Indiana trying to save money

Geo-TH,In

Well-known Member
Like most states, shrinking revenue, decaying infrastructure, not enough money to fix roads and bridges, Indiana is looking at a way to save money. Indiana if faced with a catch 22. Some are crying we need more taxes, but for the most part we have declining taxes. Some are crying we need more jobs. Some are crying we need to fix the aging roads and bridges. Some are crying keep your hands out of my wallet.

Indiana passed right to work a few years ago. As expected some cried foul. The were going to get those responsible voted out. Never happened. Now this. Same people are crying foul again.

Your reply will determine just how fast this post goes poof, please be kind and respectful.
construction wages
 
A lot of states fix roads and bridges with gas tax money. There is no solution that everyone will like.
 
One thins is sure and certain, there will always be someone crying foul, regardless of the situation.

As far as wages go, in my experience, the guys I have seen working construction on jobs that paid "prevailing" wages, were always making far more than the guys on any other site. Personally I don't see where the Government has any right to force a contractor to pay their employees anything beyond minimum wage. That's not to say minimum wage is what I consider fair wages for skilled labor, but if the workers are getting paid on par with their skills, and on par with others in the industry, then who is the Government to tell them to pay the guys more, ultimately at taxpayers expense?

That all said, when the Government quits wasting money on projects, then there might be money left to do more of them. Case in point is a bridge right down the road from me that was redone some years back. In this case it was a combined state and federal project. They came in, filled a bottom to build up a road bed for close to 100 yards, and about 6 to 8 feet high, poured concrete retaining walls, paved the new road,and then built a nice new bridge. The new bridge even straightened a relatively dangerous curve that existed just as you came off the old bridge.

Once the new bridge was in place, they tour out the old one. Then, when we all thought they were through, they built a brand new bridge, right where the old one stood, curve and all. Once it was done they went in and tore out the first new bridge they had built, busted up all that new concrete, and gave away all the fill that had been used to build up the road bed.

Turns out with the feds involved the 'design' of the bridge couldn't be changed more than a certain percentage. This meant that old bridge had to be rebuilt in the same place, and basically as close to the old design as possible, but within the newer building codes. This meant that they had to build the two bridges in order to keep the road open, and comply with the requirements to get the necessary funding to do the job. In other words it cost twice as much to do the job as it should have.....so the money needed to repair another bridge, that really needed repair somewhere else, got wasted building a temporary bridge that was better designed, and better suited for the site than the one they eventually built.

In the end it's all about Governmental WASTE at the highest levels.
 
I was in the construction business years ago, the prevailing wage rule on "Public" projects was always a bit of a scam, whenever a "non-union" company got a construction job, it was not the workers that actually got the "extra" pay, it was the construction company owners who pocketed huge amounts of cash. Never made sense to me. If they choose to go out to bid and take union and non-union bids, they should be compared based on just that, not protecting union wages, and still allowing non-union to get and do the work.
 
I understand that many of the countries bridges and highways are from 50 to 70 years old and we do not have the money to fix or replace them.
Now the big question, where did they get the money, back then, to build all those roads and bridges? I think the answer is that they did not need to deal with all of those foolish regulations and red tape. Some of those environmental studies are just a big joke.
 
If I understand "Right To Work", Non-union employees would have the same benefits & wages as those negotiated by union employees of the same company.
Sounds like Right To Work is a union breaker. JMHO.
 
Part of the eternal battle between management and worker.

Would be nice if we could get the lower wages (said as a taxpayer...) and also get rid of some middle management. Keep all the jobs a bit cheaper.

Now, if the govt is going to budget $1 billion dollars on road repairs, then that amount of money is going to circulate through the ecconomy.

Doesn't matter if worker wages are set at $20 or $40 an hour, the $1 billion is what will be spent and what will circulate.

Me, I'd rather see more people getting a pretty good job at $20 an hour, than the unions view that only a few workers should get the $40 an hour jobs. I think the union way leaves more people on unemployment.......

In no case is this about more jobs or more money curculating through the economy. There is a set govt budget - my made up $1 billion for example.

We can share that money with many workers and many projects, or we can funnel it to fewer jobs and fewer workers getting bigger pieces of pie.

Of course I favor more jobs, more projects, with a bit smaller pieces of pie. I think the smaller pieces are still a good deal, and helps more families, more of the economy?

Paul
 
My Father co-owned and managed a trucking firm for some years. At that time the wage for drives was around $8 per hour. That was TOP wages in the area.

On any prevailing wage job they had to pay $12 per hour. It was crazy. It just drove up cost and made it an accounting nightmare. IF drive delivered a load to the Government job than went and worked some where else the rest of the day he had to be paid two different rates for the hours worked on that day.

To the fellow that say the contractors just pocket the "extra" prevailing wages. You just show you have NEVER ran a company that does prevailing wage jobs. You have to provide time cards and check stubs showing you actually PAID the workers prevailing wages.

NCWayne also points out an even bigger issue in that the government rules that make ZERO common sense drive many of these projects. The waste on many projects can be as high as 50%.

Here is another example of these stupid rules. If you have dirt work done the contractor has to install silt fencing around the sire to stop any run off. On a road job by my house a few years ago they widened a section and straighten out a curve. It all was all in the bottom of a big cut in a hill. They had to run silt fence along the top of the hill with the road because they had to contain the site. So straight up a 14 foot tall bank they had to run over a mile of silt fence. The ground drained each way so they had to install it at the highest point in the water shed. I can see putting silt fence in at drainage points to contain any run off but the top of an embankment?????? I asked the contractor what that fencing cost per foot. He said right at $4 a foot installed with posts and then $2 a foot to remove it and the post when done. So the job had $25-30K of additional cost because of some stupid rule that makes ZERO common sense.

So millions of dollars are wasted every single year.

Here is another thing to the union supporters. I will joint the FIRST union that is ran by someone NOT getting any wage other than the average wage of the workers in the union and that they support worker wages that are paid based on performance.

