Union vs. Non-Union (Towboat jobs thread from Maritime Employment Forum)

Professional Mariner Forum
101

I don’t see the point in spending time trying to compare non-union to union benefits. Just use google. The fact the unions raise wages etc is not in dispute - for example here The effect of Unions on Employee Benefits

Same goes for union workers and productivity - just google terms like “union workers productivity” and the like… Union workers are generally more productive, more experienced, better trained and better compensated then non-union. This shouldn’t even be in dispute.

It’s easy to use anecdotes and say things like I was on a union tug and it sank at the dock while the crew argued about who’s job it was to shut the sea valve but that doesn’t fly far if you do you own research.

K.C.

I should add that this is not a slam on non-union mariners, I’ve sailed non-union and some of mariners I sailed with were top notch - others of course, not so much.

102

If you’re looking for the argument against unions, and there is a lot of disagreement, but here it is::

Because by joining together with similar sellers into a group, the demand curve facing the group is steeper than the demand curve facing the individual, since members of the group no longer compete against each other for buyers. So there is an even bigger difference between the downward-sloping trade-off facing the group of sellers and the horizontal trade-off facing us all.

This is from Tyler Cowen here

Me? I figure I’ll look out for myself and I’ll let the “downward-sloping trade off” look out for itself.

K.C.

103

No, the fact that Unions raise wages etc is not in dispute, how much difference there is between the two has been in dispute.

Those differences, particularly when discussing our industry, and our particular unions, is important. 333 and SIU for example are completely different in their operation, conduct, and benefits. As such, to use your generalized Union statements and links is completely useless.

So “Union” employees are more likely to be covered under an employer health plan? I’ve been covered for the last 7 years as a non-union employee. Who the hell am I supposed to compare to? “Union” employees are more likely to participate in an employer sponsored retirement plan (from your link). Well, let’s see here. Union employees don’t have to do anything and the employer is going to contribute to their 401k. Good for them. I have to contribute something in order to receive any benefit. You mean considering my future and my retirement, taking responsibility for such myself is a bad thing? Hell, if more people paid attention to that type of thing maybe we wouldn’t have 70 year olds working at WalMart!

Furthermore, if the Union participation in an Employer sponsored retirement plan, which in this case the Employer contributes to regardless of what the employee contributes, is only 18.8 percentage points higher than non-union companies, HOT DAMN! That’s 81.2% participation from the non-union employees which I’m sure is a phenomenal rate when compared with other industries.

At least compare apples to apples, which is what we are trying to do but seems to be the source of your annoyance.

Same goes for union workers and productivity - just google terms like “union workers productivity” and the like… Union workers are generally more productive, more experienced, better trained and better compensated then non-union. This shouldn’t even be in dispute.

I did, I stopped looking when the top three results were from the Huffington Post. Now there’s an unbiased news source! Should I be surprised if I reverse the search terms and the top three results are from Fox News? I think not…

It’s easy to use anecdotes and say things like I was on a union tug and it sank at the dock while the crew argued about who’s job it was to shut the sea valve but that doesn’t fly far if you do you own research.

If it’s so easy, and I’m so jaded, why haven’t I done this? bell47 is the only one that eluded to this type of thing based on personal experience. Are you suggesting that he’s a liar? I went so far as to state that I have never experienced such a thing anywhere in New York Harbor.

If I’m not mistaken, that’s on page 1 or 2 of this thread with 100 plus posts. Sure, lot’s of people using anecdotes in this one.

I should add that this is not a slam on non-union mariners, I’ve sailed non-union and some of mariners I sailed with were top notch - others of course, not so much.

Of course it is, the only difficulty here is admitting it.

104

Actually, I’m looking for both, whichever one, I don’t care. I’m trying to be objective. If you’re pro-union, state your arguments for a union and against non-union. If you’re anti-union state your reasons against a union and in support of non-union.

This is from Tyler Cowen here

Me? I figure I’ll look out for myself and I’ll let the “downward-sloping trade off” look out for itself.

While I assume you are being facetious, I am unclear. Since you brought up the economics of the matter, I’ll play. The tone of your post is that of a Marxist (socialism, proletariat) but close with a Keynsian, capitalist, self enrichment stance. Which one is it? Or do you change them to suit your need?

105

One of the very important benefits to belonging to a union,is the unified voice they bring to Congress to forcefully lobby against the repeal of the Jones Act,which is the one law preventing our jobs going to foreign flag vessels. If that law is repealed,there wouldn’t even be this debate.

106

I think every tug outfit union or non lobbies in someway against repealing the jones act.

107

[QUOTE=Cal;48342]No, the fact that Unions raise wages etc is not in dispute, how much difference there is between the two has been in dispute.

Union employees don’t have to do anything and the employer is going to contribute to their 401k. Good for them. I have to contribute something in order to receive any benefit. You mean considering my future and my retirement, taking responsibility for such myself is a bad thing? Hell, if more people paid attention to that type of thing maybe we wouldn’t have 70 year olds working at WalMart!

