The truth = union workers make much more then non union workers

[mdmc]

My (non union) employer likes to describe our agency as "the employer of choice" in our field. In other words, compared to the other agencies that do the same work as we do, we have the best atmosphere to work in. And this is true.

Except for service providers that work for the state or county governments. Most, if not all employees that leave our agency do so for a position at the county or state. Workers receive about 40% more pay when they work for the county or state.

Worse, my agency is paid by government contracts. These contracts must pay the salary of our senior leaders and executives, as well as direct care workers and the support of our clients.

So we get to do the same work as the government workers, but we have to split our funding with all sorts of upper management types (CEO, COO, Director of Public Relations).

And somehow it is more economic to provide service in this way (contracts to non-union workers) then it is to do the work through the state. How is this? And lastly, will the American worker ever get a break? Do you ever see a time when unions will once again build an American middle class for workers? Do you ever see a time when America will have a strong middle class?

[Turbineguy]

1. It's more economic

because the CEO, COO and Director of Public Relations tell those that decide these things so.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. The Gospel tells us..

....that everything private is better than anything public, and that so long as one of us, somewhere, is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, none of us can be considered truly free.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Orrex]

4. Testify, brother!

[City of Mills]

3. In my case, it's much less.

Based on where I live, comparable benefits, years in my profession -



I'm at less than median. Your mileage may vary.

[JVS]

5. Your agency is the parasite of choice. You earn a lot less to support those upper management types.

It's the same reason why America can't afford health care. Too many guys in suits at the insurance companies.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Sucking the Life's Blood out of the Middle Class

[Hannah Bell]

14. exactly. the city formerly paid maintenance workers directly, then it outsources

to a private company which immediately reduces pay & benefits & transfers the "savings" to management & stockholders.

i've never seen anything indicating any remarkable savings are achieved. it's just a transfer of public money out of the hands of workers & into the hands of capitalists. that's why they're doing it, contrary to the bullshit about cost savings.

the "savings" = poorer conditions for workers & worse service.

[aquart]

6. Right now, we compete with all those stable cheap labor nations.

But cheap labor IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUY FOOD AFTER WORKING ALL DAY. So those venues are about to de-stabilize.

Also, the rising price of oil will make imported goods really pricey instead of cheap.

Corporate manufacturers are going to be having some very interesting come-to-Jesus moments. They're going to want to come back but they are going to pretend they are doing us a favor so we have to work extra cheap because they're so good to us. Bull cookies.

Gonna be a lotta hysterical screeching CEOs in the next 5-10 years.

[Iris]

7. In my state, the opposite.

Big money goes out to contractors. In some cases, they do the work badly, and there's a corral of poorly paid state workers who follow to clean up the mess. If those workers want to make more money, they go to the private companies.

[GoCubsGo]

8. Mine, too.

I live near a federal installation, and the contractors who run it make way more than any of the state and federal employees who work there. And, a large chunk of those contractors are the most lazy, incompetent people I have ever met.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. My hourly rate quadrupled when I left state employment.

[vi5]

9. To your last question.....no.

The days of a strong middle class are long gone. There will be people that come and go from "middle class" but it will not be an ongoing, generational class in this country.

[alc]

12. short-term vs. long-term outlook

And somehow it is more economic to provide service in this way

I've seen it in businesses for over 20 years and it does make sense to hire agencies/contractors in many cases. When medium and large businesses hire, they expect that person to be an employee for many years (at least 3,5,7 depending on the company/job). If business changes, it's hard to get rid of employees - I know it happens all the time, but it's difficult for management, hurts the moral of those who are left, can cause confusion with suppliers and customers and is something companies really don't want to do, and gets bad press. It's pretty easy to get rid of contractors or agencies. So, unless you are REALLY confident in your staffing needs to the next 3-5 years, you are better off growing with a few additional employees and many additional contractors.

They put in extra cost for training the first year and it takes time to get up to speed. Plus there is a fairly large overhead in addition to salary for the entire time the employee is there (HR, cubicle, phone, computer, insurance, taxes, benefits, etc). My current company expects new hires to be around at least 5 years, so the uncertainty of the health reform is a huge incentive to go with agencies. We have no idea what will happen to benefit costs over the next few years. States and cities are going through the same decisions since benefit costs affect them also. I wouldn't be surprised if they also decide to use more agencies until things settle down - a larger cost this year but potentially HUGE savings in a few years by not having employees. "Worst case scenario" is much more important than "best case" in future budgeting so it's not as important that reform may be really good, only that it could be really bad.

[mdmc]

13. thanks for the reply

peace and low stress..

[quaker bill]

15. With rare exception,

outourcing is always more expensive. Paying for corporate management, profits, dividends to stockholders, and general business overhead, tends to make the private sector somewhere between 1.5 and 3 times as expensive as hiring staff, with a better salary and full gov't benefits.

This is something I have done both ways, for the exact same task. Outsourcing is vastly more expensive, but when republicans are managing, outsourcing is the only option made available.