, there is no need for them.

A construction company or a true service company cannot do this.

I'm not missing anything concerning the economic puzzle and you are putting words in my mouth that are not what I think or believe.

You are also distorting my statements. Of course if there is a lot of building, there will be construction jobs but that is not what I said nor was I talking about. 

So, do you need to offer tax incentives so a construction company will come to the town and build what people want? Of course not. They will come anyway because that is where the work is. A manufacturing company and the tax incentives they are offered is a totally different situation. They can locate anywhere. A construction company does not have that option. They must go where the work is.


----------



## LGLS

amptech said:


> Service company. Is a construction company a service company? When new construction is booming do you not need more tradesmen? With an aging infrastructure maintenance service demand rises. Between 1965 and 1979 school consolidation exploded in Indiana. Those facilities are now at the age where major retrofit is needed. Demand for upgrading existing facilities and new school construction has created a shortage of skilled construction tradesmen. If you think the demand for service remains at a constant, you are missing a big piece of the economic puzzle. New housing starts=retail facility expansion=service industry demand. We have been in a new housing boom here since 1992 that is just now slowing. Well, it doesn't really matter anyway. You and Sparky think I'm a moron and I think you guys are completely unwilling to consider an opposing opinion. If you are happy where you are and I'm happy where I am it all doesn't really matter anyway, does it?


Nobody thinks your a moron. You just don't seem to understand one concept. Whatever amount of electrical work there is, it's finite. There are X number of manhours of potential electrical work to be done, today. Tomorrow maybe more, maybe less. The point is, moving a shop or opening a shop in a particular area does not bring more electrical work into that area, the work is already there. The shop moving there is moving there to get a piece of the action, meaning, if they never moved in, other local contractors would man the jobs. 

Opening a new school does not create more students.

Opening a new shopping mall (also a typical receipient of tax abatements) doesn't bring more sales tax income or create more jobs either. People aren't sitting home with piles of money gathering dust just waiting for a convenient place to spend it. They'll spend it elsewhere. And though a new shopping center will offer jobs to retail workers, there will be that many retail worker hours cut in existing shopping centers which lose their business to a new location.


----------



## amptech

What words did I put in your mouth? Didn't mean to do that at all. I think you are being clear on your position. You don't believe a company like Gaylor creates any new jobs regardless of how many new people they recruit into their training program. If they can't prove they recruited the stipulated number of people into the program at the end of the 6 year abatement period they forfeit the tax abatement so who stands to lose what? Some people oppose the idea of tax abatements some support them. Difference of economic philosophy. Some hail NAFTA as a great trade agreement for America. Some believe it is a total disaster to the USA. Whatever.


----------



## amptech

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Nobody thinks your a moron. You just don't seem to understand one concept. Whatever amount of electrical work there is, it's finite. There are X number of manhours of potential electrical work to be done, today. Tomorrow maybe more, maybe less. The point is, moving a shop or opening a shop in a particular area does not bring more electrical work into that area, the work is already there. The shop moving there is moving there to get a piece of the action, meaning, if they never moved in, other local contractors would man the jobs.
> 
> Opening a new school does not create more students.
> 
> Opening a new shopping mall (also a typical receipient of tax abatements) doesn't bring more sales tax income or create more jobs either. People aren't sitting home with piles of money gathering dust just waiting for a convenient place to spend it. They'll spend it elsewhere. And though a new shopping center will offer jobs to retail workers, there will be that many retail worker hours cut in existing shopping centers which lose their business to a new location.


Then tax abatements are wrong across the board. I would have no problem with that. What I really have a problem with is taxpayer funded professional sports stadium building projects. But that's another whole can of worms.


----------



## nap

amptech said:


> You don't believe a company like Gaylor creates any new jobs regardless of how many new people they recruit into their training program. If they can't prove they recruited the stipulated number of people into the program at the end of the 6 year abatement period they forfeit the tax abatement so who stands to lose what? Some people oppose the idea of tax abatements some support them. Difference of economic philosophy. Some hail NAFTA as a great trade agreement for America. Some believe it is a total disaster to the USA. Whatever.


they employ people but they do not create jobs. They merely fill openings that are already there. Since any market can only support a finite number of supporting workers (service work) they will either employ people they cannot offer regular fulltime work to or they will displace workers from other companies.

They will have no net effect on employment in the area regardless of how many people they employ.


----------



## LGLS

amptech said:


> What words did I put in your mouth? Didn't mean to do that at all. I think you are being clear on your position. You don't believe a company like Gaylor creates any new jobs regardless of how many new people they recruit into their training program. If they can't prove they recruited the stipulated number of people into the program at the end of the 6 year abatement period they forfeit the tax abatement so who stands to lose what? Some people oppose the idea of tax abatements some support them. Difference of economic philosophy. Some hail NAFTA as a great trade agreement for America. Some believe it is a total disaster to the USA. Whatever.


I'd like to see one instance of a tax abated deal forfeited due to noncompliance.


----------



## oldman

randomkiller said:


> I hate seeing that kind of stuff going on. We are all Americans and just need to stick together. Are you familiar with the North American Union or the Amero? These are up coming fights we will all have to deal with soon enough.


heard quite a bit about it...not sure how true it is right now, but i agree if it comes to pass it might not be such a good thing...



randomkiller said:


> I feel lucky to be in the shop I am. It's night and day from the last contractor I worked for. It's a rare feeling now a days to feel appreciated by your boss. I usually only hit the office once every other week but I talk to my boss twice a day, he actually says "thanks" when hanging up. As for working with the tools, they have asked me to do more estimating and that type of thing but, I push to stay with the tools. I have a thing for not being stuck inside an office or cubicle for more than a meeting.


it's a good company you work for....McGinnis seems to have a good handle on where to head this ship and who to bring along to help run it. When all the other rollups have fallen apart, you guys have thrived. 

the funny part is, my buddy and I have been talking about forming an HVAC/R/E company and going union. We would be in Local 9 territory, and also 400. The main blocking point was the fact that our address puts us in 400 territory. Then this occurs to remind me why I don't want 400 to be my home local

The biggest issue is that it's not the men in general...it's the leadership...and the men that have their nose up the leaderships ass...that's where the problem arises...


----------



## LGLS

amptech said:


> Then tax abatements are wrong across the board. I would have no problem with that. What I really have a problem with is taxpayer funded professional sports stadium building projects. But that's another whole can of worms.


No, not across the board. If the local community abates taxes to attract an automaker or a manufacturer who could potentially locate anywhere in the country or the world, striking a deal is probably worth it.

But abating taxes for a company that works locally is simply robbing from the existing tax base to favor "new" business which will simply be cutting in on the already existing business. 

Could you imagine a developer putting up McMansions with 6-year tax abatements to spur residential growth because your housing market is in a slump? So 1000 houses go in with no tax for 6 years, and 100 families who need ambulances, schooling, fire protection, police, libraries and snow plowing and road paving pay nothing for the first 6 years. Wonderful. :blink:


----------



## randomkiller

amptech said:


> Then tax abatements are wrong across the board. I would have no problem with that. What I really have a problem with is taxpayer funded professional sports stadium building projects. But that's another whole can of worms.


It's no different than when politicians declare a war on something (drugs, illegal immigration, terrorism) they just become deep holes that swallow billions of dollars and it isn't like we ever see any real results.


----------



## amptech

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> No, not across the board. If the local community abates taxes to attract an automaker or a manufacturer who could potentially locate anywhere in the country or the world, striking a deal is probably worth it.
> 
> But abating taxes for a company that works locally is simply robbing from the existing tax base to favor "new" business which will simply be cutting in on the already existing business.
> 
> Could you imagine a developer putting up McMansions with 6-year tax abatements to spur residential growth because your housing market is in a slump? So 1000 houses go in with no tax for 6 years, and 100 families who need ambulances, schooling, fire protection, police, libraries and snow plowing and road paving pay nothing for the first 6 years. Wonderful. :blink:


That DOES happen all the time. Its called delayed annexation. Developer makes a deal with municipality to build an addition. Developer builds roads with curbs. Installs water/sewer services and connects to municipality with the agreement to not contest annexation when the development reaches 75% occupation. It is a good deal for the municipality. No up front infrastructure costs. Homeowners pay water/sewer bill from day one. Annexation goes in effect 3-10 years down the road and BAM. Property taxes on your 3500 sqft brick home jump from $1200 a year to $4000.00. Homeowners can't fight it because they agreed to future voluntary annexation when they bought their building lot. If you didn't know this was common practice you haven't been paying attention to the housing boom the last 15 years.


----------



## amptech

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I'd like to see one instance of a tax abated deal forfeited due to noncompliance.


Nanakote Homes. Mt Summit, IN. Panelized manufactured home company that came from Michigan in 1998. Failed to meet conditions on a 5 year tax abatement. Barden Homes New Castle, IN. Same type of company from New York. Same deal, same failure. Neither failure was due to lack of demand, just total mismanagement.


----------



## LGLS

amptech said:


> That DOES happen all the time. Its called delayed annexation. Developer makes a deal with municipality to build an addition. Developer builds roads with curbs. Installs water/sewer services and connects to municipality with the agreement to not contest annexation when the development reaches 75% occupation. It is a good deal for the municipality. No up front infrastructure costs. Homeowners pay water/sewer bill from day one. Annexation goes in effect 3-10 years down the road and BAM. Property taxes on your 3500 sqft brick home jump from $1200 a year to $4000.00. Homeowners can't fight it because they agreed to future voluntary annexation when they bought their building lot. If you didn't know this was common practice you haven't been paying attention to the housing boom the last 15 years.


Different municipalities do different things and work in different ways. There's not much of a residential housing boom here on Long Island since the early 80's. This is the first I've heard of a tax abatement for a residential development.


----------



## randomkiller

amptech said:


> Nanakote Homes. Mt Summit, IN. Panelized manufactured home company that came from Michigan in 1998. Failed to meet conditions on a 5 year tax abatement. Barden Homes New Castle, IN. Same type of company from New York. Same deal, same failure. Neither failure was due to lack of demand, just total mismanagement.


 
Interesting to see some enforcement. I guess they didn't make the right political contributions.


----------



## leland

average salary is 59,000.--
I would'nt leave my house for this!

You can do better on Welfare!!
Thanx to those supported by the ............... 


:no: :whistling2:


----------



## amptech

You can live pretty well in central IN on $59k. I know that you'd struggle on those wages on the east or west coasts. Union journeyman makes $28.00 here plus bennies. Union inside wireman makes $17 plus bennies.


----------



## LGLS

leland said:


> average salary is 59,000.--
> I would'nt leave my house for this!
> 
> You can do better on Welfare!!
> Thanx to those supported by the ...............
> 
> 
> :no: :whistling2:


Average salary is meaningless, if the company owner's salary of 1.5 million is averaged into 30 helpers making 8 bucks an hour...


----------



## LGLS

amptech said:


> You can live pretty well in central IN on $59k. I know that you'd struggle on those wages on the east or west coasts. Union journeyman makes $28.00 here plus bennies. Union inside wireman makes $17 plus bennies.


