Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobrabill
Originally Posted by terry251
Any bets on how many of those "union members" belong because membership is mandatory?Terry
Terry-all of us.
|
Bill,
Are you a UTU union dues objector? The reason I ask is that I think we had a couple in our local when I was still UTU. I'm thinking they did not have to pay any local dues unless they chose local representation at Formal Investigation.
Our treasurer referred to dues objector's as "conscientious objector's", but I don't think that is the official term. The reason I finally went BLE (BLET - Brotherhood of Engineers and Trainmen) was so I could vote on local, company approved, engineer assigned days off. We were up to a normal 108 hours a week and the company had fixed it so we couldn't get time off unless it was a documentable emergency (or we got limited "special" local officer sponsorship
). We have some good local officers, drawn from the ranks, but they were were under a lot of pressure to answer higher up.
We voted, got the days off, good to skip one trip, now I only have to make a couple of 36 hour trips a week. We aren't required to take the days off, if we want the big bucks, unless we take an unauthorized sick day etc. For those unfamiliar, RR's are 24/7, structured similar to military, and require official leave for any time off, other than 8 hours FRA rest.
I think we'd be lost without a union while railroading.
I suppose the same for postal workers. I imagine they would be paid the same as newspaper delivery boys if not for their union. I guess all of us reading this would be paid thusly, no middleclass. Kind of like the
Henry's Turkey Ranch. Excerpt:
The Des Moines Register reported Wednesday that in one instance, a worker's pay came out to about 44 cents an hour. 
I only hired out in 1990 (old guy then) and was told the story of somewhere in the '80's when the RR contract ran out. The government (PEB) mandated workers return to work and the company absolutely required workers to work for minimum wage, since they had no contract that clearly stated otherwise. I don't know if I believe this, as I'm not sure how this temporary wage snafu could have occurred regarding the Railway Labor Act. Refusing service on our road, even during vacation, precisely when contacted, is grounds for immediate dismissal,
if they can find you. (you can't run ...but you can hide
).
Nowadays the company strategy normally extensively stretches out the wage negotiations as the workers continue to work for years under previous, hopefully cheaper, agreements.
The new Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. I predict I'll be forced to work more again.
Wes
...
Threaded Mode