The greatest falsehood I hear nowadays concerning pensions is “union employees don’t have to contribute anything”. This is patent bullshit. When the two parties [the union and the company] sit down to negotiate they discuss wages and benefits. At the end of the day the company owner may say I’ve got a dollar to give you but insurance is going up so that eats up 50 cents.With the other 50 cents we have left I can give you 25 cents now and 25 cents towards your pension fund or I can give the entire 50 cents as a raise. The employee representative chooses the 25 cent pension contribution and the 25 cent raise cause he knows at least the 25 cent pension will be there when his mariner retires.
Everyone decides they agree shake hands, sign the contract and go back to work.
To say that the union guy contributed nothing is showing a lack of knowledge of employment contracts, he opted during contract negotiations to defer this portion of his pay towards the pension and the company agreed. CEO’s won’t even think of beginning work without a contract and they negotiate multi-billion dollar golden parachutes for themselves so why can’t those of us who made the CEO’s company a success negotiate for ourselves also?

108

[QUOTE=tengineer;48358]The greatest falsehood I hear nowadays concerning pensions is “union employees don’t have to contribute anything”. This is patent bullshit. [/QUOTE]

Mea culpa. I see your point. To the best of my knowledge, getting a little old here, I don’t believe I have ever had a written employment contract. I think the closest thing I have ever had was with the Army and that was more of an indentured servitude contract. :slight_smile: Am I ingnorant when it comes to employment contracts? Absolutely.

109

[QUOTE=cappy208;48271]

And the most amazing thing was the treatment of the crews by idiotic, lunatic, unprofessional captains almost entirely STOPPED!

Once the Union had an arbitration ‘say’ in disputes, all of a sudden we heard for the first time (for example)

‘Hey Cap, the next time someone leaves this boat, it will be YOU. 9 deckhands in 4 hitches is too many.’

All of a sudden the ‘stupid’ was eliminated and most (but unfortunately not all) Captains got a little more professional [/QUOTE]

I think this hit closely how the general atmosphere is different when your working with a union contract.

Imagine if a billionaire (named say,Bill) purchased a yacht, hired a captain and a chief and then watched over their shoulders while the captain and chief hired the rest of the crew. - What would it be like to work on that boat, especially if the owner was around? It would always be about the owner Bill and what he wanted and who he liked.

Now image if billionaire Bill signed a contract with a private crewing agency. It would be a subtle change but the focus would change from what does Bill want to what does the capt and chief want and more generally what is a seaman like way to do things.

This is what I see, we once had a internal ISM audit and the company man was asking an oiler about company policy when the auditor started to wonder if the oiler even knew the name of the company (he didn’t). The auditor asked the oiler “who do you work for?” The oiler told him he worked for the chief. (Duh!)

110

So if you owned the boat you would rather not pick your crew and just let somebody else hire them for you? I think I would like to know who’s gets hired.

111

[QUOTE=rshrew;48368]So if you owned the boat you would rather not pick your crew and just let somebody else hire them for you? I think I would like to know who’s gets hired.[/QUOTE]

The company does select (not pick) the Capt, Chief, C/M 1 A/E but in accordance with a contract.

But yes, If I was the owner of a yacht I would definitely like to pick the entire crew myself, but sadly I am a merchant mariner and not a billionaire. As a mariner I like the buffer between me and the owner.

K.C.

On second thought if I wanted a well run yacht I think I would prefer to go to an agency of some kind - the first thing that pops into mind with this sort of thing is a fantasy of some kind. But that actually makes the point I think.

-My second second thought is if you wanted to build a house would you hire a couple carpenters,a plumber, an electrician or would you do what almost everyone does and hire a contractor and let him pick his subs?

112

Truth to that.

113

Union shop or not? I don’t have to worry about that.

Out of the blue an old ‘deckineer’ called me today. He was employed for over 25 years by a guy I used to work for. Last Wednesday was his last day. He was told: “Due to the economy he was not needed” and was let go. Today he heard the owners son and one of the son’s friends were hired to replace him. Guess a Union isn’t really needed there either! But hey, To each his own. I wonder what his wife and teenage daughter think about this?

Sometimes the first hired, last fired phrase is folowed. But I seem to see it regularly abused at non Union jobs. Once again nepotism and favoritism shows up, with NO recourse. It’s hard enough to find a job now days, never mind having to worry about the ‘good old boy network.’

Cal: You’re right. It is NOT just about money. It’s knowing the office will do what is ‘right,’ not show favoritism, and treat employees fairly. I have seen unfair treatment, and been part of the hidden wage, lack of benefits to know what is right and wrong. I opt for what is right. Not just right for me, but what is right for others I choose to be around. In my case it is Union brothers.