A union journeyman is an inside wireman. Do you mean residential wireman?


----------



## amptech

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> A union journeyman is an inside wireman. Do you mean residential wireman?


Yes, you are correct. The term is residential wireman. As far as your previous post about averaging salaries, no reasonable person would deny that what you described does happen. But we're talking about a specific company where it has been proven that is not the case. Anybody can say negative things about anybody or anything. You are justified to be offended when someone makes a negative general statement directed at the IBEW. Doing the same thing directed at open shops is just as wrong. Yes, there are open shop owners who take advantage of their employees. Never denied that. But to demonize a company and automatically assume them to be owned by dishonest, greedy abusive people based soley on the fact that they are open shop is ridiculous.


----------



## Mackie

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You and about 30% of all nonunion workers will reach out only when the economy slumps. But you are approaching the union with the attitude that nonunion is good enough, unless there is NO work, then the union is OK, which is why you and the 30% who get laid off will hit a brick wall when you look to the union for salvation now in your hour of need.
> 
> Unions don't do too much organizing when there's no work. And they're not going to put a member out of work to thank you for your change of heart. The last thing unions need these days are foul weather friends.


Whoa, hold on there sparky! You don't know me, so please don't make assumptions about 'loyalty'. 

Did you read my post? I'm trying to _break into a career_ and I'm _researching my choices_. How does anyone know anything about how great labor unions are without actually joining and working in one? Where is the unions' PR campaign? Just because I'm... alive... I'm supposed to cherish labor unions? Have they reached out to me at all????? 

And what's this about putting members out and my hour of need stuff??????????? 

Like I said, I worked in a union shop in one other job and the 'good' parts were very good but the 'bad' parts were very bad - so it all balanced out i.e. not any better or worse than non-union. So now I'm supposed to put unions on a pedestal???

Anyway, I called up the local union inquiring about the apprenticeship program and they said I need to sign up by the end of next February to start the program in the fall of 2009.... Yeah! Reaching out...

:no:


----------



## Mackie

Holy crap! WTF???

Sorry for starting this mess...


----------



## oldman

Mackie said:


> Holy crap! WTF???
> 
> Sorry for starting this mess...


don't be sorry...did you learn anything you didn't know before? then it was worth it...


----------



## LGLS

Mackie said:


> Whoa, hold on there sparky! You don't know me, so please don't make assumptions about 'loyalty'.
> 
> Did you read my post? I'm trying to _break into a career_ and I'm _researching my choices_. How does anyone know anything about how great labor unions are without actually joining and working in one? Where is the unions' PR campaign? Just because I'm... alive... I'm supposed to cherish labor unions? Have they reached out to me at all?????
> 
> And what's this about putting members out and my hour of need stuff???????????
> 
> Like I said, I worked in a union shop in one other job and the 'good' parts were very good but the 'bad' parts were very bad - so it all balanced out i.e. not any better or worse than non-union. So now I'm supposed to put unions on a pedestal???
> 
> Anyway, I called up the local union inquiring about the apprenticeship program and they said I need to sign up by the end of next February to start the program in the fall of 2009.... Yeah! Reaching out...
> 
> :no:


This isn't about loyalty Mackie. It was never about loyalty. You said "I work in a non-union shop and because of ^this strike we are no longer getting any vehicle deliveries and I will most likely be laid off next Friday unless the strike ends (which it probably won't).

If you read the articles, you can see how I would have mixed feelings about unions. Especially since these guys - who are costing me my job - are making, and still would be making if the management got their way - a boat load more than I do."

You have mixed feelings about unions (or at least this issue) when their action(s) affect you negatively. You probably didn't complain when you worked in a Teamster warehouse and got paid very well, and even part timers got benefits. (Those types of rules come about to prevent a company from "churning" it's workforce so that nobody ever makes it to top pay. And part timers earning equal benefits and hourly wages are also to prevent a company from turning 50 full time positions into 100 part time positions to drop their employees from the benefits.)

Part of the reason many union workers earn more than nonunion is because they refused to settle for less, and are willing to withold their labor to prove their point, even when such actions rarely result in substantial gains in the short term. When push comes to shove in contract negotiations, business is eventually forced to either substantiate their position of profit loss, (open the books) OR agree to the raises demanded. (Funny how they always end up agreeing to the raises, rather than open the books.) 

I'd hope most people's attitude of unions wouldn't be based on a PR campaign. Sorry they're not crowding the airwaves in an attempt to appease you. 

As for the apprenticeship program, it's a structured program and operates much like a school, because it is a school. You can't start whenever you feel like.


----------



## nap

Mackie said:


> Anyway, I called up the local union inquiring about the apprenticeship program and they said I need to sign up by the end of next February to start the program in the fall of 2009.... Yeah! Reaching out...
> 
> :no:


Most of the locals I know of do have deadlines such as this. Since the class year is similar in time to a typical school year, they do not want to start new apprentices in the middle of a year so after a certain point, you look towards the next year.

The application process, in most of the locals I am aware of, takes a couple months and by this time of the year, you would have missed certain parts of the process. They typically do not go back and make up these parts. The tests are given to the entire prosepective apprentice group at the same time, not on individual timelines.

It is just more practical for the logistics to do it this way rather than as individuals.


----------



## miller_elex

While you are waiting to get into the program,
you could sign the residential books, you would be in high demand if you are knowledgeable about remodel. Or, you could solicit your own work at a union shop as a material handler. Hell, I wouldn't even mind working at the supply house for a while. Take some code and electrical related classes at the community college at night. Take some construction mgmt related classes on materials & methods and scheduling and such.

The point is, make like you want to go somewhere. Working in a union shop here, there are more sparkys who came from the non-union side at one time than who got their start in the union apprenticeship. No matter where you are, as long as you are friendly, bust your hump, and do what you're told... you will go far. 

For those of you stuck in a small shop in a small town somewheres, unless you are willing to travel alot, I'll bet you would be better off going out on your own when you are ready. Keep your overhead small. The problem is, when that new grocery store comes to town, the bigger shop from the city is going to win the bid and send their sparkys out for all that new construction or the big remodel... that's not right either.

I wish we ALL could get a bigger piece of pie. To the diehards on both sides, I'm sorry, but I feel we are all sparkys first and foremost, and that's what matters. My cousin is a foreman at one of the bigger non-union shops, and when I look at him, I see a fellow electrician, just trying to eek out a living, not my competition in some pitched battle to the death like some on both sides would make it seem.

When we all can figure out an honest and decent way to make better for us electricians as a whole, the union / non-union rivalry will fade to irrelevance or work itself out.


----------



## nap

miller_elex said:


> When we all can figure out an honest and decent way to make better for us electricians as a whole, the union / non-union rivalry will fade to irrelevance or work itself out.


We have. It's called a union. 

Without getting into the history of things, it is as simple as, the reason an open shop makes the wages they make is because of what the union shops make. As another posted, if the non-union shops did not pay what they do, all the electricians would go to a union shop. We (as union) fight for the increases and the non-union shops ride our coat tails to better pay and bene's.

That is one reason I fight our union leadership concerning pay freezes or especially reductions in pay. The non-union shops will simply reduce their pay to run under our scale and we will be exactly where we started. It becomes a race to poverty with none of the electricians winning.

When we raise our wages, the non-union shops follow. The non-union shops love for us to get raises because that means they can also get raises.

This is not meant to be disparaging to the non-union shops, it is simply the truth of the economics involved.


----------



## Control Freak

Why would unions dying off be a good thing. A union establishes collective bargaining, giving one voice to many people. they establish a prevailing rate in comparison to the cost of living. we should all band together and raise our voices against the corporate machine thats destroying the blue collar middle class.


----------



## RUSSIAN

nap said:


> We have. It's called a union.
> 
> Without getting into the history of things, it is as simple as, the reason an open shop makes the wages they make is because of what the union shops make. As another posted, if the non-union shops did not pay what they do, all the electricians would go to a union shop. We (as union) fight for the increases and the non-union shops ride our coat tails to better pay and bene's.
> 
> That is one reason I fight our union leadership concerning pay freezes or especially reductions in pay. The non-union shops will simply reduce their pay to run under our scale and we will be exactly where we started. It becomes a race to poverty with none of the electricians winning.
> 
> When we raise our wages, the non-union shops follow. The non-union shops love for us to get raises because that means they can also get raises.
> 
> This is not meant to be disparaging to the non-union shops, it is simply the truth of the economics involved.


A very similar thing happened to a local around here about 15 years ago. They were losing market share pretty badly so the members agreed to lower their scale by about $10 an hour in an attempt to allow the contractors to compete with the open shops. Guess what? the open shops just lowered their wages and the only winners were the non-union contractors. to this day that local has never been able to get their wages back.


----------



## oldman

i ask this question, without having an answer....it's not a loaded question...

When does it end? how much can you pay 1 man for what amounts to only labor before the system implodes?

currently, in my area, a journeyman earns roughly $68/hr total package....how much is too much? what the breaking point? $70/hr, $75/hr, $80/hr?

do you think that there is no end, and this number will one day be $150/hr?


----------



## LGLS

oldman said:


> i ask this question, without having an answer....it's not a loaded question...
> 
> When does it end? how much can you pay 1 man for what amounts to only labor before the system implodes?
> 
> currently, in my area, a journeyman earns roughly $68/hr total package....how much is too much? what the breaking point? $70/hr, $75/hr, $80/hr?
> 
> do you think that there is no end, and this number will one day be $150/hr?


As the cost of living increases, the price of labor should follow. What do you mean "where does it end?" Should it end? Should it stop at some number and never go higher?


----------



## randomkiller

oldman said:


> i ask this question, without having an answer....it's not a loaded question...
> 
> When does it end? how much can you pay 1 man for what amounts to only labor before the system implodes?
> 
> currently, in my area, a journeyman earns roughly $68/hr total package....how much is too much? what the breaking point? $70/hr, $75/hr, $80/hr?
> 
> do you think that there is no end, and this number will one day be $150/hr?


What does a doctor charge per hour? Are they worth so much more than you? Why, 4 more years of college? It all has to be put in perspective. Like those $300 NASA hammers and $1000 toilet seats.


----------



## oldman

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> As the cost of living increases, the price of labor should follow. What do you mean "where does it end?" Should it end? Should it stop at some number and never go higher?


it has to peak someplace....otherwise you are paying a journeyman $500/hr...but a starter home will $10 mil...and the $ becomes like the lira......$40,000 will have the purchasing power of $400 today.....or do we do like mexico? inflate the hell out of the $, then overnight reduce it's value by 90 percent accross the board to bring some sanity back?


----------



## randomkiller

RUSSIAN said:


> A very similar thing happened to a local around here about 15 years ago. They were losing market share pretty badly so the members agreed to lower their scale by about $10 an hour in an attempt to allow the contractors to compete with the open shops. Guess what? the open shops just lowered their wages and the only winners were the non-union contractors. to this day that local has never been able to get their wages back.


