- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
what we see is happening is the employer trying to take the royalties that have heretofore been paid to the union workers - according to the present labor/management contract - while the employer remained profitable
now, if we see that the employer is losing money - and it opens its legitimate books to reveal that outcome - then the union would be stupid to refuse to take a smaller cut in order for the business to remain viable. but there is no indication (from what little i have read) to indicate the employer is experiencing unprofitability. management seems only to want
...wait for it
more
let's instead examine the facts:this is simply untrue....Here is what the OP said, and is being reported....
"The union said its members would agree to an extension only if the Maritime Alliance dropped a proposal to freeze the royalties workers get for every container they unload."
Please explain to me how a freeze is in your words above 'taking royalties that union members were paid before'?
[emphasis added by bubba]... The new contract does not eliminate the royalty payments, according to Benny Holland, an executive vice president for the ILA.
"The royalty will stay intact. We have worked out a formula for it," he said in an interview.
Established in 1960, the royalty payments to ILA workers are based on the tons of container cargo that move through a port. That tonnage has risen from 50 million tons in 1996 to 110 million last year, according to the alliance. Total payments last year were $211 million, according to the USMX, or an average of $15,500 per worker.
The original idea was to protect longshoremen from wage losses expected as a result of "containerization," in which more and more goods are packed in the now-familiar 20- and 40-foot long boxes. Those take less manpower to off-load than the less-standardized containers they replaced.
Both sides also fought over the guaranteed eight-hour workday in the current contract and the seven-man "lashing gang." Lashing crews, or gangs, secure the cargo containers to the vessel using metal lashing rods to keep them from moving while the vessel is at sea. The maritime alliance wanted to eliminate each.
“The container royalty payment issue has been agreed upon in principle by the parties, subject to achieving an overall collective bargaining agreement. ...
I thought you guys were against class envy?
perishable foods and finished automobiles are going to be shipped regardless. that has already been agreed
He'd probably get beat up. Because that's how unions deal with people who make sense.
let's instead examine the facts:
[emphasis added by bubba]
East Coast port strike averted as parties agree to last-minute deal - Business on NBCNews.com
what we can see from our nbc news source is that the royalties - which were in dispute - are no longer a matter of contention because the employer has agreed to keep them intact. hence, the tentative agreement
the matters which remain in dispute are the eight hour work day and the lashing crew requirements within the present contract, which provisions the employer wants to eliminate
Ok, so when you said....
"what we see is happening is the employer trying to take the royalties that have heretofore been paid to the union workers..."
You now admit that was false.
But the bigger picture here. These Unionized workers were threatening strike not because working conditions were horrific, or because safety was compromised, nor were they upset because the owners wanted to bring in child labor or any of that pap. No, they were threatening a strike because the owners wanted to freeze their pay and benefits at $125K per year....Oh yeah...Nothing but money....Same old story as far as I am concerned, they want more, and more, and more until the businesses that provide their jobs in the first place goes under.
But hey, keep defending this sort of thing, and I am sure we can see even less than the current 7% membership in this country.
Still, this will have a negative impact on businesses outside of grocers and car dealerships that depend on these shipments.
So you are upset with people who wanted to make more money?
no. the employer WAS seeking to rescind the royalties that it had been paying to the union/employeesOk, so when you said....
"what we see is happening is the employer trying to take the royalties that have heretofore been paid to the union workers..."
You now admit that was false.
the employer wanted to keep the money - the royalties - that it had previously agreed to pay the union workersBut the bigger picture here. These Unionized workers were threatening strike not because working conditions were horrific, or because safety was compromised, nor were they upset because the owners wanted to bring in child labor or any of that pap. No, they were threatening a strike because the owners wanted to freeze their pay and benefits at $125K per year....Oh yeah...Nothing but money....Same old story as far as I am concerned, they want more, and more, and more until the businesses that provide their jobs in the first place goes under.
but that 7% sure seems to be getting a lot of headlines lately, where it keeps pushing back against management's efforts to become more profitable at the employees' expense. i don't see the employers winningBut hey, keep defending this sort of thing, and I am sure we can see even less than the current 7% membership in this country.
Of course, capitalists never form a cabal to not only stifle competition between up and coming capitalists, to not only repress technological innovation that threatens their profit margins, but to also keep wages down to a bare minimum.
When "fair market wages" amount to a mere subsistence and when capitalists view human labor as little more than a jument commodity to be exploited at their whim, then workers have no choice but take whatever measures are necessary to maintain a human standard of living.
Read more @: Unionized dock workers threaten to strike at 15 ports - CBS News
[/FONT][/COLOR]
but that 7% sure seems to be getting a lot of headlines lately, where it keeps pushing back against management's efforts to become more profitable at the employees' expense. i don't see the employers winning
So you are upset with people who wanted to make more money?
I'm not upset with them, I'm upset with the methods they are using. Anyone can want more wages, but what unions really want is more power.
"Longshoremen with one to four years of experience earned $21.25 to $33.84 per hour, while those on the job for five to nine years made $14.11 to $33.83 hourly. Longshoremen with 10 to 19 years of experience made $24.08 to $35.38 per hour, PayScale reported."
What Is the Average Salary of a Longshoreman? | eHow.com
These are not particularly great wages considering the nature of the work.
what tells you that the unions only want more power
Two wrongs make a right..... right?
That's as much after 5 years as my mother makes after 25 years in the field as an Urgent Care nurse.
This is what pisses me off about unions. They demand enormous salaries, benefits, and feather-bed employment, whine and pout when they don't get their way and the rest of us suffer because it.
I'm not upset with them, I'm upset with the methods they are using. Anyone can want more wages, but what unions really want is more power.
Which is called collusion and is illegal.
You realize if what you were saying was true, the strikers would already be out of a job and be replaced---and there would be no unions. Your post doesnt pass the reality test.
All of the above.
And it happens all the time, despite what the law says. Indeed, the law often looks the other way even when their nose is rubbed in it. Why do you suppose that is?
It's not so true in the U.S. anymore, thanks to organized labor, although such exploitation continues in developing countries with shameless abandon, and is increasing every year with the continuing exploitation of illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, neither the U.S. government nor the U.N. do much about it.
no. the employer WAS seeking to rescind the royalties that it had been paying to the union/employees
the employer has since folded on that point once a strike was threatened. as the union leader has indicated
the mediator has now stepped in and extended the span of the current contract until february 6, because other aspects of the contract - the eight hour work day requirement and the requirement of a lashing crew - remain unresolved. the extension buys time under the existing contract to hash out the language on those two other outstanding issues
the employer wanted to keep the money - the royalties - that it had previously agreed to pay the union workers
so, yes, it was about money. money the employer wanted to keep from the employees
but that 7% sure seems to be getting a lot of headlines lately, where it keeps pushing back against management's efforts to become more profitable at the employees' expense. i don't see the employers winning
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?