Union Questions

[glossyp]

I was talking to our neighbor this morning as he washed his car and asked him if he had the day off. He said he did and added that he had to go by his union office. I've never lived anywhere that had as many union members as Hawaii (evidently we have the third highest percentage of union workers in the nation) so I took the opportunity to ask him some questions. He is a young guy and just starting out in construction. He said $132 from his weekly paycheck goes to the union as well as $15 per month for something else union related. He really didn't know too much about it so I thought I'd ask here as I would imagine that there are current or past union members who are regulars on HT.

Since I've been here I've seen several unions go on strike and the potential strike by the Honolulu Advertiser folks got me to thinking. My questions are general, but what is a typical percentage of salary paid to the union? Where does the money go? Is there a pension fund for example? What does the union do beyond negotiating contracts? If you go out on strike, does the union cover any living expenses?

I'm not trying to start a pro-union/anti-union debate, I'm just curious.

[Glen Miyashiro]

It varies from union to union. Your construction friend pays a lot more in union dues than the state government workers that I know - but then again, I bet the ILWU looks out for their people a lot more than the HGEA does. :rolleyes:

[craigwatanabe]

$132 per week? That's a bit much unless he makes a crapload of money.

When I was unionized (Teamsters) typically it was one hour's worth of wages per pay period. As costs went up union dues were a bit higher than hourly wages but not too much. At $132 per week that person must have been raking in some decent money to not gripe about.

[glossyp]

$132 per week? That's a bit much unless he makes a crapload of money.

When I was unionized (Teamsters) typically it was one hour's worth of wages per pay period. As costs went up union dues were a bit higher than hourly wages but not too much. At $132 per week that person must have been raking in some decent money to not gripe about.
He wasn't really clear on whether it was deducted each pay period at first, but thought about and said that he was pretty sure that was what it was weekly. He is still at apprentice level for his speciality though he did say he expected to make $45/hr when he reached whatever the top level is, so he may be making half that or more.

[helen]

The thing you have to keep in mind that there is no one union that covers all the workers. It varies. Even within the same place of employment you might have different unions representing different types of workers.

For example the University of Hawaii has at least 3 different unions to contend with. One union is the UHPA which covers the faculty, UPW covers the groundkeepers and janitors and the HGEA covers the rest of the full time staff. Even with in the HGEA there are seperate labor units which have different contracts.

I don't remember the percentage that the University takes out of my paycheck to pay the dues for the union to represent me at the contract talks but it's taken out for all employees be it they are in the union or not (for the positions covered by the union).

[kool_kat]

I work for the federal govenment - specifically the Department of Treasury. Our union dues are less than $20 a pay period (every two weeks). The Union has been responsible for getting us alternative work schedules (working 4 10 hour days or 9 hour days with one day off every other week), getting us Flexi-place privleges (working from home), fighting to make our cost of living raise match military raises, and many other benefits.

They will also represent us in grievances with management and fight when problems arise with management on a personal level. They offer other benefits such as professional inusrance (in case we are sued) and dental benefits.

As federal employees, we cannot strike, so that is not an issue with our union. However, overall it is very powerful.

I have worked with some contracting companies that subcontract to Union employees. People pay high union fees, but get outrageous pay and benefits for jobs that are negotiated with the employer / contractor.

[craigwatanabe]

Well that outrageous pay is a benefit from outrageous union dues I guess.

Anyway Glossyp, your friend may also be paying union fees associated with any new hires so he may not be seeing that amount after a period of time.

[Frankie's Market]

I don't remember the percentage that the University takes out of my paycheck to pay the dues for the union to represent me at the contract talks but it's taken out for all employees be it they are in the union or not (for the positions covered by the union).

Yep, that is also true for anyone working for the state. Even if you are not a member of the union (be it HGEA, UPW, HSTA, etc.), money is taken out of your paycheck. You had no choice. When I was was a DOE teacher, I think the money was listed under "statutory dues" or something like that. I don't exactly remember. But if you joined the union, they would just take out a couple dollars more and you would be able to receive additional HSTA benefits.

Since the statutory dues had to be paid, whether you joined the union or not, the decision to join the union was a no-brainer for almost everybody.

