Right to work alive and well in Oklahoma

[GG]

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0809/654130.html?ref=tw

Fon Du Lac, WI - A union leader says there will be no second vote on a package of concessions Mercury Marine says it needed to avoid moving more than 800 jobs from Wisconsin to Stillwater.

Mark Zillges is president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 1947. He said there must be a significant change in the proposal in order for the workers to hold another vote and that there has been no better offer from the company.

He says petitions calling for another vote on the concessions show only that some members are having buyer's remorse about rejecting the package last Sunday.

Mercury Marine says the package - its last and best offer - remains valid until midnight Saturday. The boat engine builder says it needs the concessions to remain competitive.

Zillges says the union signed a four-year contract a year ago.

Stillwater's plant is non-union. And, at 75-thousand square feet, there is room to expand. Some of the jobs Stillwater could be filling include assembly, die cast and machinists.

[Ed W]

So Oklahoma gains jobs through union busting.  That's a wonderful image to display.

[guido911]

So Oklahoma gains jobs through union busting.  That's a wonderful image to display.

What are you talking about? The union employees in Wisc. had an opportunity to accept/reject a concession package and voted to reject. They cut off their collective noses to spite their faces. Oh well, they can still claim solidarity standing in an unemployment line.

[waterboy]

One has to ask, just how important is a contract? They bargained, they contracted and now Mercury wants to reneg, default on the contract, or they'll bolt to another state with lower wages. It seems any time a company wants to show hardship, they can just talk "non-competitive" and move to an area with lower wages. Hell, just send everything to Juarez or the Phillipines and lets be done with it!

Seriously, how stable are these jobs if they come to OK? The next willing, pretty girl that smiles at them and they're out the door.

Even if the numbers that the management presents are accurate and the company is in need of reducing costs, one must question the competence of the corporate heads. One year in to a contract and they didn't foresee or plan for any downturn? And the cost must be borne by labor immediately? I just don't have as much faith in corporate leadership as many of you do. They see a chance to kill their union, lower their costs by moving to a peasant state and everyone thinks the union members are chumps for not bowing down to kiss rump. Well, I see their point. If the business is so weak they can't fulfill a 4 year contract by year 2, perhaps the job just ain't that good.

[TulsaSooner]

Seriously, how stable are these jobs if they come to OK? The next willing, pretty girl that smiles at them and they're out the door.

You ever been to Stillwater?  I don't even think they have to be that pretty.


Hi-Yo! 

[waterboy]

You ever been to Stillwater?  I don't even think they have to be that pretty.


Hi-Yo! 

Once. That's why I ended up in Norman.

[Red Arrow]

One has to ask, just how important is a contract?

General question here. Who are the contracting parties.  One is obviously the company.  Is the other side the Union or the individual workers?  Obviously the individual worker is not bound to work there for the duration of the contract like an indentured servant.  What is to keep the individual workers legally from quitting? (Other than the obvious pay check.)  In the world of what-ifs, what if a new company came to town and offered just enough more compensation to draw a significant number of workers from the existing company? Is the union obligated to supply trained workers to the first company at the contracted compensation?  Would the contract get re-negotiated?  If the company has to train new workers, is the company just out that money?  I believe that "in the beginning" the trade unions were a pool of trained, ready to work, laborers.  I'm not so sure that is true anymore.

With regard to Mercury management, I can speculate as well as anyone.  Perhaps they just took a chance and lost.  Strikes are expensive for both sides. My grandfather was a union member tool and die maker.  He claimed that the new contracts never made up for the money he lost while on strike. The companies have on-going expenses with no income too.  I believe that is one purpose of a strike - make it more expensive for the company than not approving the new contract.  Faced with the possibility of all their workers quitting (going on strike) unless the union demands for a new contract were met, management may have decided to take a chance and go for it.  20-20 hindsight says that was not such a good idea. Cutting labor costs are always the most visible cost cutting action.  I have no idea what other cost cutting measures Mercury management may have taken.

As far as killing a union, the best way to do that is to make a place good enough to work that a union is not needed.  It may be rare but is does happen. 