That will never happen for two reasons:

1) The average union is run by fellow that DRAW many times the average of the worker they represent.

2) Every union job or plant I have ever been in had at the minimum 10% of the work force that could have been FIRED on the spot and production would have not been lessened any at all.
 
My brother in-law worked for a nonunion contractor who tried the pocketing the difference between the prevailing wage rate and his normal non union rate. Seems a Minority worker had an objection to his doing it and called the authorities when his pay check was short. So you see the prevailing wage is supposed to make a level playing field "in favor of Unions" protecting against non union contractors low-balling jobs.. Here in NY they take a legal action when some one complains. It's a state wide rate so while down state ( New York City )the wage is comparable to the normal non union rate, it is above the non union rate in places such as Buffalo. So if you know of such a scam report it..
 
(quoted from post at 06:15:42 02/25/15) If I understand "Right To Work", Non-union employees would have the same benefits & wages as those negotiated by union employees of the same company.
Sounds like Right To Work is a union breaker. JMHO.

What most think of as "right to work" means that a potential employee cannot be FORCED to join a union to take a job in a company who's workers are represented by a union. Basically states that are not right to work discriminate against people seeking jobs who are opposed to unions for one reason or another. They cannot seek employment in union shops. But on the other hand a member of the American Communist Party, who is an atheist and gay can be employed there. The reason I stated it like that is I know several dedicated Christians who don't believe in unions on religious grounds.

IMO forcing companies making bids and accepting government bids for construction jobs to pay union scale is designed to either force non union companies to unionize, get to workers to vote the union in or keep nonunion companies from bidding.

I believe that anything, local sate or federal, being paid for with government (taxpayer money) should be with the lowest bidder who will meet contract specifications without the government adding to the burden on the taxpayer trying to force unionization to buy votes with.

Rick
 
Not too sure what to think. Generally I have been opposed to unions. And it doesn't seem right that a "board" set pay scales that a contractor must pay.

I think unions had a place once upon a time, but more recently I think many, many businesses went overseas to partially escape having to deal with unions.

I worked an entire career, always had a good job, and great benefits, and it was not union.

I know union guys who think totally the opposite of me. But my BIL and Nephew, both big union supporters are laid off half the time, and when they do work they get shipped all over. My BIL is now driving 4 hours a day to do sheet metal work.

Gene
 
No. Right to work only means that people are not forced to join the union shop. There's nothing that says that you have to pay people the same.
 
Those kick backs are highly illegal and many a company has been caught, only takes one disgruntled employee. Criminal charges as well as being disbarred from bidding would occur here. That's what organized crime does and they get nailed to the wall when caught, and its usually the low seniority or a pawn that is prosecuted, as I have seen from dealing with people that were involved with this in their company unbeknownst to me at the time, behind the scenes on jobs other than ones I ran. The internet certainly is helpful, I've found more than one person I have known in the business, that was prosecuted for these kinds of dealings and worse.

Lowest responsible bid, the labor side of it should be balanced and similar to other bids unless there is a gross mathematical error or oversight. Prevailing wages are stipulated in NYS on public work, and should equal union wages. All the heavy and highway outfits I know of locally do quite a bit of prevailing wage work, and the one in town, whom I know well, have been at it successfully since the 50's. They area company that will get the job done, and it goes right down to the lowest level employee, be late for work once, you are done. I had them on a $8M site job, a NYS agency project, 15 years ago, and though the conditions, mostly soil, was ideal, they expedited their work heavily enough it created a solid month of float time on the baseline schedule, which is huge and was extremely helpful later on in the project, and its what drove the project to substantial completion 1 month ahead of the deadline on the schedule. I believe they now have a union division, but they were mainly non union concentrating on prevailing wage work very successfully for a long time. Any construction manager would highly welcome this company, given how they perform.
 
Actually Davis Bacon jobs require prevailing wages so that the union contractors can compete. A nonunion contractor can't under bid a union contractor because of his lower wage scale. That way the taxpayers get the pleasure of paying higher taxes to support unions.
 
People go to jail for doing what you claim and its not like audits are not done to insure it doesn't happen. Usually there are lots of posters on the jobsite encouraging workers to report wage grievances. Davis Bacon jobs are an accounting nightmare for a general contractor. Not only do you have to make sure you are paying your employees the correct wages, you are required to ensure your subs also pay their employees the the specified rate for the specified duty. If the guy putting in the grass has a bunch of illegals he's paying under table the entire job is screwed.
 
(quoted from post at 14:15:42 02/25/15) If I understand "Right To Work", Non-union employees would have the same benefits & wages as those negotiated by union employees of the same company.
Sounds like Right To Work is a union breaker. JMHO.

In a company that has a unionized labor force the company collects union dues from all the employees and pays it to the union. It's up to the individual employee if he/she wants to be a member or not. The idea here is that the union negotiates for wages, and other work related items for all the workers in the company. Union workers and non-union workers benefit from these negotiations. Since non-union workers get the same befits as the union workers the dues are collected from their checks too. This is called a closed shop. There are also situations where workers get the same benefits as the union workers, but they don't have to pay the dues.
 
Wayne, you ever deal with this outfit or heard of them ? They've been here since the beginning, and are well known as a top performer in the heavy and highway end of it. The son, a person our age actually, whom I attended K-12 and graduated HS with I believe is running that division in NC. they started that one in '96 or so. They work all over NYS doing highway work as well as site jobs in recent years. They did a 70 acre site for us in '98 for a correctional facility, they did excellent work and are highly aggressive on production/progress etc. while maintaining quality work. I remember every year in the spring people would be knocking their door down for jobs as they did mostly prevailing wage work.
Rifenburg in NC
 
As an Indiana resident, I support the bill.

Establishing wages is simply another issue in which the government, state or federal, has no place.

Dean
 
I know of none.

