[QUOTE=St@nley68;161400]In the case of the GoM mariner , union wages are not higher. I’ve been on both sides of the union fence and my practical experience says non-union employees are generally far more productive than their Union counterparts.[/QUOTE]
I have been on both sides of the fence as well. My practical experience says Union employees are far more productive than their non-union counterparts. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean shit. So I don’t post my personal experiences as arguments.
[QUOTE=Jeaux Bawss;161342]What sort of beef could be used to delay a vessels departure? [B]What beefs do OSV Mariners currently have that they can’t solve by speaking with shoreside management that only a union could?[/B][/QUOTE]
Based on my personal experience of never once even contemplating the need to call the DPA at a shipping company (union and half union) over approx 15 yrs and then feeling it necessary to call (and actually doing so) the DPA for the benefit of the company’s future$ because of jackass captains at 2 consecutive oil patch companies (OSV and MODU) and given the same apathetic response of ‘what do you want me to do about it?’ coated in a heavy tone of ‘why are you even calling me?’ at both companies … I have zero faith in shoreside “mgmt” of the oil patch. Great open door policy!
I think DPA in the GOM really stands for “Designated Prick Ashore.”
[QUOTE=awulfclark;161340]I would suspect that if it ever did happen then it was decades ago. No maritime union is anywhere near powerful enough these days that they would prevent a ship sailing, especially over something like the wrong brand of peanut butter. This story smacks of urban legend, and therefore this story should not be trotted out anytime an argument is made against unions.[/QUOTE]
Well, since it was me that brought this peanut butter story up (in Scuttle Butt) maybe we can bring it to an end as well. Yes it really did happen. As I said then it was in the late 1950’s, the company was APL, the ship was in New York, the union was the SIU-Pacific District (made up of SUP, MFOW and the old Marine Cooks & Stewards) and that was a time of lots of nonsense stop work, delay the sailings, and other such actions. Times have certainly changed and this would not happen today I’m sure. Also, the subject was “unusual and strange food items” on board the ships and was not in any way an argument against unions. Just anecdotal stuff in that thread for fun.
[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;161411]Based on my personal experience of never once even contemplating the need to call the DPA at a shipping company (union and half union) over approx 15 yrs and then feeling it necessary to call (and actually doing so) the DPA for the benefit of the company’s future$ because of jackass captains at 2 consecutive oil patch companies (OSV and MODU) and given the same apathetic response of ‘what do you want me to do about it?’ coated in a heavy tone of ‘why are you even calling me?’ at both companies … I have zero faith in shoreside “mgmt” of the oil patch. Great open door policy!
I think DPA in the GOM really stands for “Designated Prick Ashore.”[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the DPA changes things much union or non-union. I know of guys with a few different union companies that have sent legitimate problems into the DPA. These guys had worked with the same companies for up to 15 years and done a good job. All of a sudden they became “trouble makers”. One of them got screwed big time by HR for no reason after he notified the DPA. The DPA wanted to know about these problems via telephone. The DPA didn’t want to get an email or letter because he would actually have to do something about it.
I suspect that with a non-union company, it would be a little easier to push the “trouble maker” out onto the street. The non-union company might even make it difficult to find a job some place else.
[QUOTE=Old Sailor;161419]Well, since it was me that brought this peanut butter story up (in Scuttle Butt) maybe we can bring it to an end as well. Yes it really did happen. As I said then it was in the late 1950’s, the company was APL, the ship was in New York, the union was the SIU-Pacific District (made up of SUP, MFOW and the old Marine Cooks & Stewards) and that was a time of lots of nonsense stop work, delay the sailings, and other such actions. Times have certainly changed and this would not happen today I’m sure. Also, the subject was “unusual and strange food items” on board the ships and was not in any way an argument against unions. Just anecdotal stuff in that thread for fun.[/QUOTE]
Old Sailor, I never looked at it in the scuttlebutt threads. I’ve been hearing about it on APL and Matson since before GCaptain was born.
Decades old or not, I figured it was true. Things have changed, for the better.
There are Union tugs working the oil and gas industry in the Gulf.