Edit: see strike-out "not"

[sgrizzle]

Not sure if anyone read it but what I read said the offer to the union was to keep the same employees, keep wages the same, keep benefits the same, no furloughs or any other cutbacks, just no guaranteed raises in 2010 and 2011.

[Red Arrow]

Not sure if anyone read it but what I read said the offer to the union was to keep the same employees, keep wages the same, keep benefits the same, no furloughs or any other cutbacks, just no guaranteed raises in 2010 and 2011.

Unfortunately, in todays world not getting a (promised) raise is the same as a pay cut.  It works for government budgets, it must work for the regular folks too.  Welcome to the world of entitlement.

[HazMatCFO]

Once Obamacare fizzles, he will fall back to the Employee "Free Choice" Act otherwise labeled as Card check. Once passed after Kennedy's seat is filled to get democrats back to 60, Mercury Marine in Stiillwater will be a ripe target for unionization.

In the end, it won't matter. The jobs will end up in China, Mexico or Honduras anyway. Might as well make a short stop in Oklahoma.

[nathanm]

in todays world not getting a (promised) raise is the same as a pay cut.

I take it you've never heard of inflation..

(I know you have, but you're acting like it doesn't exist)

[waterboy]

General question here. Who are the contracting parties.  One is obviously the company.  Is the other side the Union or the individual workers?  Obviously the individual worker is not bound to work there for the duration of the contract like an indentured servant.  What is to keep the individual workers legally from quitting? (Other than the obvious pay check.)  In the world of what-ifs, what if a new company came to town and offered just enough more compensation to draw a significant number of workers from the existing company? Is the union obligated to supply trained workers to the first company at the contracted compensation?  Would the contract get re-negotiated?  If the company has to train new workers, is the company just out that money?  I believe that "in the beginning" the trade unions were a pool of trained, ready to work, laborers.  I'm not so sure that is true anymore.

With regard to Mercury management, I can speculate as well as anyone.  Perhaps they just took a chance and lost.  Strikes are expensive for both sides. My grandfather was a union member tool and die maker.  He claimed that the new contracts never made up for the money he lost while on strike. The companies have on-going expenses with no income too.  I believe that is one purpose of a strike - make it more expensive for the company than not approving the new contract.  Faced with the possibility of all their workers quitting (going on strike) unless the union demands for a new contract were met, management may have decided to take a chance and go for it.  20-20 hindsight says that was not such a good idea. Cutting labor costs are always the most visible cost cutting action.  I have no idea what other cost cutting measures Mercury management may have taken.

As far as killing a union, the best way to do that is to make a place good enough to work that a union is not needed.  It may be rare but is does happen. 

Edit: see strike-out "not"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The simple answer is the company is contracting with the agent for the worker. Just like the NFL team owners use their rep (the NFL) to negotiate the rules with the players union. No doubt CF or others have a better understanding of that than I do, but an agent in legal terms, is in fact just as if he were the worker.

I think your what-ifs stem from the belief that labor unions are an entity divorced from their members rather than an agent for them. I deduce from your last statement that you may believe that unions once were a necessary function that provided a trained source of workers for an industry and that they no longer do that. They still do that, especially in the trades, but union representation has changed along with the nature of the workplace. In fact, unions are made up of current and former workers who have an intimate understanding of their professions and how they've changed. They hire other professionals just like the owners do to get the most out of negotiations.

To me its critical to have balance between labor and capital to extract the most value from each party. Alas, the prevailing opinion around here is that they are dinosaurs who have outlived their usefulness and must be controlled or destroyed. That is what allows companies like Mercury to threaten their workers with "take it or move to OK" kinds of ultimatums. Their next move will be to Abilene Tx, like BlueCross or out of the country like AEP/PSO. You can never get cheap enough labor when thats all you spend your time trying to do.

A quick question to help elucidate how labor is perceived among poorly managed corporations today. Know anybody who does technical work at AT&T? Ask them how they like working 18 days straight with forced overtime and 2 hours off for Sunday church (with permission only). They then get a day off and start it all over again. We're not talking 8 hour days here either. 10-12 is expected. Vacation accrued is routinely denied because of "labor shortages". Don't like that kind of treatment? Well, quit and go to work for a competitor who hasn't followed their lead. Good luck with that.