Indeed in my area, we are being inundated with immigrants from OH and, to a lesser extent, KY.

Dean
 
(quoted from post at 06:49:57 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 14:15:42 02/25/15) If I understand "Right To Work", Non-union employees would have the same benefits & wages as those negotiated by union employees of the same company.
Sounds like Right To Work is a union breaker. JMHO.

In a company that has a unionized labor force the company collects union dues from all the employees and pays it to the union. It's up to the individual employee if he/she wants to be a member or not. The idea here is that the union negotiates for wages, and other work related items for all the workers in the company. Union workers and non-union workers benefit from these negotiations. Since non-union workers get the same befits as the union workers the dues are collected from their checks too. This is called a closed shop. There are also situations where workers get the same benefits as the union workers, but they don't have to pay the dues.


Some states are working on fixing that! Making it so people who opt out of the union don't have to pay for any union activity.

Rick
 
Washington still requires "prevailing wage" on public projects, whether union or not. Trouble is, their idea of prevailing wage is more than double what wages are in the real world, and (surprise) are exactly the same as union wages. General laborers get $36 per hour on public projects, but landscapers (who don't have a union) get $12.50. So if you just dig a hole, you get 36 bucks. If you then plant a shrub in it, you get a third of that.
 
1. The Average CEO Makes over 300 times the average worker.

2. 10 % of people on any job Union or not should be fired.
 
Again not true many areas of the country prevailing wages are set by 100% non-union contractors their is (zero) Union market share or bibs on the project.
 
ifure doesn't always work that way. Son worked union job at firestone in des Moines was okd to go to the Dr, went back to work the next day and was told he was fired. union would not help-he was a member. paid all those dam dues and then they did not give a dam.
 
No comment one way or another!
Years ago Iwas hired as a masons helper on a project inside Auburn Prison. I was happy because it payed $11.00 per hour. At the time I was going to school with my GI money and doing what ever I could to get by.
I spent about 6 weeks grinding mortar and repointing stone, the job ended and I went away happy.

Several months later I was subpoenaed and had to testify of my wage. Couple of months after that I got a State check for another 3 dollars an hour I was supposed to be getting paid.
I have no idea what happened to the contractor.
 
I agree with JD seller, setting blanket wages for job tasks makes no sense.

Now I have to say, I recently delivered a project at JFK airport in NY. My company technically is non union, but this site was a union construction site. I was required to allow union workers to perform some of our work. I didn't pay them so for me it was free labor. I found the union workers to be very willing, very helpful and very qualified to do the work they were designated to do. They were a great bunch of guys.

The problem I saw was there was an abundance of them and in talking to them they have a fairly high lifestyle and therefore a much higher labor rate than non union workers in other areas. These guys had a good gravy train going and easy work. Basically they had to show up to get paid. Why wouldn't they be helpful and nice?

I was required to join a union to work for Kroger back in the 70's. The union did nothing for me except take my dues. Since then I have been a non union professional. My salary and work conditions are based on my skills and what the market will support. If I find myself unhappy with my salary or work situation, I update my skills and training and step into a better situation.

I strongly feel the work situation and the rate for a specific job task should be only governed by what the market will support. American's expectations have become extremely high for what they should get paid and what they should pay for goods.

Because of that, groups like unions try to drive labor costs up while we as consumers demand low cost products. So what is a business man to do with this conflict? Well it all started with NAFTA, the brain child of Bill Clinton and Lee Iaccoca. Our jobs made a B line for Mexico, then China, Malaysia, India, Czechoslovakia and many others. It's my observation our business climate and our expectations began to go south in the early 90's. The Clintons have been constantly trying to give us "free health care". This has done tremendous damage and resulted in external_linkcare which no one seems to like.

Until we as a country get our attitudes right and our expectations in line with reality, we're going to have a tough time with this issue. We must be willing to work for market value fair wages to get our jobs back and get this balanced back out.

That's why I appreciate farmers so much. They are willing to work for what they get and their expectations are in line with their income in most cases. We need more workers and less complainers. Just my honest opinion. I'll get off the soap box now.
 
Any time I hear the argument that workers should be over-paid with tax dollars so that more money will go into the local economy - my brain cramps up, and I have to close my ears.

That statement alone tells you which side of the issue you should be on.
 
(quoted from post at 15:05:32 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 06:49:57 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 14:15:42 02/25/15) If I understand "Right To Work", Non-union employees would have the same benefits & wages as those negotiated by union employees of the same company.
Sounds like Right To Work is a union breaker. JMHO.

In a company that has a unionized labor force the company collects union dues from all the employees and pays it to the union. It's up to the individual employee if he/she wants to be a member or not. The idea here is that the union negotiates for wages, and other work related items for all the workers in the company. Union workers and non-union workers benefit from these negotiations. Since non-union workers get the same befits as the union workers the dues are collected from their checks too. This is called a closed shop. There are also situations where workers get the same benefits as the union workers, but they don't have to pay the dues.


Some states are working on fixing that! Making it so people who opt out of the union don't have to pay for any union activity.

Rick

That's called right to work. But why does an employee that doesn't join the union, or pay any dues, get to have any of the benefits the unions negotiated for?

There are very few "shops" that require a worker to be a union member to get hired. The only one that comes to mind is a steam fitters shop. Working as a steam fitter you had to know what you were doing, or people would get killed from faulty work. So unions were developed to make sure anyone who got a job as a steam fitter was well educated in the do's and don'ts of the job to keep it safe. Once you were a proven steam fitter, joining and being excepted in a steam fitters union was prof that you were qualified to do the job.

In Wisconsin having act ten made into law was akin to slapping a child in the head for spilling their milk. The public workers unions were not the boogie man that they were made out to be. That union had a no strike clause, and no binding aberration. This mean the workers couldn't strike if there was an impasse in the negotiations. If they did they were automatically fired. No binding aberration is used when there is a stalemate in negotiations and a outside arbitrator was called in to decide which way the negotiations were to be settled. Wisconsin public workers had neither of these rights in negotiating for higher wages. They had no leverage, so there was nothing to fear from them. So the governor didn't defeat a big bad union by signing act ten into law.
 
