When one realizes that union bosses and the rank-and-file do not have the same interests, especially when the union bosses' have fully-funded pensions where rank-and-file have some awfully-funded pensions, not to mention the awesome pay & bennies and that (so far) the industries going under don't hurt the bosses, the following is not surprising at all (like most of my "Unexpectedly!" posts):
In Illinois, the latest intra-union conflict—and potentially the biggest yet—is in Joliet. Last May, after contract negotiations stalled, nearly 800 IAM-represented employees walked off the job at Caterpillar's hydraulic-parts factory. After a few weeks, more than 100 returned to work, fed up over the lack of progress in the talks and pinched by the union's $150-a-week strike pay, some workers say.
When an agreement was reached in mid-August, the contract provided less than the one before it: The IAM gave in to an hourly pay freeze for veteran employees, an end to pensions, a doubling of health care premiums and a one-time ratification bonus of $3,100 instead of $5,000 under the previously proposed pact. The terms were almost identical to a Cat contract ratified by the UAW a year earlier.
….
But rather than blame the boss, some workers are directing their anger toward a union that they say is out of touch with current realities and refuses to acknowledge its limited power.
“They are not effective,” says Steven Olson, 54, a former IAM member who crossed the picket line last summer. “With high unemployment and companies willing to relocate, you just don't have the options that you did 30 years ago. The whole world has changed.”
This month, Mr. Olson and another Caterpillar worker filed an unfair labor practices charge against the union local with the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, saying it's illegal to punish them for returning to work. Mark Mix, president of the foundation, says 61 other Caterpillar workers who also crossed the picket line have called the organization looking to lodge similar complaints. “I suspect we will have some more charges here shortly,” he says.
I've been anti-union for a long time (though I am a guild member, more on that distinction another time), mainly because I, as an individual, will invariably get screwed.
If nothing else, I prefer having only one boss. Having to deal with two power heirarchies is just too headache-inducing, as anybody in a matrix-reporting organization very well knows.
Kv on November 26, 2012 at 10:53 pm said:
This is, to me at least, a little unusual. I can tell you, from personal experience, that the rank-and-file don't always have a clear grasp of what's best for them, Years ago, during a contract negotiation, I suggested to the membership that we go for maintenance of benefits only for a year or two, as my concern was that we were capable of pricing ourselves out of the labor market(and in the Southwest it's VERY easy to do). Their response was calling me "Company Man". I resigned as Steward at that point. Spent two more years there, then left; by the time I returned to the area almost three years later, the union had lost the latest battle for its demands and, consequently, the same fellas now had lost their jobs, and in some cases, their homes, and relationships. They had effectively priced themselves out of the labor market, at least with that company. Not that it hurt the Administrative arm of the union, as they are employed differently. Gosh sounds a wee bit Like Hostess, eh?
Zendo Deb on November 27, 2012 at 11:49 am said:
The rank and file may not have a clear grasp of what's best for them, but I would rather live in a democracy than in a nanny state. Which – on some level is what Kv is describing.
Those in power know better than you. Don't worry your pretty little head over it dear. Just do what I tell you damn it. All come to about the same thing.
And if the rank and file are clueless, what is the root cause of that?