 
Once you drop your pants it's all over.


----------



## oldman

randomkiller said:


> What does a doctor charge per hour? Are they worth so much more than you? Why, 4 more years of college? It all has to be put in perspective. Like those $300 NASA hammers and $1000 toilet seats.


random, the isn't only in regards to the trades....it's all interconnected....as our wages increase, the cost of everything we build will increase...... in order to afford what we build, other industries wages will have to increase....so we all earn larger sums of money, but have no more purchasing power than we do now.....40 years ago the average blue collar guy earned significantly less n but had way more purchasing power....right nw, we are all out of whack...


----------



## randomkiller

oldman said:


> random, the isn't only in regards to the trades....it's all interconnected....as our wages increase, the cost of everything we build will increase...... in order to afford what we build, other industries wages will have to increase....so we all earn larger sums of money, but have no more purchasing power than we do now.....40 years ago the average blue collar guy earned significantly less n but had way more purchasing power....right nw, we are all out of whack...


 
That's out of our control, in a well backed international conspiracy the federal reserve and the bildaberger group has hopes of playing their cards to make the use of the Amero and the north american union more palatable to the population as a whole. We are in uncharted waters in the financial arena in this country for some time now.


----------



## oldman

randomkiller said:


> That's out of our control, in a well backed international conspiracy the federal reserve and the bildaberger group has hopes of playing their cards to make the use of the Amero and the north american union more palatable to the population as a whole. We are in uncharted waters in the financial arena in this country for some time now.


conspiracies aside, what you are suggesting with your comparison to doctors is akin to communism...you will never have wage parity between a doctor and your average journeyman...you will have, you do have, wagew parity between doctors and elecrical contractors....there is a difference between what is charged and what is paid to the doctor/electrician....


----------



## nap

Ok oldman. I think you need to take the lead and walk into your office and tell them you are going to work for 1/2, no, what the hell, let's go for 1/4 of what you make now. Somebody has to take the first step and we would just as well it be you.



> i ask this question, without having an answer....it's not a loaded question...
> 
> When does it end? how much can you pay 1 man for what amounts to only labor before the system implodes?
> 
> currently, in my area, a journeyman earns roughly $68/hr total package....how much is too much? what the breaking point? $70/hr, $75/hr, $80/hr?
> 
> do you think that there is no end, and this number will one day be $150/hr?


yes, someday it will probably be $150/hour just as when my dad was young and made $1.50 doing the same job he retired from making $15/hr (this was years ago). Just as those wages increased, so will your and mine and hopefully we can keep up with inflation and maybe even go a bit ahead as we refine ourselves and become more valuable.

Everything increases; wages, cost to build a house, GASOLINE, and food. Stagnation of wages and costs of goods is actually a bad thing as far as economics go.

Have you compared your wages to the median or the arithmetic mean wage in your area (wage and bene package)?

How much are you worth?


----------



## oldman

nap said:


> How much are you worth?



more than i pay myself


----------



## Romexking

Holy Smoke! I just spent the last two hours reading this thread and my eyes are bugging out of my head. 

Let me preface the following with: I was a union member, I was an instructor for the JATC, I was a union contractor. I am not any of those now. So you may see where this is going.

I could spend days responding to particular posts but let me make just a few(?) comments. 

1. Although it _was _many years, not decades mind you, but many years ago, I was teaching my class, and our locals organizer/asst. BA came in to speak about salting. At the end of the presentation, a movie clip was shown about union members burning down a construction trailer "city" at the...maybe Mall of America?...and his comment was something to the order of sometimes you have to do things like that to get your point across. So believe me when I say that intimidation, theft, destruction, and other sorts of hardline tactics are, or at least were at that time, condoned. 

2. In regards to the company getting tax breaks and that no jobs were created. This happens all of the time. Logic would dictate that unless you are providing a completely new product or service, you must be taking jobs away from somewhere. And that is why local and even state governments give these tax breaks-to entice those companies to locate in their jurisdiction-because of the (should I type it?) trickle down effect that the company's operations provide. The trucks need fuel and repairs, office equipment and supplies need to be purchased, the employees will spend money in that jurisdiction, maybe move there and increase the tax base of the local area, ect.. So there is more to it than us mere electricians know that would allow us to discuss it intelligently. 

3. Perhaps I am viewing this from my side of the fence, but many of the posters with an "anti-open shop" mentality come off as being hypocritical. For Example



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Your feelings are shared by many. For you it's not about brotherhood or fighting the good fight or workers improving or even maintaining their standard of living. You're against unions, or at least this particular union issue because it has a negative effect on YOU. Because you aren't looking at the big picture...
> 
> Everyone who works for a living, union or not, is in the same boat. All working people. I wouldn't hold it against anyone working nonunion as we're all just trying to put food on the table. But a rising tide raises all ships...


and then:



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> What I do on the side has absolutely zero effect on any union contractor. The only negative effect is on nonunion mom & pops, and, truth be told the union is OK with that. Because the residential construction and service market here is flooded with hundreds of nonunion contractors, the local has no marketshare in anything residential.


Why would you both violate your union membership agreement and at the same time, keep the many, including union contractors, at "low tide"? By undercutting a legitimate contractor, union or not, you are forcing them to compete with you, a sidejobber, without the usual costs that all full time contractors have. Shouldn't you and your local be supporting and promoting the use of all organized labor, not just on big commercial or industrial jobs. If you were to step back and look at the big picture, you know, for the benefit of all contractors (alludes to "For you it's not about brotherhood or fighting the good fight or workers improving or even maintaining their standard of living. ... Because you aren't looking at the big picture....") you would stop performing side work...it is bringing down the wages of non union workers. 

and 



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You and about 30% of all nonunion workers will reach out only when the economy slumps. But you are approaching the union with the attitude that nonunion is good enough, unless there is NO work,


How many union guys, after sitting on the bench for 2 months or sometimes as little as 2 weeks, go searching for non union jobs, because "they gotta feed their families"? Now I'm not against feeding your family, but darn it, if you are going to bleed union, then stop picking and choosing which beliefs you will follow, and when the rules will be enforced and when they will be overlooked. 


Oh, by the way for you "no way but the union way" guys, who built the home you live in? Was it stricly union labor? I'm going out on a limb here, but I would guess not. Surely if your union convictions (not meant as pun...oh yeah it was) were so strong, you would have sought out union carpenters, tile setters, plumbers, sprinkler fitters, masons, operating engineers, roofers, concrete placers, carpet/flooring installers (are there any?), teamsters to move your furnishings, and oh yeah, electricians. You wouldn't want to take the food off of your friend's plate now would you? Even though I wouldn't condone it, if you truely believed in the ideals the stands on, you could have built your home this way. 

I could go on for hours, but it is late and I type pretty slow, but let me finish with this: contrary to the one sided response I posted, I have very little animosity toward the union. I just despise hypocrisy. 

Let the attacks begin!


----------



## nap

No attack, just a response.=Romexking;24142]



> 1. At the end of the presentation, a movie clip was shown about union members burning down a construction trailer "city" at the...maybe Mall of America?...and his comment was something to the order of sometimes you have to do things like that to get your point across. So believe me when I say that intimidation, theft, destruction, and other sorts of hardline tactics are, or at least were at that time, condoned.


I have never even heard this hinted at in my local. Jimmy Hoffa is dead (at least we all think so) and most of the "we'll change their minds if we have to bust em to do it" has pretty much gone away. 



> 2. In regards to the company getting tax breaks and that no jobs were created. . The trucks need fuel and repairs, office equipment and supplies need to be purchased, the employees will spend money in that jurisdiction, maybe move there and increase the tax base of the local area, ect.. So there is more to it than us mere electricians know that would allow us to discuss it intelligently.


You'ver never worked in a government entity, have you? There is NOT more to it in regrards to the true financial end of it. There may be more to it inregrds to nepotism or other improper reasoning. Logic does rule here. You say, "their trucks will need fuel, etc." Well, the trucks of the people already their need fuel. WWhat happens with a service company is you DISPLACE workers already there. You have a net gain of 0 jobs and as such, a 0 net gain to the community. Actually, you may end up with a net LOSS due to the fact that you are displcing people already there with people that come to the area. If those people are not from the area, their loyalties and families may be elsewhere so they may still spend the bulk of their money elsewhere. It provides no net gain to pay to bring in jobs to replace those already there.



> 3. Perhaps I am viewing this from my side of the fence, but many of the posters with an "anti-open shop" mentality come off as being hypocritical.
> 
> Why would you both violate your union membership agreement and at the same time, keep the many, including union contractors, at "low tide


I don't do side work and do not condone it. Neither does our local. To me, it is for the exact reasons you give. I do not intend on competing with our local contractors. Insome locals, it does not truly compete with them as the union contractors do not have, nor even want in some locals, residential work. In those locals, it injures the non-union contractors only. That ends up being a net improvement to the union contractors. Most resi guys dabble in commercial and even some industrial, even if they do not know what they are doing.



> Oh, by the way for you "no way but the union way" guys, who built the home you live in? Was it stricly union labor?


this is rediculous. I did not have thehome I live in built so I had no control over who did build it. IF I have a home built, I will either do it myself or hir union contrators to do what I do not so so get off this horse. It is not a choice in most cases.



> Even though I wouldn't condone it, if you truely believed in the ideals the stands on, you could have built your home this way.


If/wehn this does arise for me, it will be done this way.



> I could go on for hours, but it is late and I type pretty slow, but let me finish with this: contrary to the one sided response I posted, I have very little animosity toward the union. I just despise hypocrisy.


I hate a person throwing ideas out that are not correct or incomplete as to a given situation. That is what you have done for the most part.


----------



## LGLS

Romexking said:


> Holy Smoke! I just spent the last two hours reading this thread and my eyes are bugging out of my head.
> 
> Let me preface the following with: I was a union member, I was an instructor for the JATC, I was a union contractor. I am not any of those now. So you may see where this is going.
> 
> I could spend days responding to particular posts but let me make just a few(?) comments.
> 
> 1. Although it _was _many years, not decades mind you, but many years ago, I was teaching my class, and our locals organizer/asst. BA came in to speak about salting. At the end of the presentation, a movie clip was shown about union members burning down a construction trailer "city" at the...maybe Mall of America?...and his comment was something to the order of sometimes you have to do things like that to get your point across. So believe me when I say that intimidation, theft, destruction, and other sorts of hardline tactics are, or at least were at that time, condoned.


Such actions are not condoned, and haven't been for a very long time. The last thing unions want is negative press. There's already enough misinformation and negative stereotypes being parroted. Corporate campaigns, leafletting, and informational pickets are much more effective. 



> 2. In regards to the company getting tax breaks and that no jobs were created. This happens all of the time. Logic would dictate that unless you are providing a completely new product or service, you must be taking jobs away from somewhere. And that is why local and even state governments give these tax breaks-to entice those companies to locate in their jurisdiction-because of the (should I type it?) trickle down effect that the company's operations provide. The trucks need fuel and repairs, office equipment and supplies need to be purchased, the employees will spend money in that jurisdiction, maybe move there and increase the tax base of the local area, ect.. So there is more to it than us mere electricians know that would allow us to discuss it intelligently.