I know it's not legal, but it happens every day. One local contractor here does it all the time, has even been taken to court on it several times, always manages to get out of it, of course he has a very "good" lawyer on retainer. Slippery crook, but he gets away with it. Most of the time he just changes the name of the company and continues on.
 
It is a universal truth that everything any branch of government is involved in winds up a wasteful, inefficient mess. Simply set engineering standards and minimums and bid all public work out to the lowest bidder, no special quotas for minorities and favored groups, then hold the bid winner to the terms of the contract, the market will set the project cost and the wage scale and everyone will benefit.
 
Funny everyone makes this about Unions. The non-Union guys are affected just as much by this. I work in Indiana and in my previous job I was an operator for a Union Contractor that was always in the sub-contractor role. We did work for both Union and non-Union prime contractors. I had nothing against the non-Union guys. One thing I found was that almost always they made the same wage essentially on private and public work. The reputable larger non-Union companies pay their guys the same wage on all jobs. Its part of keeping quality employees. The fly by nights were sometimes a different story but are mostly little sub-contractors. They wouldn't be able to prime handle a decent sized government contract. So for now there is no real savings. Its like right to work. It has made no impact on work whatsoever. It has nothing to do with saving employers money, only whether or not a union guy has to pay his union dues. Employers are still Union and still pay the Union wages and the Union agreements are still in effect either way.
 
(quoted from post at 15:28:31 02/25/15) ifure doesn't always work that way. Son worked union job at firestone in des Moines was okd to go to the Dr, went back to work the next day and was told he was fired. union would not help-he was a member. paid all those dam dues and then they did not give a dam.

I'd say that he was a member of a bad union. He should have gone to the states labor relations board and filed a complaint.
 
When I was young (20-21) I worked for a hot tar roofing co. (unionized) as general laborer. Beleive it or not, swingin' the "hot" mop spreading tar was a designated union task to be done ONLY by that person with the "name". That person came in late one day and the old boss taught two of us newbies how to "swing the mop" correctly so we could get some work done. We did great and all was good until Mr. "late" union worker showed up and he raised holy %ell with that boss until he took us off the job and told us we could never swing mop again..union rules! Tell me again how that isn't half the problem in this country ? My carpenter brother back at same time period, hired into union run construction co. building nuclear power plant at Midland MI. Sit on his @ss 1/2 the time waiting for go-ahead from forman to do next step. Quit the job after two weeks of that BS. sad thing...was NEVER completed...NEVER used...spent even more $$$$$ tearing it down. This was a 10 yr project...all union...and then completely scrapped. Waaaay over budget ( most of these projects have 1/3 "do over rate" and still wouldn't pass safety standards. So who do you think paid for all the waist?? ..and who made the money on all the waist??? We all know who.
 
Yeah but whose got the jobs that people are flocking here to get. Loose one get another. Have a son in the construction business with a real short fuse. Can get po's on a job in the morning and have another that afternoon.

Mark
 
(quoted from post at 15:52:28 02/25/15)

In Wisconsin having act ten made into law was akin to slapping a child in the head for spilling their milk. The public workers unions were not the boogie man that they were made out to be. That union had a no strike clause, and no binding aberration. This mean the workers couldn't strike if there was an impasse in the negotiations. If they did they were automatically fired. No binding aberration is used when there is a stalemate in negotiations and a outside arbitrator was called in to decide which way the negotiations were to be settled. Wisconsin public workers had neither of these rights in negotiating for higher wages. They had no leverage, so there was nothing to fear from them. So the governor didn't defeat a big bad union by signing act ten into law.

The big, bad part comes in for the pension and benefits costs. Public employees are consuming more and more municipal and state resources to fund the pension "promises" and Cadillac benefits that were negotiated, mostly by politicians in bed with the union, and no longer in office to answer for it. In turn the union leaders funded their reelection campaign or the party (coughDemocratscough) elections for other pliable candidates. Pension costs have many jusisdictions in a state of technical default right now... they are dead and don't know it yet. When the people find out that they will no longer have municipal services and police and fire protection because all their tax money is going to retired workers who are making more in retirement than they are working every day, the torches and pitch forks will be marching on city hall.
 
(quoted from post at 16:15:24 02/25/15) Right to work in Texas also means a company can dishcharge or fire you for ANY reason.

That's called "employement at will". Applies in Ohio here, I presume unless negotiated otherwise.
 
Actually, that is not true, gchase24.

There are many reasons for which you cannot be fired.

That said, you CAN resign for ANY reason.

Dean
 
LAA you wouldn't make a very good politician.

The only people that'd benefit from a common sense approach like that would be the taxpayers.

There's no profit in that.

You'd go broke and wouldn't be able to fund another campaign to get re-elected.
 
I could go on and on with my union experiences - but my favorite was when I had to work in a telephone company's switch - I had to diagnose a problem on a switch with an operating system I wasn't too familiar with.

It was a difficult job - but the bigger problem was that I wasn't union. I had to sit behind the union guy so he could type for me. My hands couldn't touch the keyboard.

No lie.

It took DAYS to do what should have taken me about two hours.

"B - backslash, no the other slash, the one over the enter key S no not F, S... you backspaced too far, backslash, the other one, S as in Sam... "

Try doing that for two days. I lost my )#(*$#)$ MIND on that one.

My next favorite one was my sister, she was working customer service for a different phone company. Sat for three days unable to take calls (and constantly being berated by her boss for her low daily numbers). The reason she couldn't take calls - the battery in her headset was dead.

She HAD the new 9 volt battery sitting right next to the box - but she wasn't allowed to pop the little cover and swap out the battery. THAT was somebody else's job.

