re: USW strike...** POSSIBLE END IN SIGHT **

I believe that is a true statement.

The union doesn't have anything to give up that would make the company change their entire philosophy.

Union workers could be cheaper than contract (which is often true) and they still would not want more of them.

quote:

---

Yeah they've already agreed upon the 6.5%. 2, 2.5, 2% for the next 3 years. That ain't shite for a cost of living raise. 3% is the norm.

---

WTF? I only got 3.2% cost of living raise over the pass three years on my SS checks. Bet your grand folks are happy with those big raises.

Oh, 30 years in the USW local 9059

If it was more beneficial to the company, why would they have contrActors at all. Plus you left out retirement, which is a gigantic expense

quote:

---

If it was more beneficial to the company, why would they have contrActors at all.

---

Ability to scale and remove workers at will.

Less chance for recordable injuries.

Easier to remove employees that challenge the way of operations

The guys I know who aren't working due to the strike, are the biggest bunch of cry babies.

quote:

---

Big difference between the union and contractors. At any time for any reason they can tell the contractor to kick rocks. It takes damn near an act of congress to get rid of a union worker. 

---

This is what everyone has such a hard time understanding. When they talk about flexible contract labor being the reason Shell has not had to lay any of their employees off...guess who takes the brunt of that and gets laid off? The contractors. At the end of every year, the contractor maintenance staff is reduced to damn near bare bones so the client can meet budget or use funds as they see fit. Beginning of the year they ramp up again. This is done as a cost savings measure for the company. If all of these maintenance hands were company employees shell wouldn't be able to so easily dispose of them in a crunch. Not to mention, if the majority of maintenance were Union, the union would have controlling interest inside the gates and throw their weight around at will. This is about economics and maintaining controlling interest.

quote:

---

Really not that hard, just usually not worth the trouble. Just go to the next person to get it done.

---

This doesn't help the case. So you keep on dead weight because it is a hassle to get rid of them. You then have to get someone else to do the job you can't get the dead weight to do while they do jack shite.

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe we should be on strike over this.

---

No. Anyone that says otherwise will swallow whatever load the union is shooting.

quote:

---

Somehow, this way of thinking is acceptable to union folks.

---

Please don't speak for all of us. Also, not all places of business who have unions are that easy.

If you mess up at my work you will be fired. You'll get a 2nd chance for the most part but it doesn't take an act of congress to be fired.

quote:

---

Well, I mean if someone doesn't want to do the work to get rid of them aren't they just as guilty of being lazy on their job? It is there job to manage people. I don't think you find much support for shitty personel amoung their coworkers. They just can't do anything about it, they don't manage people.

---

You're the one that said it's not worth the trouble most of the time to get rid of them. Why bring in more people that are harder to replace than a contractor that you can kick off the site at will and use as needed? Most of the issues were addressed. Most of the Union workers even agree that this is BS.