In the situation discussed, the benefit to the tax base was immeasurable compared to the benefit given to a contractor that would have built and located somewhere regardless of the tax breaks. 



> 3. Perhaps I am viewing this from my side of the fence, but many of the posters with an "anti-open shop" mentality come off as being hypocritical. For Example
> 
> Originally Posted by *LawnGuyLandSparky*
> _Your feelings are shared by many. For you it's not about brotherhood or fighting the good fight or workers improving or even maintaining their standard of living. You're against unions, or at least this particular union issue because it has a negative effect on YOU. Because you aren't looking at the big picture... _
> 
> _Everyone who works for a living, union or not, is in the same boat. All working people. I wouldn't hold it against anyone working nonunion as we're all just trying to put food on the table. But a rising tide raises all ships..._
> 
> and then:
> 
> Originally Posted by *LawnGuyLandSparky*
> _What I do on the side has absolutely zero effect on any union contractor. The only negative effect is on nonunion mom & pops, and, truth be told the union is OK with that. Because the residential construction and service market here is flooded with hundreds of nonunion contractors, the local has no marketshare in anything residential._
> 
> 
> Why would you both violate your union membership agreement and at the same time, keep the many, including union contractors, at "low tide"?


First, I do not reside in my local's jurisdiction. My sidework does not keep any union contractor at low tide. Every service I do, every dormer I wire, keeps a nonunion contractor from gaining ground. If I an 9 others stopped doing sidework, one nonunion contractor would have to hire one full time worker. 

There may be hypocrisy, but the ultimate in hypocricy is a nonunion contractor balking at a union member ignoring the working agreement when you are not a party to it. Do YOU honor the working agreement, in all it's aspects? Or do you only cry foul when a union member is doing something that isn't in your best interests? 



> By undercutting a legitimate contractor, union or not, you are forcing them to compete with you, a sidejobber, without the usual costs that all full time contractors have.


Incorrect. I'm not hurting any union contractor.



> Shouldn't you and your local be supporting and promoting the use of all organized labor, not just on big commercial or industrial jobs.


YES, however many years ago the union contractors themselves found that they could not possibly compete against the nonunion residential contractors, and gave up bidding on that work. It was impossible to pay union scale when the nonunion residential ropers were doing it with helpers only, or "mechanics" paid like helpers, as it were.

This gave rise to some nonunion contractor slowly but surely getting bigger and dabbling into the markets that we did have locked up. Now, the local is looking to change the apprenticeship program to include mandatory "small work" time, and sitting down with the contractors to take a closer look at competing for the small work market. 



> If you were to step back and look at the big picture, you know, for the benefit of all contractors (alludes to "For you it's not about brotherhood or fighting the good fight or workers improving or even maintaining their standard of living. ... Because you aren't looking at the big picture....") you would stop performing side work...it is bringing down the wages of non union workers.


I'm not looking at the big picture for the benefit of contractors, union or not. Were I and every other union hand to stop sidejobbing tomorrow, that would not result in nonunion contractors giving out windfall raises. 



> and
> Originally Posted by *LawnGuyLandSparky*
> _You and about 30% of all nonunion workers will reach out only when the economy slumps. But you are approaching the union with the attitude that nonunion is good enough, unless there is NO work,_
> 
> 
> How many union guys, after sitting on the bench for 2 months or sometimes as little as 2 weeks, go searching for non union jobs, because "they gotta feed their families"? Now I'm not against feeding your family, but darn it, if you are going to bleed union, then stop picking and choosing which beliefs you will follow, and when the rules will be enforced and when they will be overlooked.


I cannot speak for those who do this. When I am unemployed, I'm quite satisfied with my unemployment check and my unemployment benefit. I know other locals do not have an additional fund for the unemployed and it's more difficult to carry on until a job comes up. Every member is supposed to and encouraged to live within their means, and that of course includes putting aside for the rainy days. Of course, this isn't a perfect world, and many people are not as financially responsible as they should be. Or for whatever personal circumstances, cannot survive without a weekly paycheck.

For the record, I wouldn't classify the members who seek nonunion employment after 2 months or as little as 2 weeks on the bench as those who "bleed union." These are fair weather members. 



> Oh, by the way for you "no way but the union way" guys, who built the home you live in? Was it stricly union labor? I'm going out on a limb here, but I would guess not.


I worked on some of the last union built housing on Long Island. For the record, their sale prices were no different than the nonunion built housing. But really, does purchasing a home constitute supporting the nonunion sector?



> Surely if your union convictions (not meant as pun...oh yeah it was)


All puns aside, if you want to joke about convictions, I could direct you to the websites showing all of the nonunion contractors disbarred from public works due to payroll fraud. 



> were so strong, you would have sought out union carpenters, tile setters, plumbers, sprinkler fitters, masons, operating engineers, roofers, concrete placers, carpet/flooring installers (are there any?), teamsters to move your furnishings, and oh yeah, electricians. You wouldn't want to take the food off of your friend's plate now would you? Even though I wouldn't condone it, if you truely believed in the ideals the stands on, you could have built your home this way.


For what it's worth, most union members I know do most of their own work on their own homes. But hey, at least we OWN homes. 



> I could go on for hours, but it is late and I type pretty slow, but let me finish with this: contrary to the one sided response I posted, I have very little animosity toward the union. I just despise hypocrisy.
> 
> Let the attacks begin!


Name me an institution that is immune from hypocrisy.


----------



## Romexking

nap said:


> No attack, just a response.=Romexking;24142]
> 
> I have never even heard this hinted at in my local. Jimmy Hoffa is dead (at least we all think so) and most of the "we'll change their minds if we have to bust em to do it" has pretty much gone away.


It very well may not be condoned, but it does take place. I know that the IBEW in general is very forward thinking and for the most part the old ways are not the norm. 




nap said:


> You'ver never worked in a government entity, have you? There is NOT more to it in regrards to the true financial end of it. There may be more to it inregrds to nepotism or other improper reasoning. Logic does rule here. You say, "their trucks will need fuel, etc." Well, the trucks of the people already their need fuel. WWhat happens with a service company is you DISPLACE workers already there. You have a net gain of 0 jobs and as such, a 0 net gain to the community. Actually, you may end up with a net LOSS due to the fact that you are displcing people already there with people that come to the area. If those people are not from the area, their loyalties and families may be elsewhere so they may still spend the bulk of their money elsewhere. It provides no net gain to pay to bring in jobs to replace those already there.


As I said, unless you are bringing a completely new service or product to town, you will always be displacing workers. And the financial end of it is the reason for the grants and tax abatements.The governments do this to entice businesses AWAY from other jurisdictions, and into theirs. I didn't say I agree with the practice of giving taxpayer's money away to private businesses, but it must be beneficial to the local economy that secures the relocated business. By your logic, it is a bad thing when ever a new store opens. A new restaurant must take away customers from existing places. A new mall will only detract customers from existing malls. This point has been proven false. It is a proven fact that if there was a fast food restaurant or gas station on every corner of a particular road, they would all see an increase in revenue. That is why you see all of the usual fast food places located together. I do understand that this would probably not work with a service based business, but your belief that it will not help the _*local*_ economy is false



nap said:


> I don't do side work and do not condone it. Neither does our local. To me, it is for the exact reasons you give. I do not intend on competing with our local contractors. Insome locals, it does not truly compete with them as the union contractors do not have, nor even want in some locals, residential work. In those locals, it injures the non-union contractors only. That ends up being a net improvement to the union contractors. Most resi guys dabble in commercial and even some industrial, even if they do not know what they are doing.


What you are saying is that you only care about yourself and those that subscribe to your ideology, not the trade as a whole. Screw the non union guys...they can try to compete with the sidejobbers and get what is coming to them. If they can't feed their families because both non union and union guys are undercutting their prices with sidework, that's ok, they just need to lower their prices even more. The union is supposed to stand for bringing up the working conditions. You are supposed to get paid enough that you don't have to do side work. Why do you want to work more hours than your 40? That would be lowering the working conditions. 

What we are talking about is not just contractors, but people and families. You are advocating injuring them financially until the "see the light" and fall in line with your thinking. The end justifies the means right? 



nap said:


> this is rediculous. I did not have thehome I live in built so I had no control over who did build it. IF I have a home built, I will either do it myself or hir union contrators to do what I do not so so get off this horse. It is not a choice in most cases.
> 
> If/wehn this does arise for me, it will be done this way.


Now that is the height of hipocricity. You did have the ability to control who you purchased a home from if you chose to do so. You just chose to live where you live, and abandoned your convictions because it was convenient to you. That is my point, you pick and choose your ideals to suit the situation you are presented with. So if buying a home bult with non union labor is something you can tolerate, where does it stop? How about a car, how about a shirt, how about shopping at HD? You see, you are bashing people, compared to your own standards, but your standards are subjective. Made by you,to suit you. Maybe I am a die hard union guy that can just tolerate a less lofty standard than you. I understand the difficulties of adhering to ALL of the union's edicts, but unless you do, with the utmost vigilence, you are a hipocrite. But everyone one of us is to some extent is suppose. 



nap said:


> I hate a person throwing ideas out that are not correct or incomplete as to a given situation. That is what you have done for the most part.


Which statement is wrong, and which is incomplete? We certainly don't have the time or typing ability to debate the use of tax incentives to lure businesses, so that may be a generalization.


----------



## nap

> =Romexking;24204]It very well may not be condoned, but it does take place. I know that the IBEW in general is very forward thinking and for the most part the old ways are not the norm.


I repeat, I have never heard it mentioned in my local. I have never had a out of my local hand tell me his leadership condoned ti or even suggested it. I think you are reading too many books or seen The Godfather too many times.




As I said, unless you are bringing a completely new service or


> product to town, you will always be displacing workers.


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Giving tax incentives to bring a company to a place that is already saturated is wrong. It provides no increases in business, tax base, or per capita income. In fact, until the displaced workers are re-emplyed at equal pay as they have been getting, the per capita income will decline.




> What you are saying is that you only care about yourself and those that subscribe to your ideology, not the trade as a whole. Screw the non union guys...they can try to compete with the sidejobbers and get what is coming to them. If they can't feed their families because both non union and union guys are undercutting their prices with sidework, that's ok, they just need to lower their prices even more. The union is supposed to stand for bringing up the working conditions. You are supposed to get paid enough that you don't have to do side work. Why do you want to work more hours than your 40? That would be lowering the working conditions.


Now I know your only intention is to cause strife. I did not say anything even close to what you wrote here.







> Now that is the height of hipocricity. You did have the ability to control who you purchased a home from if you chose to do so.


Sure, and if you want to be stupid about this (which apprently you are atempting) I should make sure the steel in my cars comes from union run mines and mills and the rubber from union chem plants and designed by union engieers.