Yeah, unions do SOME good - but when you try to apply a concept that may have worked in a very regular 1890's manufacturing environment to a dynamic modern office environment - it's breaks down fast.
 
(quoted from post at 10:52:28 02/25/15) ..... That union had a no strike clause, and no [b:39efde9498]binding aberration[/b:39efde9498]. This mean the workers couldn't strike if there was an impasse in the negotiations. If they did they were automatically fired. No binding aberration is used when there is a stalemate in negotiations and a outside arbitrator was called in to decide which way the negotiations were to be settled. ........

Yeah, that's a good description for a union: "binding aberration". :lol: :lol:

aberration defn: a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, [b:39efde9498]typically one that is unwelcome[/b:39efde9498]
 
Years ago I had my first run in with a Union. I was working for IBM as a technician when I took a call @ Hughes Aircraft in So Cal. While I was there they said a letter sized envelope had been received for another machine (desktop printer) on another floor. I said "no problem, I'll just carry it up there." You should have seen the panic on their faces when I said that. Anyway, I had to wait while they put in a requisition to the Union so a designated Union employee, who was qualified to carry this envelope, arrived and carried the envelope ahead of me to the other floor. I couldn't believe it.
Just last year, my son-in-law told me about a contract they bid on (and won) for the city they worked in. The city agreed to their terms but insisted on paying them more than they asked for because of the prevailing wage law.
 
Like others, I've got my share of union "horror stories" having worked for GM in a salaried position and then with suppliers to the automotive industry. In general, as a supplier, when we estimated installation for our equipment, if we had to use UAW skilled trades, we estimated longer installation times than if we used our own people. Getting a UAW electrician, millwright or pipefitter to do something always took longer and required more bodies to complete the job.

However, that is private enterprise and why I buy non-union vehicles, made in America, with more local content than the Detroit 3. I.e. it is my choice to support or NOT support a company that employs union labor.

Requiring prevailing wage on government jobs (paid for by taxpayers) is a "gift" to the unions (allows them to be competitive) and unnecessarily drives up costs. This means that taxpayers have no choice in the matter whether to support unions (and their arbitrarily high wages and archaic, nonsensical work rules) or not.
 
(quoted from post at 16:52:31 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 15:52:28 02/25/15)

In Wisconsin having act ten made into law was akin to slapping a child in the head for spilling their milk. The public workers unions were not the boogie man that they were made out to be. That union had a no strike clause, and no binding aberration. This mean the workers couldn't strike if there was an impasse in the negotiations. If they did they were automatically fired. No binding aberration is used when there is a stalemate in negotiations and a outside arbitrator was called in to decide which way the negotiations were to be settled. Wisconsin public workers had neither of these rights in negotiating for higher wages. They had no leverage, so there was nothing to fear from them. So the governor didn't defeat a big bad union by signing act ten into law.

The big, bad part comes in for the pension and benefits costs. Public employees are consuming more and more municipal and state resources to fund the pension "promises" and Cadillac benefits that were negotiated, mostly by politicians in bed with the union, and no longer in office to answer for it. In turn the union leaders funded their reelection campaign or the party (coughDemocratscough) elections for other pliable candidates. Pension costs have many jusisdictions in a state of technical default right now... they are dead and don't know it yet. When the people find out that they will no longer have municipal services and police and fire protection because all their tax money is going to retired workers who are making more in retirement than they are working every day, the torches and pitch forks will be marching on city hall.

Well the only thing I have to say to all that is........bs. How long have you lived in Wisconsin, how long have you worked for the state of Wisconsin? I have lived here all my life, and worked for the state of Wisconsin for twenty eight years, and know for a fact you don't know what you are talking about. Pensions for municipal/state workers are fully funded by the workers. Even non-union workers can participate in the retirement program. Just because their pay comes from the tax payer doesn't mean the retirement system is paid out of tax dollars. The health benefits received by state workers is not a Cadillac policy. It pretty much is/was the same health care coverage offered to workers outside the system. BTW, health insurance wasn't free. It was part of a workers pay package.
 
(quoted from post at 15:48:53 02/25/15) Any time I hear the argument that workers should be over-paid with tax dollars so that more money will go into the local economy - my brain cramps up, and I have to close my ears.

That statement alone tells you which side of the issue you should be on.

Well then, the president on down should work for free?
 
(quoted from post at 07:52:28 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 15:05:32 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 06:49:57 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 14:15:42 02/25/15) If I understand "Right To Work", Non-union employees would have the same benefits & wages as those negotiated by union employees of the same company.
Sounds like Right To Work is a union breaker. JMHO.

In a company that has a unionized labor force the company collects union dues from all the employees and pays it to the union. It's up to the individual employee if he/she wants to be a member or not. The idea here is that the union negotiates for wages, and other work related items for all the workers in the company. Union workers and non-union workers benefit from these negotiations. Since non-union workers get the same befits as the union workers the dues are collected from their checks too. This is called a closed shop. There are also situations where workers get the same benefits as the union workers, but they don't have to pay the dues.


Some states are working on fixing that! Making it so people who opt out of the union don't have to pay for any union activity.

Rick

That's called right to work. But why does an employee that doesn't join the union, or pay any dues, get to have any of the benefits the unions negotiated for?

There are very few "shops" that require a worker to be a union member to get hired. The only one that comes to mind is a steam fitters shop. Working as a steam fitter you had to know what you were doing, or people would get killed from faulty work. So unions were developed to make sure anyone who got a job as a steam fitter was well educated in the do's and don'ts of the job to keep it safe. Once you were a proven steam fitter, joining and being excepted in a steam fitters union was prof that you were qualified to do the job.