114

[QUOTE=cappy208;48372]Cal: You’re right. It is NOT just about money. It’s knowing the office will do what is ‘right,’ not show favoritism, and treat employees fairly. I have seen unfair treatment, and been part of the hidden wage, lack of benefits to know what is right and wrong. I opt for what is right. Not just right for me, but what is right for others I choose to be around. In my case it is Union brothers.[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen abuses on both sides of the arguement but it’s been my experience is that union jobs have a tighter leash on nepotism, which island your from, what school you went to or if your name ends with “eaux”.

On the “deadwood” issue, the mates and AB/tankermen I sailed with for the last few years were “self-pruning”. These guys were some of the best and highly motivated I’ve seen. With the work load divided between short crews, they had no qualms about calling out anyone not pulling their weight.

115

[QUOTE=injunear;48373]I’ve seen abuses on both sides of the arguement but it’s been my experience is that union jobs have a tighter leash on nepotism, which island your from, what school you went to or if your name ends with “eaux”.

On the “deadwood” issue, the mates and AB/tankermen I sailed with for the last few years were “self-pruning”. These guys were some of the best and highly motivated I’ve seen. With the work load divided between short crews, they had no qualms about calling out anyone not pulling their weight.[/QUOTE]

This has been my experience as well. One thing worse then going to sea with a union crew is going to sea for a non-union outfit. On a boat the weather , the quality of the food or a couple of tanks with bad fuel have far more weight on how the trip goes then if the crew is union or not, assuming the same skill level and experience. Everyone has to pull their weight or be gone like injunear says.

tengineer make a good point as well. Without contracts our economy could not operate. It is a key concept that lays at the the heart of the system. CEOs get contracts, baseball players and so forth all have contracts but oddly if you advocate contracts between towing outfits and mariners the retort is that your trying to tear down the system. Doesn’t make sense.

116

Shhh, you are forbidden to discuss wages with others. Shhh, you cannot discuss your benefits package. Then everyone goes around in a stupor, keeping secrets, and assuming they are well paid, and being taken care of.

Cappy
I would expect this type of treatment in the service industry- but you guys are in a trade- companies should never do that to blue collar workers. One of the things I wonder about it if I go union, will I have problems getting out later? Will they mess with owed compensation later?

As to that comment about ‘Kirby and untrained underpaid employees’ …hard for me to believe that ANY company in a trade would take ppl off the street- its a hazard, isnt it?

117

I must have missed. What part of the industry are you contemplating entering?

The deep sea unions SIU, NMU, MEBA, AMO all have a 'defined ’ pension and medical plan. BUT you have to have at least 10 years to be vested to be able to ‘take’ it with you.

I am surprised that you don’t think, aren’t aware that the office will attempt to save a buck at your expense NO matter what industry you are in!?

My reason for favoring a Union contracted company is, nepotism and favoritism is greatly lessened versus at a non union co. And pay is a known quantity.

118

I’ve worked both and I agree with cappy, the known quantities make a big difference. Everyone I equal and it cuts down on some of the on board drama. I was always treated fine when I was non-union but some of my shipmates were really getting screwed.

I’m not a big union guy, I would probably never vote one in, but it is comforting having a set of rules that works both ways.

119

cappy

not sure yet- am on the list to start the UA program at PP. As for the ‘known quantity’ that, and the ‘defined’ plan are the most appealing features(also the training)

120

I was working for Turecamo when the 1988 strike came along. I lost many friends due the their decision to cross the picket line and work as a scab. I was the first Union Man put back to work under the Injunction. It was just me as Chief and a Deckhand, some boats had a double crew, union and scab. The Deckhand quit the first day. I worked that way for quite a while. While living with these scabs, I learn quite a lot. I remember when the company decided to end the double crews, they gave the scabs a choice between having their travel paid or a $10 or 20 pay raise. No surprise when the all choice the money. Next they where told that they where now working 28 on 14 off instead of saying as long as they wanted. Talk about a bunch of pissed off people! Next came a scab that was let go and a union man put in his place. This guy had the balls to say that he could not believe that they fired him as he had worked there for almost nine months straight.

I decided that I could not deal with the B.S. with Turcamo anymore and took a job with Maritrans. Fast forward to about six years ago and they decided to start paying travel. If you drove to the company parking lot they would give you $50.00 a tour plus if you had to take a cab to the vessel it was on you. If youflew from where ever they would pay your flight plus any cab fare that was needed. Needless to say this caused a lot of crap.

As for working Union or Not, I have been a Union Man my whole life but I do understand that if you work for a “SMALL” Company that takes care of their employees then a Union is not needed. Good luck finding a company now a days but if you do good for you.

With all of the classes and other B.S. that is now required it is much easier to be a member in a Union that has a school to provide this training.

I am a member of a dieing breed. I am did not go to am academy . L learned from working with men that had been doing it for years. I have seen people get hired as mates that I was afraid to sail with. OSG has men sailing as Captains that have little to no experience in getting out of the notch and towing.

As much as I hate to say this sometimes I am glad that I got hurt and am now retired, back surgery and now walk with a cane.

Sorry if this got off topic, but I would always choose Union over Non-Union.