You are trying to expand your belief so far it is rediculous. I can only control what I can. Even I have to accept there are some things that just are. I chose to live where I do because I could afford it. If I could afford the moon, I would not be here but until that time, I had to take what was there.



> You just chose to live where you live, and abandoned your convictions because it was convenient to you.


Ya sure, tell Bill Gates I'm moving in next door. Anything less would simply be abandoning my convictions. Get real, not stupid.



> That is my point, you pick and choose your ideals to suit the situation you are presented with.


No, I control what I can and must accept that I cannot.



> So if buying a home bult with non union labor is something you can tolerate, where does it stop? How about a car, how about a shirt, how about shopping at HD? You see, you are bashing people, compared to your own standards, but your standards are subjective.


DUH!!! we are all limited by what and where wwe are in life. That does not mean we would not make a different choice if we could.



> Made by you,to suit you.


of course. anything else would be stupid. Why would I want to build MY house the way my NEIGHBOR wants it to be. How rediculaous are you going to get before you stop?



> Maybe I am a die hard union guy that can just tolerate a less lofty standard than you.


HUH!? You union? Not a chance. There is more to beibng union that holding a card and you are not union.



> I understand the difficulties of adhering to ALL of the union's edicts, but unless you do, with the utmost vigilence, you are a hipocrite. But everyone one of us is to some extent is suppose.


No. You need to read the definition of a hypocrite. Saying you believe everybody should drive a Bentley and then driving a Yugo is not being a hypocrit if you cannot purchase a Bentley. Being able to afford one and not buying one while saying it is.





> Which statement is wrong, and which is incomplete? We certainly don't have the time or typing ability to debate the use of tax incentives to lure businesses, so that may be a generalization.


this is a forum. Of course we have the time and space. Luring a business is only beneficial if it improves the municiapality in some way. Unless that improvement outweighs the negatives of the situation, it is foolish to offer tax abatements to attract the business.

Case in point;

there is enough work for 75 electricians in Mytown, USA. Jim-bob Mayor decides he wants to offer The Other Guy electrical contractors to his town along with their 75 guys. So, The Other Guy Electric moves in and pays no taxes for 5 years.

Since there is only enough work for 75 electricians in Mytown, we no have a problem. We have 75 too many electricians.

So, what happens.

1. Work gets split between the 2 contractors until one or the other decides there is not enough work to sustain all the emplyees. This will happen until each reach a point that they can employ whatever number it eventualy falls to. I would bet that that would be right about 75 workers split between the 2 companies. So now, you have 75 unemployed electricians drawing tax money for support in UI or welfare. HHMM, doessn;t seem like such a good idea now, does it but we are not done.

If it stays like this with 2 contractors, we will reach a point of equilibrium where they can both sustain a business. You may think all is good now butyou are wrong.

Since The Other GuyElelctric recieved a tax abatement, he is not paying as much in taxes as I Was Already Here Electric. So now we have decreased tax revenues for the municipality. Due to that, the city must lay of workers or reduce city supplied benefits (road work, whtever) which will result in injuring some worker somewhere so now we have more unemployed people. We are going into the negative here concerning employment.

So, since everybody has to work to eat, those that are starving are ready to work for less. This starts a spiral of reduced per capita income which will result in business having lower income due to less avaialble money for the market to share.

We are still waiting for a reason paying tax money to bring a company that provides no new jobs in to town. Got one?

So, what do we do.

How about not spending money to bring an employer to town that does not provide a net benefit to that community to begin with.

Gee, what a novel idea.

Of course this is not applicable when your actions bring a net increase to the town. You can bring a competing company to town but only if there is the market to sustain both the old and the new company without great injury to either. A manufacturing business is the most sought out business because it typically does not compete with a local business and provides many more feeder jobs than just about any other type of business. Now THAT would allow another electrical company to come to town but it still does not justify spending tax money to do it. The market is pretty good at self regulation and if there is a market for another electrical contractor, one will show up. It may be owned by one of the employees of the original contractor because that guy saw the chance to be his own boss. It may be an outside comapny moving to town because they saw a market there but if there is not a market, it is foolish to spend money to bring any company to town.


----------



## Romexking

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Such actions are not condoned, and haven't been for a very long time. The last thing unions want is negative press. There's already enough misinformation and negative stereotypes being parroted. Corporate campaigns, leafletting, and informational pickets are much more effective.


I am not parroting this, I've seen and heard it personally. Again I know that this is not the M.O. of every local, but it does happen. As I stated before the IBEW is probably the most forward thinking union there is, and the leadership and membership in general has a pretty good grip on the best practices to organize.




LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> In the situation discussed, the benefit to the tax base was immeasurable compared to the benefit given to a contractor that would have built and located somewhere regardless of the tax breaks.


You are an economist now? I don't know for sure, but I bet people more versed in that field have calculated that it was good for that particular jurisdiction or government





LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> First, I do not reside in my local's jurisdiction. My sidework does not keep any union contractor at low tide. Every service I do, every dormer I wire, keeps a nonunion contractor from gaining ground. If I an 9 others stopped doing sidework, one nonunion contractor would have to hire one full time worker.


So your sidework is undertaken with the good of the union at heart? Give me a break!. Why don't you live within your means? You are supposed to support the REDUCTION of working hours, not doing more. Again I state that you are picking and choosing what rules apply to you, to your benefit. When you do side work do you ever use any help? (I'm sure you don't). How about about any of your buddies. Do they contribute to H&W, pension, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance? If you or they don't how are you/they any different than the contractors that you despise? If your sidework causes a non union contractor to reduce their pricing to compete with you, then that would cause them to keep wages low, which (I think) would make it more difficult to increase union wages. Look at it this way. If a non union contractor were able to pay his workers $25/hr, would it be much easier to command $40 an hour for the more difficult and skilled work that is required in commercial and industrial work? 

You are again justifying your actions that contradict the state goals and most likely the by-laws of your local. 



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> There may be hypocrisy, but the ultimate in hypocricy is a nonunion contractor balking at a union member ignoring the working agreement when you are not a party to it. Do YOU honor the working agreement, in all it's aspects? Or do you only cry foul when a union member is doing something that isn't in your best interests?


I don't go around preaching those standards, therefore it is not hypocritical, and I am not crying foul about your side work on the basis of union rules. Side work is a practice that goes on across the union/non union spectrum and across all skill levels of electricians. That does not make it right, but that is another debate.

But let's make this clear...are you saying it is ok to ignore your working agreement or constitution? And if so, which articles are ok to ignore? Who condones these violatons, the shop steward, the BA, the International VP or Pres? 







LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I'm not looking at the big picture for the benefit of contractors, union or not. Were I and every other union hand to stop sidejobbing tomorrow, that would not result in nonunion contractors giving out windfall raises.


I know, you are looking out for #1





LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I cannot speak for those who do this. When I am unemployed, I'm quite satisfied with my unemployment check and my unemployment benefit. I know other locals do not have an additional fund for the unemployed and it's more difficult to carry on until a job comes up. Every member is supposed to and encouraged to live within their means, and that of course includes putting aside for the rainy days. Of course, this isn't a perfect world, and many people are not as financially responsible as they should be. Or for whatever personal circumstances, cannot survive without a weekly paycheck.


That is funny, many non union workers live paycheck to paycheck also, but that is because the contractors are taking advantage of them. Now union members may live paycheck to paycheck because they have all of the good stuff, right?



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> For the record, I wouldn't classify the members who seek nonunion employment after 2 months or as little as 2 weeks on the bench as those who "bleed union." These are fair weather members.


of course, they are not the "real" membership. Are they just as bad as us non union scum or is there a level in between? 





LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I worked on some of the last union built housing on Long Island. For the record, their sale prices were no different than the nonunion built housing. But really, does purchasing a home constitute supporting the nonunion sector?


I fully support using highly trained and highly paid electricians building homes. It would not increase the cost of the home significantly at all. if there was a $20/hr increase in wages/benes, that would only be about $400 on an average home. No big deal there.





LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> All puns aside, if you want to joke about convictions, I could direct you to the websites showing all of the nonunion contractors disbarred from public works due to payroll fraud.


The reason you can do that is because the union uses it's resources to compile this info. I guess no union contractor has ever done this. Google Poole and Kent, they are in my backyard and just happen to come to mind. 




LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> For what it's worth, most union members I know do most of their own work on their own homes. But hey, at least we OWN homes.


You are right, all union members own homes and all non union people live in boxes. 





LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Name me an institution that is immune from hypocrisy.


That doesn't make it right!


----------



## LGLS

Romexking said:


> It very well may not be condoned, but it does take place. I know that the IBEW in general is very forward thinking and for the most part the old ways are not the norm.


I have to add, I don't think the stereotypical "old ways" ever much applied to the IBEW anyway. Most of the stories I've heard and read are attributable to Teamsters.

And let's not forget, that whatever an IBEW member does, does not necessarily reflect the views of the IBEW, or that the IBEW condones the actions.



> As I said, unless you are bringing a completely new service or product to town, you will always be displacing workers. And the financial end of it is the reason for the grants and tax abatements.The governments do this to entice businesses AWAY from other jurisdictions, and into theirs. I didn't say I agree with the practice of giving taxpayer's money away to private businesses, but it must be beneficial to the local economy that secures the relocated business. By your logic, it is a bad thing when ever a new store opens. A new restaurant must take away customers from existing places. A new mall will only detract customers from existing malls. This point has been proven false. It is a proven fact that if there was a fast food restaurant or gas station on every corner of a particular road, they would all see an increase in revenue. That is why you see all of the usual fast food places located together. I do understand that this would probably not work with a service based business, but your belief that it will not help the _*local*_ economy is false


Do you also believe that welfare, section 8, and food stamps helps the local economy?



> What you are saying is that you only care about yourself and those that subscribe to your ideology, not the trade as a whole. Screw the non union guys...they can try to compete with the sidejobbers and get what is coming to them. If they can't feed their families because both non union and union guys are undercutting their prices with sidework, that's ok, they just need to lower their prices even more. The union is supposed to stand for bringing up the working conditions.


And they do that and they've done that. What has nonunion done lately?



> You are supposed to get paid enough that you don't have to do side work.


We get paid enough so that sidework is not necessary to survive. But whether you want to spend your free time restoring an antique car or doing a sidejob is really not your place to judge.



> Why do you want to work more hours than your 40? That would be lowering the working conditions.


It's not lowering MY working conditions. 



> What we are talking about is not just contractors, but people and families. You are advocating injuring them financially until the "see the light" and fall in line with your thinking. The end justifies the means right?


But, every nonunion worker earning less than prevailing wage, or employed by a shop that hires 10 helpers for each journeyman, or accepts wages w/o benefits or a pension, or supplies a boatload of tools and power tools is also, by their very existance, injuring the contractors and members and families in the union. 

In short, unions are responsible for much of what you have, from overtime to safety regulations (however unenforced these days) prevailing wage rates, pensions, holidays, weekends, and yet nonunion workers have paid for none of this.