They found out that paying overtime is cheaper than maintaining larger staff because of the attendant benefits and overhead that entails. They are pretty much daring the union to do anything about it too. Many of the workers feel the real reason they are being pressured and bullied is because as older, longer tenured employees they make more money (of course they have more experience and are more productive too). Newer employees are being hired in at newer, lower starting pay. Most are so poorly trained the older employees have to follow up after them. But they're cheap! It appears their union is weak and is not prepared to fight the behemoth any more and is standing by hoping to avert a strike. Log on to one of the employees message boards in other areas served by AT&T and find the same thing happening all over the country.

Without strong unions, and with strong lobbying, corporations are free to abuse as they see fit.

[Red Arrow]

H2OGuy,

Where I was trying to go with it is that conditions have changed and Mercury feels a need to change the contract.  Should they have foreseen the downturn? Maybe. If the company should be bound by the contract, should the workers also be bound? That is the reason for my "what-if".  How many workers, union or non-union, would turn down a good deal to move down the street?  Gee, I want to stay here for less compensation (pick your own details) because I signed a contract rather than go to the better deal.  There will be some but I don't see having signed a contract, union or not, would stop individual workers from quitting.  That brought up my question about whether the contract was signed with the union.  The company has also been promised a labor pool at conditions specified in whatever contract was signed.  What are the company's rights in this regard.   If the individual worker cannot (and I expect not) be bound to the length and conditions of the contract, is the agent then responsible to provide that labor?  If not, "One has to ask, just how important is a contract?"

I know we differ in our opinions about unions.  I think they are nothing more than a big business in themselves.  The unions' job is to secure as much for the workers as possible, frequently without regard to killing the goose that laid the golden egg.  We've all heard horror stories about bad management.  We've all heard stories about the union guy that won't turn off a light switch (used as an example only) because it's some other union worker's job to turn off the light.  Some companies deserve the unions their workers joined.  Some don't.

"Newer employees are being hired in at newer, lower starting pay. Most are so poorly trained the older employees have to follow up after them. But they're cheap! It appears their union is weak and is not prepared to fight the behemoth any more and is standing by hoping to avert a strike."   So what you are saying is the company should pay as much for a poorly trained worker whose work must be corrected by a more senior worker as they would pay for an employee that can do it right the first time.  "I deduce from your last statement that you may believe that unions once were a necessary function that provided a trained source of workers for an industry and that they no longer do that."  See my quote from you above.  I have no problem with different pay scales for masters, journeymen, and apprentices.  If the union cannot provide trained personnel, the company will need to pay for the training and experience.  This is legitimately reflected in lower wages.  As a worker progresses to higher skill levels, the pay should increase. The Union contract may prevent that (same job, same pay regardless of skill level or productivity) but I would call that a bad contract designed to protect the inept.

With strong unions, Labor is free to decrease productivity as they see fit.

[sgrizzle]

I take it you've never heard of inflation..

(I know you have, but you're acting like it doesn't exist)

So you think every employer should give guaranteed raises along with the rate of inflation?

Where do you work and are they hiring?

[waterboy]

When they came after the Gypsy's we didn't care because we were not Gypsies...
When they came after the Baptists we didn't care because we were Catholics...

They'll come after you soon enough if not already. Ageism in today's business place is acceptable, if not legal. AT&T employees are being forced to take vacation hours in place of sick leave. Businesses are using this downturned economy to justify such abuses. Did you notice how Mercury blunted an effort mounted by employees to have a second vote to accept their terms? Too late, we're outahere! Most likely their plan all along. Keep your eyes open Stillwater. Don't offer them any money you can't afford to lose.

We all know of well run companies where unions have had no success in organizing. Those companies display a balance of labor and management interests. That's the key. Equal power yields respect and true negotiation. They know that the success of each depends on the other. When that balance tips one way or the other adjustments are made to effect that balance. I love the old adage, "If you really want to screw your boss, do what he tells you to do".

You make some good points about contract expectations. I don't know exactly what is wrong with a labor union acting like a business unless being a business is a negative thing. Why wouldn't they? Anti-union is part of our culture here so I am never surprised at the level of opposition to them. It is ironic since OK's constitution writers were intent on keeping OK a progressive, labor friendly state as a result of labor practices at the time.