In Wisconsin having act ten made into law was akin to slapping a child in the head for spilling their milk. The public workers unions were not the boogie man that they were made out to be. That union had a no strike clause, and no binding aberration. This mean the workers couldn't strike if there was an impasse in the negotiations. If they did they were automatically fired. No binding aberration is used when there is a stalemate in negotiations and a outside arbitrator was called in to decide which way the negotiations were to be settled. Wisconsin public workers had neither of these rights in negotiating for higher wages. They had no leverage, so there was nothing to fear from them. So the governor didn't defeat a big bad union by signing act ten into law.
Actually no, many states with right to work laws the nonunion employee is still forced into paying for the union. MN is one of them. That is why some states are working on or have passed laws that not only allow the worker to opt out of joining but make it to where they make no contributions to the union. The unions claim those laws are designed to break the unions. Nonunion. Workers claim that forcing them to pay violates thier rights.

Rick
 
Just curious how you know it happens every day. If you know about it report it. Having a good lawyer doesn't get you out of these things, it might delay the penalties for a while but eventually someone is going to jail.
 
Exactly !! Most truckdriver jobs now are ,"Hire to fire". which is why they are begging for truckdrivers now.When your pink slip says ," As we are striving to improve the quality of our driver fleet." Funny thing is now they have to beg someone to do the odd runs and "desperatly needs to go and the reg driver is A. kid's little league game,B on vacation or C. hung over. You can ruin your health working night and day for these companies and you are just another machine for them to use up and wear out then throw away.So now they are filling the seats with inexperienced kids and illegals and towelheads . But thats ok. It's the american way.Just dont whine when it's your family crushed under a semi trailor or like the pregnant woman and her kids and friends screaming in a burning car underneath a semi!
 
I do my research every day. What "law" requires nonunion employees to be paid the same rate? We pay people different rates for the same job all the time.
 
Dating to at least the 1940s, Wisconsin law has made both workers and the state responsible for contributing to the pension fund in amounts based on flat percentages or actuarial calculations related to keeping the fund healthy.

But the statutes, since at least 1981, have allowed or dictated that the state cover some or all of the workers’ contributions in addition to the employer share. This was the era of collective bargaining.

Only in 2011 did state employees start paying in to pensions after 30 years of not doing so.


It became commonplace over a period of decades for almost all public employers -- the state, school districts, local governments -- to "pick up" the entire employee contribution.


Perhaps you should learn WTH you are talking about.
 
Right to Work (for less) laws allow people to not pay dues, this does not change if a shop or job is union or not. so the contract would still control labor or pay rates.
 
I know of unions that have established tiered pay scales for their own members - what makes you think it can't be done with union and nonunion members?

Even the UAW has tiered pay scales at the Big Three.



http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2015/01/30/ford-uaw-entry-level-workers-exceed-cap/22612565/

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?
 
For those areas they apply prevailing wages from other areas. The NBAF project in Manhattan KS is a prevailing wage job - but the prevailing wage is for the Kansas City area - not the Manhattan Kansas area. That was done so union sub contractors can compete.
 
Since about everybody else has had their say in this, here is mine:

Unions are mostly corrupt. They are interested more in playing politics with management than benefitting the workers.

Unions foster an attitude of labor VERSUS management rather than an atmosphere of co-operation.

The original purpose of labor unions was to enforce safe working conditions and fair wages. Today, the majority of that function has been replaced by labor laws, government agencies (OSHA), and competition in the marketplace. Skilled labor will demand a fair wage whether union or not.

Now, I am a bit confused...what did the original post have to do with unions? Or tractors for that matter???
 
The only thing a right to work bill does is let you work for less money and have no employee benefits. Where do you think union wage comes from out of the kindness of the CEO of a company? Non union wages are about 4 or 5 years behind a union wage plus the union wages are 20% higher then non- union wages . The union built the middle class from the 1940's till all the union busting became popular and now the middle is shrinking and states like Indiana can't even fix a road and keep the public school system going.There are bad and good unions but most are trying to help worker get a decent wage and worker benefits, CEO should not be making 400 times as a worker.
 
Here in Iowa we dont try to conserv we just raise the gas tax by 10 cents.There is moneies for this infrastrucure already, but they will use it for other things I'm sure.
 
(quoted from post at 18:43:53 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 10:52:28 02/25/15) ..... That union had a no strike clause, and no [b:df2a1211b7]binding aberration[/b:df2a1211b7]. This mean the workers couldn't strike if there was an impasse in the negotiations. If they did they were automatically fired. No binding aberration is used when there is a stalemate in negotiations and a outside arbitrator was called in to decide which way the negotiations were to be settled. ........

Yeah, that's a good description for a union: "binding aberration". :lol: :lol:

aberration defn: a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, [b:df2a1211b7]typically one that is unwelcome[/b:df2a1211b7]

JML755,
Okay, you got me on that one. Darn spell check! I meant to type arbitration. Does that make sense now?
:lol:
 
I was involved in one of the attmepts to put them away, lawyer got him out of it, all he ended up doing is changing the name of his company and kept right on going, minus me working for him that is.
 
(quoted from post at 21:01:56 02/25/15) Dating to at least the 1940s, Wisconsin law has made both workers and the state responsible for contributing to the pension fund in amounts based on flat percentages or actuarial calculations related to keeping the fund healthy.

But the statutes, since at least 1981, have allowed or dictated that the state cover some or all of the workers’ contributions in addition to the employer share. This was the era of collective bargaining.

Only in 2011 did state employees start paying in to pensions after 30 years of not doing so.

I'll tell how the state started to pay the full amount of pension contributions. During the negotiations for that contract year the union asked for more money for the workers. The state proposed to pay the workers share of pension contributions. This was a slick move on the states part. The workers base pay stayed the same, but he/she would have a little more money in their take home pay. But it was always listed in an employees pay package.

It became commonplace over a period of decades for almost all public employers -- the state, school districts, local governments -- to "pick up" the entire employee contribution.


Perhaps you should learn WTH you are talking about.
 
(quoted from post at 19:59:56 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 07:52:28 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 15:05:32 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 06:49:57 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 14:15:42 02/25/15) If I understand "Right To Work", Non-union employees would have the same benefits & wages as those negotiated by union employees of the same company.
Sounds like Right To Work is a union breaker. JMHO.