----------



## LGLS

nap said:


> Case in point;
> 
> there is enough work for 75 electricians in Mytown, USA. Jim-bob Mayor decides he wants to offer The Other Guy electrical contractors to his town along with their 75 guys. So, The Other Guy Electric moves in and pays no taxes for 5 years.
> 
> Since there is only enough work for 75 electricians in Mytown, we no have a problem. We have 75 too many electricians.
> 
> So, what happens.
> 
> 1. Work gets split between the 2 contractors until one or the other decides there is not enough work to sustain all the emplyees. This will happen until each reach a point that they can employ whatever number it eventualy falls to. I would bet that that would be right about 75 workers split between the 2 companies. So now, you have 75 unemployed electricians drawing tax money for support in UI or welfare. HHMM, doessn;t seem like such a good idea now, does it but we are not done.


Just want to point out - Unemployment is NOT tax money. It's unemployment insurance, and it is paid for completely by employers. 

Also... after Other Guy Electric and Already here Electric square off and end up with a total of 75 employees, the average wage amongst those 75 will be lower than it was, because now 2 employers are not going to settle for 1/2 their previous income, even though they are now only getting 1/2 the market share. There will be a push to lower wages to compensate both owners and it will come off their employees backs.

Competition in a supply & demand economic system is only good up to a point, then it becomes counterproductive. 



> If it stays like this with 2 contractors, we will reach a point of equilibrium where they can both sustain a business. You may think all is good now butyou are wrong.
> 
> Since The Other GuyElelctric recieved a tax abatement, he is not paying as much in taxes as I Was Already Here Electric. So now we have decreased tax revenues for the municipality. Due to that, the city must lay of workers or reduce city supplied benefits (road work, whtever) which will result in injuring some worker somewhere so now we have more unemployed people. We are going into the negative here concerning employment.
> 
> So, since everybody has to work to eat, those that are starving are ready to work for less. This starts a spiral of reduced per capita income which will result in business having lower income due to less avaialble money for the market to share.
> 
> We are still waiting for a reason paying tax money to bring a company that provides no new jobs in to town. Got one?
> 
> So, what do we do.
> 
> How about not spending money to bring an employer to town that does not provide a net benefit to that community to begin with.
> 
> Gee, what a novel idea.


Here's an even more novel idea - how about not spending anything and let New Guy Electric make the entire investment if he thinks it's worthwhile?



> Of course this is not applicable when your actions bring a net increase to the town. You can bring a competing company to town but only if there is the market to sustain both the old and the new company without great injury to either. A manufacturing business is the most sought out business because it typically does not compete with a local business and provides many more feeder jobs than just about any other type of business. Now THAT would allow another electrical company to come to town but it still does not justify spending tax money to do it. The market is pretty good at self regulation and if there is a market for another electrical contractor, one will show up. It may be owned by one of the employees of the original contractor because that guy saw the chance to be his own boss. It may be an outside comapny moving to town because they saw a market there but if there is not a market, it is foolish to spend money to bring any company to town.


----------



## nap

> =LawnGuyLandSparky;24229]Just want to point out - Unemployment is NOT tax money. It's unemployment insurance, and it is paid for completely by employers.


true. I was merely trying to make a reference to possible costs. but it does cost tax money for administrative control of the money (grasping at straws to save face:whistling2: )



> Also... after Other Guy Electric and Already here Electric square off and end up with a total of 75 employees, the average wage amongst those 75 will be lower than it was, because now 2 employers are not going to settle for 1/2 their previous income, even though they are now only getting 1/2 the market share. There will be a push to lower wages to compensate both owners and it will come off their employees backs.
> 
> Competition in a supply & demand economic system is only good up to a point, then it becomes counterproductive.


absolutely. In this case, supply and demand is detrimental to all partied involved. I cannot understand how oldman comes to the conclusion that there are any benefits to the forced (over) supply situation. 





> Here's an even more novel idea - how about not spending anything and let New Guy Electric make the entire investment if he thinks it's worthwhile?


well, that would be up to him. I stopped at not giving him money that would result in injury to all parties involved.


----------



## LGLS

Romexking said:


> I am not parroting this, I've seen and heard it personally. Again I know that this is not the M.O. of every local, but it does happen. As I stated before the IBEW is probably the most forward thinking union there is, and the leadership and membership in general has a pretty good grip on the best practices to organize.


Just keep in mind that organizing is not always the ultimate goal in every campaign or picket. And I have to add, NO UNION is looking for negative press, and are pretty clear to their membership that taking actions upon themselves is not condoned. Unions are under a microscope these days. 



> You are an economist now? I don't know for sure, but I bet people more versed in that field have calculated that it was good for that particular jurisdiction or government


No and neither are you. There are instances and examples of government wooing business that are good overall, but is it really the duty of a locality or a county government to take your tax dollars and my tax dollars and hand it to a business in exchange for locating there? Where would that business go otherwise? What about them?



> So your sidework is undertaken with the good of the union at heart? Give me a break!.


Of course not. My BA isn't at my bedside waiting to blow my nose in the morning. Everything I do I don't do for my union. But as for the negative effects on nonunion contractors and nonunion electrical workers - hey, to hell with them. I have no duty to them. What have they ever done for me, other than make it harder to get wage increases? 



> Why don't you live within your means? You are supposed to support the REDUCTION of working hours, not doing more.


The reduction in working hours applies to REQUIRED working hours. Would you say it's wrong for a union member to be offered or agree to work overtime?



> Again I state that you are picking and choosing what rules apply to you, to your benefit. When you do side work do you ever use any help? (I'm sure you don't). How about about any of your buddies. Do they contribute to H&W, pension, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance? If you or they don't how are you/they any different than the contractors that you despise?


I do not hire anybody, any sidework I do is just not that intense. If you feel this strongly about what I'm doing is wrong, then bring me up on charges, if you're a union member of course. Otherwise, what union rule I'm breaking and for whatever reason is really none of your concern. As far as I'm concerned, what I do when my boss is not paying my hourly wage is none of his concern and out of his control. I could drive a truck, teach a class, pump gas, whatever. None of their business. 

What sets me apart from the contractors I despise is that I pay myself, and pretty darn well I might add. I do NOT hire a hack for 20 bucks an hour cash to do it for me, while I pocket 40% of the job and the employee can barely eat. 



> If your sidework causes a non union contractor to reduce their pricing to compete with you, then that would cause them to keep wages low, which (I think) would make it more difficult to increase union wages.


No, the market is saturated and nonunion wages could not possibly get any lower than they already are. What I do on the side is either going to be done by a starving nonunion employee on the side or by me. If my customers wanted it done by a contractor they would have no problem finding one of the hundreds listed in the phone book here.



> Look at it this way. If a non union contractor were able to pay his workers $25/hr, would it be much easier to command $40 an hour for the more difficult and skilled work that is required in commercial and industrial work?
> 
> You are again justifying your actions that contradict the state goals and most likely the by-laws of your local.


This would all be true and make sense IF there were any union contractors competing for the residential service work. There just aren't around here. It is a completely different market. As for my local's by-laws, they're between me and my local and are none of your concern. For certian, you cannot use my local agreement against me in your debate. 

If you were a member, you'd have to show how my actions have hurt you. Good luck with that too. 



> I don't go around preaching those standards, therefore it is not hypocritical, and I am not crying foul about your side work on the basis of union rules. *Oh but you did! *Side work is a practice that goes on across the union/non union spectrum and across all skill levels of electricians. That does not make it right, but that is another debate.
> 
> But let's make this clear...are you saying it is ok to ignore your working agreement or constitution? And if so, which articles are ok to ignore? Who condones these violatons, the shop steward, the BA, the International VP or Pres?


Let me put it like this. As is standard in all IBEW working agreements, journeymen may not contract. The basis for this is obvious. Onc should not work for an employer while undermining his ability to be an employer at the same time.

However in this respect, I am not undermining a single IBEW employer. I may be hurting nonunion employers, but honestly if anybody ever brought me up on charges for that, I'd probably walk off the stage with a medal and not a fine.



> I know, you are looking out for #1


Something wrong with that?



> That is funny, many non union workers live paycheck to paycheck also, but that is because the contractors are taking advantage of them. Now union members may live paycheck to paycheck because they have all of the good stuff, right?


Now I detect a note of jealousy here. Whatever. Financial irresponsibility knows no bounds. Even Donald Trump has been foreclosed on. In my neck of the woods, what happens is apprentices turn out and their pay goes from about 19.00 to 46.00 an hour, and they go hog wild. They've not yet experienced unemployment (apprentices are never out of work) and think this ship will always sail and never go into dry dock. They play fast & loose and start taking out loans for Harleys, sportscars, whatever. When the eventual happens, it hits them hard. If they're lucky, it's not a long layoff and they didn't get too far behind, and learn a valuable lesson. Many are not so lucky. 




> of course, they are not the "real" membership. Are they just as bad as us non union scum or is there a level in between?


Man you're making a lot of assumptions.



> I fully support using highly trained and highly paid electricians building homes. It would not increase the cost of the home significantly at all. if there was a $20/hr increase in wages/benes, that would only be about $400 on an average home. No big deal there.


This is a subject for another discussion. Migrant workers could be paid 10x what they are, and that would cost a head of lettuce to go from .89 to .93, but according to farmers and economists it doesn't work that way... McDonald's could double the pay from 12.00 to 24.00 and a .99 cent cheeseburger would end up costing $1.04. 



> The reason you can do that is because the union uses it's resources to compile this info. I guess no union contractor has ever done this. Google Poole and Kent, they are in my backyard and just happen to come to mind.


NO, the reason I can do this is because the FOIA requires it. The government complies the data and publishes it. Every one of these companies was a nonunion contractor, falsely claiming to pay prevailing wages and benefits when in fact they were not. 

I googled Poole & Kent and found nothing indicating that it underpaid it's employees. 



> You are right, all union members own homes and all non union people live in boxes.


Well at least you admit it.


----------



## LGLS

nap said:


> true. I was merely trying to make a reference to possible costs. but it does cost tax money for administrative control of the money (grasping at straws to save face:whistling2: )


Well I just felt the need to point this out. There is sometimes confusion that an American worker on unemployment is "on the dole" equating unemployment to welfare. I just wanted to make the distinction here because part of the nonunion's anti-union campaign is to draw this parallel.



> absolutely. In this case, supply and demand is detrimental to all partied involved. I cannot understand how oldman comes to the conclusion that there are any benefits to the forced (over) supply situation.


Because it might be beneficial, to HIM.


----------



## oldman

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Of course not. My BA isn't at my bedside waiting to blow my nose in the morning. Everything I do I don't do for my union. *But as for the negative effects on nonunion contractors and nonunion electrical workers - hey, to hell with them. I have no duty to them*. What have they ever done for me, other than make it harder to get wage increases?


 


LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> What sets me apart from the contractors I despise is that I pay myself, and pretty darn well I might add. I do NOT hire a hack for 20 bucks an hour cash to do it for me, while I pocket 40% of the job and the employee can barely eat.