I can certainly guarantee that a union carpenter, plumber, electrician, mason or iron worker is making a fuckload more money than a non-Union one, at least in northern states. Your head would pop if you knew what some of those bozos make, even with coffee breaks ever hour. And joey-bossy still has private islands, multiple multi million dollars homes, yachts, you name it. (This is for employees, not owner-operators who “make” part of the business’s profit)
[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;161430]Old Sailor, I never looked at it in the scuttlebutt threads. I’ve been hearing about it on APL and Matson since before GCaptain was born.
Decades old or not, I figured it was true. Things have changed, for the better.[/QUOTE]
The version I heard was that it was the jam, it was not “Mary Ellens”.
[QUOTE=coldduck;161485]There are Union tugs working the oil and gas industry in the Gulf.[/QUOTE]
So, you did a multivariate statistical analysis and determined what?
Ive worked both brown and blue water. The MEBA union people I worked with were much better than the flunkeys I have here in the GOM right now. Cant do anything mechanical and have 1st licenses.
[QUOTE=Rafterman;161410]I have been on both sides of the fence as well. My practical experience says Union employees are far more productive than their non-union counterparts. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean shit. So I don’t post my personal experiences as arguments.[/QUOTE]
I’ve sailed union and non-union as well. It may be a gross generalization, but essentially non-unionization teaches you that nobody owes you a job, while unionization teaches you that you don’t owe anyone your labor. The fundamental prerequisite of the free market,(and Labor should be looked at as just another commodity of the Free market), is that both parties are always free to walk away from a negotiation at any time.
Now if there is a desire by one party to bind the other to not stopping a ship some from sailing or cargo from being worked, then they should also be willing to have themselves bound to not terminating the other party "at will"and providing…if agreed to,Skippy Peanut Butter.
That’s just an example, but the principle of compromise by both sides on a mutually agreeable…and livable…agreement is the point.
Do unions provide this? Perhaps they do, but in my experience, the people supposedly representing my interests under no circumstances were going to have to live and work under the terms that they had agreed to…that was MY role, and we had different definitions of what was “livable”.
And that’s why I walked away from Unionworld as soon as I qualified for a pension. Union representation is another one of those commodities you should be free to buy or decline.
In non-unionized employment in “at will” conditions, the compromise between the employer and the worker takes place every single day. Since I am not legally or civilly bound by some agreement that someone somewhere at sometime signed, I am perfectly free to pack up and walk down the gangway…if not having Skippy peanut butter is THAT important to me.
The thing that non-union companies have to realize is that while the workers may not be unionized, they certainly can be and ARE “organized”…its just not in the hierarchical :top-down" mirror image of the company, rather, they will organize laterally into a network. This means that there is no “top dog” and his 3 or 4 cronies that can be corrupted who will then keep the rest of the sled dogs in harness.(remember the thing about being a sled dog is that if you’re not the lead dog, the view’s pretty much the same).
To go back to the Skippy Peanut Butter issue…if it is that important to the workforce, then the workforce all walks away and down the road to the employer who will ensure that Skippy will be plentifully supplied at all times…and this will happen whether you have a union or you don’t, it just happens more quickly if you don’t have one. Have we all forgotten the stampede of a few years back over to Harvey Gulf from all the other O&G operators?
What the union WILL do for the employer is allow him to purge his HR and Benefits department(s)…all that will be provided by the Union, and the members will be the ones paying the freight for that bit of deadweight, (HR and Benefits departments do not generally produce revenue for the Bottom Line…and that makes them prime targets to be shopped out especially if their cost can be imposed on someone else).
Remember tha ta plentiful supply of quality peanut butter can be a vital ingredient to good seamanship.
[QUOTE=Bilgeman;161542]
In non-unionized employment in “at will” conditions, the compromise between the employer and the worker takes place every single day. Since I am not legally or civilly bound by some agreement that someone somewhere at sometime signed, I am perfectly free to pack up and walk down the gangway…if not having Skippy peanut butter is THAT important to me.
[/QUOTE]
Deep sea you are bound not by contract but by the articles. If you leave without a relief the Coast Guard can go after you. The union contract has nothing to do with that.