In a company that has a unionized labor force the company collects union dues from all the employees and pays it to the union. It's up to the individual employee if he/she wants to be a member or not. The idea here is that the union negotiates for wages, and other work related items for all the workers in the company. Union workers and non-union workers benefit from these negotiations. Since non-union workers get the same befits as the union workers the dues are collected from their checks too. This is called a closed shop. There are also situations where workers get the same benefits as the union workers, but they don't have to pay the dues.


Some states are working on fixing that! Making it so people who opt out of the union don't have to pay for any union activity.

Rick

That's called right to work. But why does an employee that doesn't join the union, or pay any dues, get to have any of the benefits the unions negotiated for?

There are very few "shops" that require a worker to be a union member to get hired. The only one that comes to mind is a steam fitters shop. Working as a steam fitter you had to know what you were doing, or people would get killed from faulty work. So unions were developed to make sure anyone who got a job as a steam fitter was well educated in the do's and don'ts of the job to keep it safe. Once you were a proven steam fitter, joining and being excepted in a steam fitters union was prof that you were qualified to do the job.

In Wisconsin having act ten made into law was akin to slapping a child in the head for spilling their milk. The public workers unions were not the boogie man that they were made out to be. That union had a no strike clause, and no binding aberration. This mean the workers couldn't strike if there was an impasse in the negotiations. If they did they were automatically fired. No binding aberration is used when there is a stalemate in negotiations and a outside arbitrator was called in to decide which way the negotiations were to be settled. Wisconsin public workers had neither of these rights in negotiating for higher wages. They had no leverage, so there was nothing to fear from them. So the governor didn't defeat a big bad union by signing act ten into law.
Actually no, many states with right to work laws the nonunion employee is still forced into paying for the union. MN is one of them. That is why some states are working on or have passed laws that not only allow the worker to opt out of joining but make it to where they make no contributions to the union. The unions claim those laws are designed to break the unions. Nonunion. Workers claim that forcing them to pay violates thier rights.

Rick

In Wisconsin it depended on which agency or office you worked in whether or not you paid dues. Here's one example. I worked as a janitor and our "shop" was voted a closed shop. which means everyone had union dues deducted from their pay. You didn't have to me a member, but you did get all the same pay raises the union members did. Now the program assistant's (office secretaries) had a open shop. They didn't have to pay dues or join the union. But they still got the same pay raises as the paying union members did. How is that fair? Anyway. now no one can negotiate for anything. Pay raises are few and far between, and it won't be long before other incentives will be taken away.
 
Wow always a can of worms . I have to post though . I belong to an evil trade union. I served a 5 year apprenticeship over 20 years ago . I live in a prevailing wage state . That wage is set by the average wage by trade being recorded in that area. Public and private projects , in other words what the market will bear . Now that being said its not perfect , maybe it's out dated . We negotiate with our contractors to supply them labor at a certain cost , they pay us our wages in return . We manage our own insurance , training and retirement . We make the same on public or private jobs which are bid by both non and union contractors . We have nothing to do with anyone's taxes period . I will admit I have seen some slugs but by and large they get weeded out . If you don't produce you can't fake it . We do earn higher than average but we don't have paid holidays or uniforms or vacation time . We do have to travel some , but that's our choice . It's been a good 26 or so years for me , built a house , raised three kids , got me back into my farming habit debt free. Anyway hate it or not I encourage young people to seek TRADE unions , no student loans , decent retirement , good education . My two cents , fire away.
 
In Indiana, a right to work state, technically, it is a union breaker. An employee who works in a union shop does not have to join the union but still receives union bargained wages and benefits. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Additionally, the employer cannot collect dues for the union from the employee. The employee must pay the dues himself.
What the legislature is doing right now is eliminating the prevailing wage (union wage) provision from public works projects. What this will do is allow a guy with a pickup truck and a skilsaw to go out and bid jobs along side the legitimate contractors. And this guy's only training is how to pull the ground prong out of an extension cord.
 
I say go where you can make the MOST money for you and your family. I rarely ever made union scale, I was worth more and they paid me for it. You do what you gotta do to make the most. jmo gobble
 
"Unions foster an attitude of labor VERSUS management rather than an atmosphere of co-operation."

Bingo, Jim.

Dean
 
When considering a piece of legislation, the first question should be "what problem is this supposed to solve?" And if it doesn't solve that problem, or, as is often the case, the problem doesn't exist, what's the point of the bill?

Your pet bill won't build a single mile of road. In the midwest, there are few if any non-union contractors big enough to bid on major highway projects. Repealing a old law protecting unions is not going to change that fact, and your legislators know that. So what's their REAL motivation? It's smoke and mirrors to present the illusion they're working on the road problem, when they in fact have no intention of doing anything constructive. Building highways is HARD because it takes MONEY. Passing pointless union-bashing bills, on the other hand, is as easy as pie.

Here in Michigan we have a similar situation. The roads and bridges are decrepit, and the obvious solution is to raise fuel taxes. Given that one party, the Know-Nothings, has control of both houses of the legislature and the governor's seat, you'd think they could agree on a way to do this. NOT A CHANCE! It seems they couldn't figure out a way to raise taxes without being accused of raising taxes. So they punted. In May we get to vote whether or not to raise the state sales tax, a portion of which will go to funding roads. The chances of this bill passing are slim. Either way the taxpayers get to foot the bill for a special election because the legislators couldn't bring themselves to do their jobs. Of course this election is a can't lose proposition for the legislature: If it fails, they can say "the voters don't want the roads fixed." If it passes, they'll says "We never voted for a tax increase!" Nice.
 
(quoted from post at 15:09:24 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 19:59:56 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 07:52:28 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 15:05:32 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 06:49:57 02/25/15)
(quoted from post at 14:15:42 02/25/15) If I understand "Right To Work", Non-union employees would have the same benefits & wages as those negotiated by union employees of the same company.
Sounds like Right To Work is a union breaker. JMHO.