 



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> However in this respect, I am not undermining a single IBEW employer. I may be hurting nonunion employers, but honestly if anybody ever brought me up on charges for that, I'd probably walk off the stage with a medal and not a fine.


 This is the first time you were really honest about your intentions...thank you...


----------



## Romexking

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Just keep in mind that organizing is not always the ultimate goal in every campaign or picket. And I have to add, NO UNION is looking for negative press, and are pretty clear to their membership that taking actions upon themselves is not condoned. Unions are under a microscope these days.


no criminal is looking to go to jail, but they still commit crimes. I'm not implying that all unions engage in criminal activities, but it is not unheard of.





LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> No and neither are you. There are instances and examples of government wooing business that are good overall, but is it really the duty of a locality or a county government to take your tax dollars and my tax dollars and hand it to a business in exchange for locating there? Where would that business go otherwise? What about them?


It is exactly the job of a locality to entice businesses to locate there, even at the detriment of other localities. If the deal was a benefit for the local constituents, then all is well...in that county. Those localities are looking out for # 1, is there something wrong with that? :whistling2: It is very similar to the union in that they feel their location (union membership) is better than where the business was (non union), and they are going to offer incentives for that business to try it out. Some of the benefits that a union offer to entice this "relocation" is higher wages, many times ultimately paid for by tax dollars through prevailing wage jobs, free schooling for 5 years (like a 5 or 6 year tax abatement). Now don't get me wrong, I have no problems with your pay rates and feel electricians in general deserve a high standard of living, I was just making a comparison. 




LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> The reduction in working hours applies to REQUIRED working hours. Would you say it's wrong for a union member to be offered or agree to work overtime?


would't it be better for the membership if more workers were hired instead of working longer hours? After all, we all know that all union electricians have exactly the same work ethic and the same skill level. It would also save the contractor and/or customer a some money...never mind, you don't care about that stuff. 




LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I do not hire anybody, any sidework I do is just not that intense.[/quote
> 
> Just as I suspected, but do any of your brothers use help on side jobs? of course they do. Do they contribute for benes, of course they don't. Why do you think that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawnGuyLandSparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sets me apart from the contractors I despise is that I pay myself, and pretty darn well I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> So now it is ok to do what essentially amounts to non union work, as long as you pay yourself well, is that what I reading?
> 
> 
> 
> LawnGuyLandSparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT hire a hack for 20 bucks an hour cash to do it for me, while I pocket 40% of the job and the employee can barely eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> darn it! how did you get a page out of the official non union electrical contractors business manual? You seem to know exactly how _every_
> n-u contractor operates. Do you honestly think that is how every contractor works, or do you think you might be making a generalization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawnGuyLandSparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the market is saturated and nonunion wages could not possibly get any lower than they already are. What I do on the side is either going to be done by a starving nonunion employee on the side or by me. If my customers wanted it done by a contractor they would have no problem finding one of the hundreds listed in the phone book here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course wages could never go down, no matter what.
> 
> You are right again, I just can't seem to find _any_ flaws in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> LawnGuyLandSparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something wrong with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, if that is the way you want to live your life, but isn't that what you claim all n-u contractors are doing? Isn't that the essense of what we've been debating? How is it any different? I know that you can justify this in your own mind, because it seems that is what you are best at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawnGuyLandSparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I detect a note of jealousy here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong. I am financially set, my children will be millionaires before they are 18 (don't tell them, they don't know yet), they will be able to attend ANY university, if that is the path they take. So no, I an not jealous in the least. Sorry to burst your bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> LawnGuyLandSparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Financial irresponsibility knows no bounds. Even Donald Trump has been foreclosed on. In my neck of the woods, what happens is apprentices turn out and their pay goes from about 19.00 to 46.00 an hour, and they go hog wild. They've not yet experienced unemployment (apprentices are never out of work) and think this ship will always sail and never go into dry dock. They play fast & loose and start taking out loans for Harleys, sportscars, whatever. When the eventual happens, it hits them hard. If they're lucky, it's not a long layoff and they didn't get too far behind, and learn a valuable lesson. Many are not so lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either I am misunderstand or you are misrepresnting the facts. Upon topping out, your apprentices do not really get a $27 hr raise do they? Would it be more accurate to say that a 1st year appr. gets $19/hr. and that as their time and skill increases, they get wage increases? So from the time that they are a 5th yr, they are actually making about $36-$38/hr right? If I am pretty close with my numbers, how can you say that any financial difficulties encountered by union members is becuase the haven't learned to handle all of that new found money, but if a n-u member has financial issues it is because his employer is forcing them into indentured servitude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawnGuyLandSparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man you're making a lot of assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that is the pot calling the kettle black!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawnGuyLandSparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, the reason I can do this is because the FOIA requires it. The government complies the data and publishes it. Every one of these companies was a nonunion contractor, falsely claiming to pay prevailing wages and benefits when in fact they were not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I googled Poole & Kent and found nothing indicating that it underpaid it's employees.
Click to expand...

It would be hard for a union shop not to pay the prevailing wage, after all that is usually the shop's normal wage. My point was not exactly at paying prevailing wage, it was that union shops can be scumbags just as much as a non union shop.
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2007/11/26/daily10.html?ana=from_rss
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2003/jun/jun04a_03.html


----------



## Romexking

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Because it might be beneficial, to HIM.


Quote:
I know, you are looking out for #1 


LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Something wrong with that?


Again proving your hypocrisity. 

So let's clear this up. Is it or is it not ok to "look out for #1". What I really mean is, for the rest of us, is it ok? We already know that it's ok for you. 

If it is ok to take care of ourselves first, please step down from your soap box so we don't have to hear any complaints about how all n-u contractors are only interested in one thing...profits, because that is exactly how you are, an examination of your posts will bear this out.

If it is not ok to take care of ourselves first, please review most of your posts and edit as needed to make them consistent with this line of thinking.


----------



## joeyuk




----------



## randomkiller

joeyuk said:


>


Joe you maybe wiser than you realize, you posted the answer here. Oldman and LGLsparky need to have a duel. Swords would be fun to watch.


----------



## nap

a ground rod joust would be more fitting:thumbsup:


----------



## randomkiller

nap said:


> a ground rod joust would be more fitting:thumbsup:


 
Beats trying to shoot Hilti's at 10 paces.


----------



## HighWirey

nap said:


> a ground rod joust would be more fitting:thumbsup:


nap, I agree to your joust proposal.

Looks like this thread has just about petered out, about time for wirey to jump in. 

In order to insure a level playing field, clarifications about those jousting rods are in order. This is a technical forum. Rod specs to be clarified:

Eight feet, ten feet, or coupled to twenty feet? If coupled, screw couplings, or cadweld?

Half inch, three quarters, one inch, English or metric sizing?

Copper clad steel, galvanized, stainless, or RoHS/ELV compliant?

Now to that bigee . . . Manufactured in a 'fair' plant, or just sumptin' vicariously pulled off a box store shelf?

Where will this event be conducted, and what is the 'gate' fee, before scalping?

CU there . . .

Best Wishes Everyone


----------



## LGLS

Romexking said:


> no criminal is looking to go to jail, but they still commit crimes. I'm not implying that all unions engage in criminal activities, but it is not unheard of.


Unions are groups of people. People commit crimes, not unions. A union is a fundamental idea. Bikers transport Meth. Are motorcycles bad? People bet on sports, is baseball bad? 



> It is exactly the job of a locality to entice businesses to locate there, even at the detriment of other localities. If the deal was a benefit for the local constituents, then all is well...in that county. Those localities are looking out for # 1, is there something wrong with that? :whistling2: It is very similar to the union in that they feel their location (union membership) is better than where the business was (non union), and they are going to offer incentives for that business to try it out. Some of the benefits that a union offer to entice this "relocation" is higher wages, many times ultimately paid for by tax dollars through prevailing wage jobs, free schooling for 5 years (like a 5 or 6 year tax abatement). Now don't get me wrong, I have no problems with your pay rates and feel electricians in general deserve a high standard of living, I was just making a comparison.


I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to convey with the above statement. 

I disagree that tax abatements (therefore forcing the rest of the tax base to compensate for the loss) are practical in the long run. If a business isn't viable w/o an abatement, it shouldn't exist. It has no right to exist. In the end, every business (that can) will get on the bandwagon and demand subsidies or abatements under threat of relocating. 

My employer leases a lot of space. But the employees live in New York City, Westchester and points north, Connecticut, Pennsylvannia, Long Island, and New Jersey. If they got an abatement how does that help the locality whose taxes are subsidizing that abatement? Because we stop for gas near the shop? Because we grab a coffee locally? Patronize the local luncheonette?

As for comparing a union apprenticeship to an abatement, that's totally apples and oranges. The schooling is free to the member, it's paid for by the employers. It's not being subsidized by anyone else. 



> would't it be better for the membership if more workers were hired instead of working longer hours? After all, we all know that all union electricians have exactly the same work ethic and the same skill level. It would also save the contractor and/or customer a some money...never mind, you don't care about that stuff.


If the construction industry had fewer or no variables, I'd say yes - the employer and member and customer would be better off if there were more members and less overtime worked. But when the customer decides to change X, Y and Z at the last minute, and it has to happen yesterday in order to not disrupt the job schedule, there is little choice but for the customer to pay a premium. 



> It would be hard for a union shop not to pay the prevailing wage, after all that is usually the shop's normal wage. My point was not exactly at paying prevailing wage, it was that union shops can be scumbags just as much as a non union shop.
> http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2007/11/26/daily10.html?ana=from_rss
> http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2003/jun/jun04a_03.html


No matter how you slice it, there are going to be bad people in this world. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the first article above, there was no mention of union involvement, only the CEO of a mechanical contracting firm was mentioned, not union officials. 

In the second article, (from 2003) there was union involvement. 4 union officials were indicted. But did you notice that the scheme here (probably not paying prevailing wages, along with some kind of gambling scheme) stemmed from a plan by a nonunion contractor who bribed both union officials and plumbing inspectors? 

Now ask yourself, honestly, who do you think hatched this plan?




*Two of the indictments charge four union business representatives--three from U.A. Plumbers Local 1 and the fourth from Steamfitters Local 638-- with bribe receiving by a labor official and larceny. *

The job-sites included plumbing and sprinkler system work performed at the Staten Island University Hospital, where the union officials are charged with failing to enforce collective bargaining agreements in exchange for over $60,000 in bribes. 

*A plumbing contractor was also indicted for allegedly paying bribes to union representatives, stealing almost $1 million in fringe benefits, and falsifying his business records. The contractor and two others were also charged with filing false documents with the New York City Department of Buildings. The Grand Jury returned a separate indictment charging the contractor and others with various gambling-related crimes. *

"This case is about safeguarding the rights of labor unions and their rank and file members," Spitzer said. "When those rights are violated by agents who hold vital positions of trust, it is imperative that law enforcement responds." 