In the union contracts generally (the ones I’ve seen) crew members are free to walk off anytime as long as they have a relief. The company is not required to pay for your transportation but you certainly can get off. Best to give some notice so a relief can be arranged.
[QUOTE=Bilgeman;161542]I’ve sailed union and non-union as well. It may be a gross generalization, but essentially non-unionization teaches you that nobody owes you a job, while unionization teaches you that you don’t owe anyone your labor. The fundamental prerequisite of the free market,(and Labor should be looked at as just another commodity of the Free market), is that both parties are always free to walk away from a negotiation at any time.[/QUOTE]
How does any of that make sense? Your “don’t owe anyone your labor” theory wouldn’t get you very far on any ship, unless you intend to sail as passenger. Crew works, crew gets paid. Crew doesn’t work, crew gets fired. The only thing ships do on their own is rust, union and non-union alike.
As far as being free to work elsewhere if you don’t like the conditions of employment; if one of the conditions of employment is you join a union how does that condition make you any less free to walk away? Aren’t you every bit as free to walk if you don’ t like that requirement as with any other condition you don’t like?
I’m an outsider to this discussion, the last time I sailed being in uniform. It does seem to me that discussion about maritime unions and professional associations seems to largely revolve around collective bargaining. I think labor organizations can play an important role in maritime standards, training and education. How come we don’t hear more about that?
[QUOTE=rbc;161643]I’m an outsider to this discussion, the last time I sailed being in uniform. It does seem to me that discussion about maritime unions and professional associations seems to largely revolve around collective bargaining. I think labor organizations can play an important role in maritime standards, training and education. How come we don’t hear more about that?[/QUOTE]
Unions do play a very important role in other areas from the point of view of working mariners. Standards and training as you menitoned.
Politicians, company bean counters and regulators allike pay more attention to a phone call from someone representing a group then an individual. How many times have you read on this forum that we need to STOP VOTING FOR THOSE IDOTS in Washington because they don’t listen. They don’t listen to indivduals.
Also the union reps have established relationships with people at the company and in goverment. Just like I prefer discussing crew problems with the chief mate then with the parties involved the office drones prefer talking to someone they know and have dealt with before.
[QUOTE=Brandon75;161700]I[COLOR=#3E3E3E]As far as the cut back’s go all companies have to make tough business decisions at times. Not everyone will always agree with those decisions. Many companies are laying off and even closing up shop. I would much rather see a company trim the fat and keep all of its employees working than to see a few employees keep everything the same and many employees get laid off as a result. 401K Match, Holiday Pay, Safety Bonuses, Travel Pay these things will come back over time and are all extra things that I can do without to ensure that I stay employed. There are ups and down in every industry it is how we handle them that determines who what and where we will be in the future. [/QUOTE]
You say: “I would much rather see” - That’s precisely the point. Nobody cares what you’d rather see unless it’s in a contract.
Obviously a contract in the O&G industry should reflect the reality of the ups and downs.
[QUOTE=Bilgeman;161542]I
.The thing that non-union companies have to realize is that while the workers may not be unionized, they certainly can be and ARE “organized”…its just not in the hierarchical :top-down" mirror image of the company, rather, they will organize laterally into a network. This means that there is no “top dog” and his 3 or 4 cronies that can be corrupted who will then keep the rest of the sled dogs in harness…[/QUOTE]
The important difference between the hierarchy at the company and the one at the union is that with the company you get a pay check from them but the union staff depends upon the members for a pay check.
Why pay someone to talk to me when you can do it for free yourself? We can work everything out together and everybody wins.
[QUOTE=Jeaux Bawss;161798]Why pay someone to talk to me when you can do it for free yourself? We can work everything out together and everybody wins.[/QUOTE]
Because of the imbalance of power between employer and employee. The employer can simply say if you don’t like the conditions of employment you are free to leave. It’s not going to hurt the employer one bit if one of his 1000 employees leaves.
The individual employee on the other hand faces a much different situation. He faces loss of up to 100% of his income. Switching jobs could be very costly. In order to switch jobs he must go on a job hunt, possible move his kids to another school, wife quits job, sells house, loses seniority etc, etc.
However if one employee is speaking for all 1000 employees the playing field is more level.
Is this supposed to be joke?