In a company that has a unionized labor force the company collects union dues from all the employees and pays it to the union. It's up to the individual employee if he/she wants to be a member or not. The idea here is that the union negotiates for wages, and other work related items for all the workers in the company. Union workers and non-union workers benefit from these negotiations. Since non-union workers get the same befits as the union workers the dues are collected from their checks too. This is called a closed shop. There are also situations where workers get the same benefits as the union workers, but they don't have to pay the dues.


Some states are working on fixing that! Making it so people who opt out of the union don't have to pay for any union activity.

Rick

That's called right to work. But why does an employee that doesn't join the union, or pay any dues, get to have any of the benefits the unions negotiated for?

There are very few "shops" that require a worker to be a union member to get hired. The only one that comes to mind is a steam fitters shop. Working as a steam fitter you had to know what you were doing, or people would get killed from faulty work. So unions were developed to make sure anyone who got a job as a steam fitter was well educated in the do's and don'ts of the job to keep it safe. Once you were a proven steam fitter, joining and being excepted in a steam fitters union was prof that you were qualified to do the job.

In Wisconsin having act ten made into law was akin to slapping a child in the head for spilling their milk. The public workers unions were not the boogie man that they were made out to be. That union had a no strike clause, and no binding aberration. This mean the workers couldn't strike if there was an impasse in the negotiations. If they did they were automatically fired. No binding aberration is used when there is a stalemate in negotiations and a outside arbitrator was called in to decide which way the negotiations were to be settled. Wisconsin public workers had neither of these rights in negotiating for higher wages. They had no leverage, so there was nothing to fear from them. So the governor didn't defeat a big bad union by signing act ten into law.
Actually no, many states with right to work laws the nonunion employee is still forced into paying for the union. MN is one of them. That is why some states are working on or have passed laws that not only allow the worker to opt out of joining but make it to where they make no contributions to the union. The unions claim those laws are designed to break the unions. Nonunion. Workers claim that forcing them to pay violates thier rights.

Rick

In Wisconsin it depended on which agency or office you worked in whether or not you paid dues. Here's one example. I worked as a janitor and our "shop" was voted a closed shop. which means everyone had union dues deducted from their pay. You didn't have to me a member, but you did get all the same pay raises the union members did. Now the program assistant's (office secretaries) had a open shop. They didn't have to pay dues or join the union. But they still got the same pay raises as the paying union members did. How is that fair? Anyway. now no one can negotiate for anything. Pay raises are few and far between, and it won't be long before other incentives will be taken away.

Have 2 nieces both working in union jobs but are non union. Both are forced to pay fees to the union and both are unhappy with that rule. One on religious grounds (don't ask, I don't know and will not ask). Now both are working full time and neither wants to be in the union yet both are forced to pay? That's why some states are passing or attempting to pass laws barring that practice. I don't have a dog in this fight. I retired in 02 at 47 that is until I got bored and decided to farm :shock: and never held a union job. So other than being a tax payer I don't have a dag in this fight.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 13:35:25 02/25/15) Food for thought.....
Would you be willing to be shot into outer space on a rocket built by the lowest bidder?

No thanks!!!

Why not? We send our youngsters to war with weapons from the cheapest bidder that meets contract requirements.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 13:53:28 02/25/15) CEO should not be making 400 times as a worker.

Why not? The company/board of directors decides how much a CEO is worth to a company, not you or I. Kinda like with football. The team owner decides just how much a wide receiver or quarterback is worth.

Rick
 
What do you do when the economy is garbage? You say that the roads and bridges need to be replaced, you hand "your" reports to dutiful news sources that will pipe them into eveyone's households to convince them, and you then put folks to work building roads and bridges, dragging those jobs out forever. A few or couple of years ago our federal government put out a list of roads and bridges that were in "disrepair", but when going down the list, "disrepair" also counted as roads or bridges that needed to go from two to four lanes in areas where population was "projected" to increase, thus needing such expansion for "projected" "disrepair".

It took ten years to build the empire state building, and nearly 100 years later with far more advanced equipment, it takes five years to widen an existing flat road from two lanes to four lanes over a four miles stretch.

Mark
 
Looking at their site, it appears they are based out of Troy, which is about an hour East of me. I've heard the name over the years, but never had any direct contact with them. As big as they are it looks like they'd be a good customer to pick up....if I wasn't already so dang busy.
 
We do some public work and work at Purdue here in indiana and are non union. It is always interesting when I bid a job and the pay scale rate for my guys is TWICE what they normally get. Really no reason, they do the same type work every other day for their "normal" wage.
 
We've been in business for 42 years in indiana, there's no way I could charge my private clients what I have to charge on prevailing wage jobs. I'd be out of business.
 
There is also a Troy N.Y., and the main branch is within the zip code of it, but its actually an adjacent town of Troy, same one I live in. It says Durham, NC on the website. I can't believe its been almost 20 years since they opened that division down your way. I think they typically do a majority of the work like what you do, in house. They have quite a bit of equipment and trucks. I would imagine they do outsource when busy, one of those situations where if they know you do good work, are reliable and all those kinds of things, likely you could pick up some spill over work when things are busy. Sounds like your current backlog keeps you busy though and that's always a good thing LOL !
 
It took a year actually, another one that comes to mind is the pentagon, given the times, technology, etc, they still found a way to complete these massive projects. Commercial construction today is loaded with highly compressed schedules, I lived those for years while in the industry.
 
It took less than two years to build the Empire State Building . It went fast . They were all union labor.It took less time to build the GW Bridge.
 
Sorry I wasn't alive in the 1940s and most of my family was busy fighting WW2 to be part of a union. What have unions done for this country the last 40 years? Destroyed the manufacturing base and made the government even more inefficient (few thought it was possible but it happened).
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top