A Company has a right to hire techs from a union or non union company to staff a outage or a DOE job etc.. If a company is all union and one is not what prevents a contract to go to the non union techs that work for a non union company? Why would a company hire a union company of temporary workers when they can get non union? Some states are a right to work states and you do not have to join a union to work. What would prevent a company to setup a sattelite main office in a right to work state. Then if they have to hire you as a union or someone else as non union who do you think they are going to hire.
By the way I base my opinion based on the fact I worked with Union workers not movies. As I said before there are some good union workers and I got a DOE national award with them. However the institutionalization of the majority of these workers, laziness, me first attitude, I only do what I want in my humble opinion brings the good ones down and I personally seen it and it made me sick of it, also the good workers who generally had less time in than the seasoned workers. The good workers were in a hopeless situation that lent it self to the good ones getting laid off. I think that union lend themselves to this communistic way and there is no way around it. My Opinion, anyone who is promoting union is looking through rose colored glasses and does not take human nature in account. Communism is the best system if humans were perfect, unfortunately they are not. Unions may be perfect but as we know people are not. Some dues also go to those best to promote a certain agenda. Funny how most of my good workers were in conflict with that agenda and the scum were not.
I'm going to repeat myself, in the vain hope that yo might listen this time. Read the labor laws. Do a little research.
Utilities do not base the award of contracts on whether the bidders are union shops or not - unless they have an agreement with their own union to use union contractors. Those clauses do exist. So, even in a RTW state, they may have no choice but to give the work to union outfits.
They don't even have to give the work to the lowest bidder. Especially since the deregulation of the industry, plants have the freedom to choose contractors based on who does the work better, faster, safer, cheaper, who is available, who has experience in the same type of work, ...etc. Look around and you are not going to see a lot of contracts going to non-union companies if they can't deliver just because they are non-union.
This is my point. If a non-union HP company can't staff an outage with qualified techs, they are simply not going to get much work. If a large number (not even near a majority) of the qualified techs go union, the non-union companies will get wise and start signing with the union so they can keep their contracts. While you are convinced that these companies have the choice - and therefore the upper hand - I have to remind you that they only have the choice that you give them. If the non-union HP tech didn't exist, or there were too few of them to staff the outages, then the companies wouldn't have a choice.
If this is done right - and there is no reason that it can't be - unionization can be beneficial to ALL parties concerned. What you have now is absolutely not.
JJordan has it right. If management is doing its job, there isn't going to be any foot-dragging or hiding out. The bosses where I work will "hit you in the ass with a check" if you don't produce.
If you do work around union members, (You don't actually work "with" them as you say.) go ask them what the phrase, "get you your money" means.
Poll