U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General Gordon Heddell said: "My office will continue to investigate and aggressively support the prosecution of corrupt union officials who sell out their union by putting their self-interest before that of their members. We will continue to make every effort to ensure that employee benefits and rights of union members are protected." 

Commissioner Gill Hearn said: "Just a year ago, DOI arrested 19 plumbing inspectors on bribery charges and today’s indictments reflect our continuing efforts, as well as those of our partners in law enforcement, to root out corruption in all phases of the plumbing industry - whether it be labor officials, contractors or expediters. This investigation should provide the public with a sense of confidence that contractors will provide efficient, honest and responsible service." 

DA Murphy said: "The Richmond County District Attorney’s office is proud to have participated in this investigation. It is imperative that law enforcement agencies work together to ensure that corrupt labor practices are exposed and prosecuted aggressively." 

Mr. Donovan said, "Ridding labor unions and the construction industry of corrupt practices is a goal shared by all the members of the investigative team whose efforts produced the charges announced today. The FBI is proud to have contributed its expertise to this joint investigation. As the investigation continues, the FBI stands committed to pursue it in concert with our law enforcement partners wherever it may lead." 

Dominick Goffredo, 45, of Staten Island, a Plumbers Local 1 business agent, is named in two of the indictments. He is charged with multiple counts of bribe receiving by a labor official, a class "D" felony, and multiple counts of larceny in the second degree, a class "C" felony. 

Plumbers Local 1 business agents Thomas Parrella, 65, of Brooklyn, and David Aginsky, 56, of Monroe are also charged with bribe receiving by a labor official and larceny in the second degree, as is William Roche, 56, of Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, a Steamfitters Local 638 business agent. 

*Christopher Chierchio, 35, of Staten Island, a plumbing contractor who operated "API Plumbing," is named in three indictments and is charged with grand larceny in the second degree, multiple counts of bribing a labor official, a class "D" felony, falsifying business records in the first degree, a class "E" felony, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, a class "E" felony, promoting gambling in the first degree, a class "E" felony, conspiracy in the fifth degree, and various felony and misdemeanor gambling charges. *

*Kenneth Goodman, 59, of Hauppauge, holder of a New York City master plumber’s license used by Chierchio to operate API Plumbing, is charged with multiple counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and conspiracy in the fifth degree. Alison LaBrusciano, 34, of Tarrytown, an expediter used by Chierchio is alleged to have filed false documents, and is charged with conspiracy in the fifth degree. *

*Chierchio, Ralph Castore, 46, of Staten Island, Wayne Castore, 45, of Staten Island, and Raymond Papaleo, 47, of Staten Island, are charged with promoting gambling in the first degree, a class "E" felony and conspiracy in the fifth degree. Wayne Castore, Anthony Castore, and Papaleo are also charged with possession of gambling records in the first degree, a class "E" felony. *

The charges are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. 

Spitzer thanked the New York City Department of Investigation, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Labor, the New York City Police Department, the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and District Attorneys William L. Murphy of Richmond County and Charles J. Hynes of Kings County for their assistance to the investigation. Spitzer commended former Assistant Deputy Attorney General 
John Kantor for his contribution to the investigation, and noted the contribution of Dolan Garrett, the late First Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Organized Crime Task Force ("OCTF"). Spitzer thanked the former and present Deputy Attorneys General In-Charge of OCTF, George Quinlan and J. Christopher Prather, Chief Investigator Mitchell Lampert, Deputy Chief Investigator Joseph Rauchet, and Supervising Special Investigator George Pagnotta, who supervised the investigation for OCTF, which included the use of wiretaps, search warrants and undercover investigators. 
Assistant Deputy Attorneys General Amy Cohn and Dennis Walsh of the Organized Crime Task Force are handling the criminal cases for the Attorney General’s office.



> Just as I suspected, but do any of your brothers use help on side jobs? of course they do. Do they contribute for benes, of course they don't. Why do you think that is?


I do not know of anyone who does sidework to such a degree that they hire others.




> So now it is ok to do what essentially amounts to non union work, as long as you pay yourself well, is that what I reading?


What I do on the side isn't union sidework. It's just sidework. Whatever beef a nonunion employee or contractor has with it is their issue, not mine. I'm not saying you have to like it. I am saying if I didn't do it, on the side, most likely a nonunion electrician would be doing it, on the side. Better me than them. 


> darn it! how did you get a page out of the official non union electrical contractors business manual? You seem to know exactly how _every_
> n-u contractor operates. Do you honestly think that is how every contractor works, or do you think you might be making a generalization?


I'll give you it's somewhat a generalization. Can you admit it's not exactly out of the target range either? Maybe you can tell me how the cost of electrical service work has doubled in the last 10 years while the labor rate has remained static since the mid 80's? 




> Of course wages could never go down, no matter what.
> 
> You are right again, I just can't seem to find _any_ flaws in your thinking.


Based on inflation, they have gone down. 



> You couldn't be more wrong. I am financially set, my children will be millionaires before they are 18 (don't tell them, they don't know yet), they will be able to attend ANY university, if that is the path they take. So no, I an not jealous in the least. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Why send a kid to university if they'll already be millionaires? :whistling2: :jester: 
OK, whatever ROMEX "king..." 




> Either I am misunderstand or you are misrepresnting the facts. Upon topping out, your apprentices do not really get a $27 hr raise do they? Would it be more accurate to say that a 1st year appr. gets $19/hr. and that as their time and skill increases, they get wage increases? So from the time that they are a 5th yr, they are actually making about $36-$38/hr right? If I am pretty close with my numbers, how can you say that any financial difficulties encountered by union members is becuase the haven't learned to handle all of that new found money, but if a n-u member has financial issues it is because his employer is forcing them into indentured servitude?


First, the response was to point out that even a union member or Donald Trump could find themselves in financial distress. 
1st yr. - 13.75
2nd yr - 16.55
3rd yr. - 18.65
4th yr. - 20.60
5th yr. - 26.00
Journeyman - 46.00


----------



## LGLS

Romexking said:


> Quote:
> I know, you are looking out for #1
> 
> 
> Again proving your hypocrisity.


Where's the hypocrisy? That I'm not interested in the success of a nonunion contractor? 



> So let's clear this up. Is it or is it not ok to "look out for #1". What I really mean is, for the rest of us, is it ok? We already know that it's ok for you.
> 
> If it is ok to take care of ourselves first, please step down from your soap box so we don't have to hear any complaints about how all n-u contractors are only interested in one thing...profits, because that is exactly how you are, an examination of your posts will bear this out.


You're skipping a lot of essencial details. Every business, union or not, is looking to profit. That's capatilism. My beef comes into play with the methods. 



> If it is not ok to take care of ourselves first, please review most of your posts and edit as needed to make them consistent with this line of thinking.


Naturally, people are going to take every advantage they can. But when a group of employees decides they want to be represented collectively, the employer has few choices other than to respect that decision.


----------



## bulldog1770

*New here....*

Newbie here...
Been Union for 12 yrs.
Now I am a Electrical estimator/project manager
I also was Non-union for 8yrs. (prior) to union...
US Army Vet 82nd. Airborne
Glad to meet everyone..... Having been on both sides of the fence, I believe I will stay in the office.... :thumbsup:

I am not pro-union or anti-open shop.... 
Look forward to some good discussions....


----------



## randomkiller

bulldog1770 said:


> Newbie here...
> Been Union for 12 yrs.
> Now I am a Electrical estimator/project manager
> I also was Non-union for 8yrs. (prior) to union...
> US Army Vet 82nd. Airborne
> Glad to meet everyone..... Having been on both sides of the fence, I believe I will stay in the office.... :thumbsup:
> 
> I am not pro-union or anti-open shop....
> Look forward to some good discussions....


Welcome to the forum brother. Props on Airborne


----------



## HighWirey

bulldog1770 said:


> Newbie here...
> Been Union for 12 yrs.
> Now I am a Electrical estimator/project manager
> I also was Non-union for 8yrs. (prior) to union...
> US Army Vet 82nd. Airborne
> Glad to meet everyone..... Having been on both sides of the fence, I believe I will stay in the office.... :thumbsup:
> 
> I am not pro-union or anti-open shop....
> Look forward to some good discussions....


You may find them here.

Welcome to the forum.

Work'in For That Free Tee . . .


----------



## surfcity

randomkiller said:


> I have no idea why there is so much animosity here between union and non union guys. So many threads turn into debates between the two. That being said is, there anyone here that would turn down working with any of the other guys that are regular posters on here if asked?


 Former Marine and now a union commercial electrician of 16years.I am re-thinking my career,as I sit on the union books unemployed and watch others jump in front of me and get jobs.When times are slow it's who you know in the union hall.


----------



## RIVETER

I would like to work with someone on either a union or non-union residential job. I would probably learn a lot, as hard as that is to believe.:blink:


----------



## bulldog1770

surfcity said:


> Former Marine and now a union commercial electrician of 16years.I am re-thinking my career,as I sit on the union books unemployed and watch others jump in front of me and get jobs.When times are slow it's who you know in the union hall.



Watch others get jobs in front of you? Jumping the list--- if you can PROVE that is a FACT--you would get a nice payday from a Union Hating lawyer---happened in our local---

The BOOK and the number system cannot be violated--for any reason--rules are rules--if they are broken... You have EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT...

I believe the member got $250K when he proved he was "JUMPED"....:thumbsup:


----------



## TOO_SL:IM

Bulldog 1770 thank you for your service ~S~


----------



## Zog

randomkiller said:


> I have no idea why there is so much animosity here between union and non union guys. So many threads turn into debates between the two. That being said is, there anyone here that would turn down working with any of the other guys that are regular posters on here if asked?


I think anyone that cares enough about thier profession to come here and post something useful besides a stupid smiley face is someone who is dedicated to thier profession and someone I would be happy to work with, even if we don;t agree on everything, including unions. I have been both and have not seen a difference in the quality of people, union or non- union. Just different principles.


----------



## BuzzKill

randomkiller said:


> I have no idea why there is so much animosity here between union and non union guys. So many threads turn into debates between the two. That being said is, there anyone here that would turn down working with any of the other guys that are regular posters on here if asked?


Never, as long as we don't get political, and if we did, I would hope the both of us have the common sense to "nip it in the bud" right there.


----------



## bulldog1770

Zog said:


> I think anyone that cares enough about thier profession to come here and post something useful besides a stupid smiley face is someone who is dedicated to thier profession and someone I would be happy to work with, even if we don;t agree on everything, including unions. I have been both and have not seen a difference in the quality of people, union or non- union. Just different principles.


I seemed to have had the same principles before going "union" ..
Make a great hourly rate--work safe--protect your fellow worker---stand together when attacked by management---went through all that--before going Union... Now that I am "management" I make sure workers are treated just like I wanted to be... Found out some workers just dont care and others appreciate the extra effort I put in to make sure they have what they want and do have to worry about me stabbing them in the back after they busted their arses... Every worker should have alot in common with the UNION principles... :thumbsup:


----------