[D'Alani]

As a former Teamster I can only speak of what I experienced with my local because we all have separate contracts. Our union dues was three times your hourly pay per month and that was used mostly for the union officers salary, office supplies, etc. We had an exceptionally good contract, to me, where the company paid for our medical, which included drug and vision, dental, pension, and life insurance. Today the employees pay 30% of the cost of the medical premium. Nothing was taken out of our wages except taxes and whatever deductions you had such as credit union or maybe AUW. Besides negotiating your contract the union ensured fair hiring, promotions, and other work related issues. The Teamsters have a strike fund that is provided by the International for any authorized atrike and also whatever your local might provide. I believe right now the strike fund from the International is $200.00 per week. As for the pensions it is not all the same because each company negotiates individually.

[escondido100]

hawaii just recieved an F rating in its union work environment.... the full story can be read at Hawaii Reporter...how com this doesnt surprise me... things like the mandatory dues whether you join the union or not is an example of the one of the conditions that give us this rating...

[Glen Miyashiro]

hawaii just recieved an F rating in its union work environment.... the full story can be read at Hawaii Reporter...how com this doesnt surprise me... things like the mandatory dues whether you join the union or not is an example of the one of the conditions that give us this rating...Consider the source. The Hawaii Reporter article (http://hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e89a1706-44c3-46da-91db-21336539a9df) you mention got its information from a survey released by the Alliance for Worker Freedom (http://www.workerfreedom.org/).

The fine print at the bottom of the Alliance for Worker Freedom's web page says that it is "a Special Project of Americans for Tax Reform (http://www.atr.org/)".

The head of Americans for Tax Reform is Grover Norquist (http://www.atr.org/home/about/ggnbio.html), archconservative and sworn enemy of all government taxes anywhere. As an example of his views, Norquist was famously quoted as saying, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

:rolleyes:

[lavagal]

Funny how Hawaii Reporter is the epitome of free expression. Malia is one of my heroes. We're polar opposites when it comes to politics, but see eye to eye when it comes to everyone's right to be heard.

[Pretender]

Yep, that is also true for anyone working for the state. Even if you are not a member of the union (be it HGEA, UPW, HSTA, etc.), money is taken out of your paycheck. You had no choice. When I was was a DOE teacher, I think the money was listed under "statutory dues" or something like that. I don't exactly remember. But if you joined the union, they would just take out a couple dollars more and you would be able to receive additional HSTA benefits.

Since the statutory dues had to be paid, whether you joined the union or not, the decision to join the union was a no-brainer for almost everybody.

Not entirely true. There are classes of civil servants, specifically excluded employees, that do not pay dues and are not a part of the union. An example of a group of employees normally excluded from union membership would be Human Resource (HR) staff. These employees normally represent management in an employee grievance and provide data/feedback to management negotiators during contract talks. The conflict is clear, and that is why they are excluded.

[pzarquon]

This has been an educational thread for me. Thanks, glossyp, for asking the question. I hope it doesn't devolve into a political debate over the value of or problems with unions. I'm just interested in how it all works.

[Frankie's Market]

Not entirely true. There are classes of civil servants, specifically excluded employees, that do not pay dues and are not a part of the union. An example of a group of employees normally excluded from union membership would be Human Resource (HR) staff.

True, although I thought I made myself clear that I was talking about all state employees who were eligible for union membership rather than those who are not. Note that I did specifically talk about employees who could make the decision to join (or not join) unions like HGEA, UPW, and so forth. The folks you are talking about have no such choice.

Those state employees who conduct labor negotiations on behalf of the state obviously wouldn't be eligible to join those unions. For that matter, neither do directors and deputy directors of the various departments. Naturally, those state employees are not subject to mandatory union dues, since they have no union to join.

[glossyp]

Thanks for all of the information shared thus far. Like pz, I've already learned a great deal. Prompted by some of the points made in the thread, I asked the neighbor a couple of more questions.

It appears that the high rate of his current union dues is because of the educational requirements he needs to meet to stay in/get promoted. He is attending a four-hour class once a week after work (this is after getting up and being on the job site by 5am which means he is out the door at 4:30am) and he must pass rather rigorous testing at each step. This will continue for the next 18 months. Once he finishes school, the dues will drop some though he is not sure how much.

[Ms_Aloha_Nui]

This is an interesting topic.....I was married to a union journeyman carpenter who was a union journeyman laborer prior to getting into the Carpernter's Union - Local 745....I think..this was a few years ago when Walter Kupau was still the treasurer.
When my former husband joined the union there was a one-time initiation fee (although I don't remember what the amount was as it was back in 1989). I do know that he had to pay it up front before they would even put him on the 'Job Call' list. In addition to that fee, there was a monthly fee (aka Membership Dues) of $25 and then 'working dues' were taken out of his paycheck weekly. The last I knew the working dues percentage was 3% of the his gross pay so it fluctuated whenever his hours fluctuated. I too thought that this was a bit much but we had medical (dental, drug, vision, and chiropractic) coverage for the entire family that we did not pay a penny for. Our co-pays were not much and we had great prescription coverage as well.
There was also a pension plan that was totally employer funded and a 'vacation fund' that was totally employer funded. The last I knew the vacation fund was paying $5 an hour (this money was deposited with a Trust Fund and the members were paid distributions on December 1 of each year.

There were a variety of other benefits such as life insurance that we did not pay for but I don't seem to recall them.

So yes, maybe this guy is paying 'x' amount of in dues and the like but the return on that investment is better than what the banks are paying right now.

Nuff sed!

[Pretender]

True, although I thought I made myself clear that I was talking about all state employees who were eligible for union membership rather than those who are not. Note that I did specifically talk about employees who could make the decision to join (or not join) unions like HGEA, UPW, and so forth. The folks you are talking about have no such choice.

Those state employees who conduct labor negotiations on behalf of the state obviously wouldn't be eligible to join those unions. For that matter, neither do directors and deputy directors of the various departments. Naturally, those state employees are not subject to mandatory union dues, since they have no union to join.

Sorry Frankie, I can see your point. Was a little thrown off by your comment differentiating UH and state employees and your comment that it costs little more to be a union member. At least for HGEA units 3, 4 & 13 and UPW unit 1, you do not have to pay anything more to join the union.

[mapen]

I used to work for one of the local airlines (I won't say which :) and the 3 hours pay per month rule is how much dues I was paying.

As far as answering the question about what the union did in the workplace, it created a system where all work related scheduling, duties, perks, or security were extended to the most senior workers first. The most senior workers had first crack at their choice of holidays, schedules, parking spaces, breaks, and, as I found out, would be the last to get layed off since the union made sure the newly hired was the first to get fired.

The union created a workplace environment where workers with the most seniority held sway in absolutely *all* matters without regard to the employee's merit, skill, reliability, productivity, or ability to perform the job.

[D'Alani]

The union created a workplace environment where workers with the most seniority held sway in absolutely *all* matters without regard to the employee's merit, skill, reliability, productivity, or ability to perform the job.

In our bargaining agreement there was this one sentence that stated "everything being equal, seniority will prevail" so if you had more skills, or even a better attendance record you could possibly get the job instead of the person with more seniority. So that brought on a few grievances but the language of the agreement always prevailed.

[Frankie's Market]

As far as answering the question about what the union did in the workplace, it created a system where all work related scheduling, duties, perks, or security were extended to the most senior workers first. The most senior workers had first crack at their choice of holidays, schedules, parking spaces, breaks, and, as I found out, would be the last to get layed off since the union made sure the newly hired was the first to get fired.

That certainly is one negative that is common with union shops. It is the same old bellyaching heard by folks on the low end of the seniority totem pole.

But what is the alternative? I can answer that for you.

In non-union shops, I've often seen management play favorites when it comes to things like scheduling, vacations, and perks. Or sometimes, it's the opposite. They punish you with undesireable work shifts or duties because you do things they don't like. (For instance, refusing to perform unethical or maybe even illegal things on the job. Or even speaking out against things you don't agree with.)

Now, before you say that the management you work under are the most fair and impartial people in the world, let me warn you. You'd be surprised at how people can change when they are no longer bound by rules and regulations. Power can and does corrupt. In some hotels, the managers that everybody thought were fair when Local 5 was around suddenly had their own clique of favorites when the place became non-union. In that kind of situation, instead of complaining about incompetent seniors getting first crack at scheduling and vacation times, you could be complaining about the brown-nosers and those on the "inside" with management getting favorable treatment.

Alas, labor unions have their pros and cons. But the same would also be true if you didn't have a union at your workplace. No system is perfect.

[Nords]

That certainly is one negative that is common with union shops. It is the same old bellyaching heard by folks on the low end of the seniority totem pole.
But what is the alternative? I can answer that for you.
If it wasn't for management, there'd be no need for unions...