The structure of bargaining is important because it plays a pivotal role in determining the relative bargaining power of the employer against the union in the negotiation process.
There are two dimensions of bargaining structure, the first dimension is the MTA as the employer unit is defined as the plant, firm, or group of firms covered by a specific collective bargaining contract. The smallest or most decentralized form of the employer unit is a single plant/single employer bargaining. The chemical and petroleum industries typify this form of bargaining structure. DuPont, for example has several dozen branch plants throughout the country, only a minority of which are unionized. In this situation the management of each unionized plant bargains separately with its union and signs a separate collective bargaining agreement that applies only to that plant.
The second type of employer unit is multi plant, single employer bargaining. The automobile industry is the classic illustration of this form of bargaining structure. General Motors Corporation, for example has over 120 separate plants or facilities nearly all of which have been organized by the United Automobile Workers. Rather than bargain on a plant by plant basis, the union and the company have centralized the bargaining at higher levels of authority in the union and the company. With this form of bargaining one master agreement is negotiated that covers all the organized plants of the company.
The third type of bargaining structure on the employer side is multi employer bargaining. Classic examples are the coal and construction industries. Multi employer bargaining usually occurs in industries where numerous small firms have been organized by one or more unions. To increase their bargaining power and prevent the union from playing one employer against another, these firms form employer associations such as Bituminous Coal Operators Association (BCOA) that then represents all the employers as a group in the bargaining. The collective bargaining agreement in this case covers workers in different plants and among different employers. Questions - 1. We in the TWU Local 100 fit which model? 2. A common saying is ‘a union organizer’s best friend is bad management’ what does that mean? If a union succeeds in organizing a firm is that necessarily a sign of management failure?
It is actually an interesting question. The terms good and bad are relative and our bargaining unit contains separate entities such and PBL, school bus etc.
ReplyDeleteI guess it would be: a good manager would be someone who can get more with less, which is the opposite of a Unions aim to preserve jobs.
So as an organizing tool and Good manager would be best for a Union in terms of organizing.
However a bad manager would be helpful for organizing because of the assumed safety risks they would take with employees.
And of course a good union negotiator should not have been delinquent in paying his/her dues.
ReplyDeleteExactly how would you know that?
ReplyDeleteThe contracts you were involved with were abysmal.
Lump sums
giving up the HBT
giving up the no layoff clause
the 1.5% HBC after a strike.
no COLA
Get real.
We haven't had a good contract since 1980.
Because as a dues paying union member you support the union as an institution. You chose not to pay your dues because you didn't agree with certain
ReplyDeletepolicy or individual. You and all the others who didn't pay have weakened TWU as an institution, I only hope it can recover. Getting rid of all the non-paying officers is a start.
Silly response, you assume that you know why 40 plus (give or take) members fell behind on their dues?
ReplyDeleteLet's examine what you said:
"certain policy or individual(s)"
A statement indicative of the tired old politics of yesteryear.
The thought that every member who is or was behind on their dues did it because of "policies or individuals" is straight from the "cult of a former TWU Local 100 President playbook.
Right, and the world revolved around him too.
You wouldn't be working for the same crew these days would you?
Only a small-minded individual would be so pompous to claim they know the reason for 40 individual actions.
You have no way of knowing AND no way of finding out.
What you DO know is 40 people fell behind on their dues, they were vetted by the election committee and approved by the election committee. As per the bylaws of Local 100.
Those individuals won their respective elections.
Something an "appointee" like you would know little about.
Now you want officers removed.
Smells like politics to me.
Same old nasty politics that helped weaken this Union, before this administration took over.
Maybe because you are no longer an appointed director of L100 making 95K a year, you're a little bitter?
Sounds like it to me.
You presume to have insight you cannot possibly have.
The issues of dues payment and officers will be decided by the DOL.
Whatever their decision is, we must abide by it.
In the mean-time I suggest that you find a topic that you may have some insight into.
Excuse me it's 41. That is unless you are still trying to convince yourself and everyone else you are not part of the list. But you are right, I agree the DOL will discuss it with the international, lets not forget the scabs that work there, and we'll see. Maybe fines will be levied or worse. We'll see.
ReplyDeleteAs for a topic I have insight with, how about we start with the 100k the retirees association is sitting on?
You must be referring to the money donated by the retirees for the solidarity Fund.
ReplyDeleteAs you know the solidarity fund was approved for the years 2010-2011 so that money is not being "sat" on it is part of the solidarity fund.
Once 2012 comes around I'm sure a decision will be made regarding I gather, refunds etc...
The retirees association is doing just fine they help a ton of people every week.
The retirees gave their money in a real show of solidarity. No questions asked. It is in stark contrast to the membership who, after the Fund was voted for, tried to collect petitions and hire lawyers to stop it.
The retirees have all my respect and admiration.
The retirees have always stepped up to the plate. They even gave over $100,00 when the union was facing Taylor Law fines and loss of dues check-off. Funny they paid and you didn't.
ReplyDeleteThe active members according to your president are to get a refund in fact it should have went out already. The retirees should get their money back now and not wait for a "decision" in 2012. Our average retiree is between 70 and 90 years old, you want them to wait? Shame on you.
One thing about you sir is you always seem to have the wrong information.
ReplyDeleteConsistently.
I wonder where are you getting this rubbish?
As I stated in an earlier post the term of the solidarity fund is for 2010-2011.
This is what was agreed to in the E-Boards resolution.
So no refund is due until the term of the fund is over. which is 2012.
Funny things about guys like you: you want to get your point across regardless of the facts.
You have never let the facts get in the way of a good putdown.
Clearly you are calendar challenged.
This is 2011 not 2012.
One thing is clear: when you write "in fact" it is certainly everything but.
BTW your twisting of facts need a little work perhaps you can go to your former boss (maybe current) and get some advice.
Well what do you know! Some of the same scabs who didn't pay their dues are on the Solidarity Committee.
ReplyDeleteI see your name is there also."In fact", your boss handed you over to the DOL. Good luck with that. SEE BELOW
Tony Utano who is currently Vice President of MOW department, and would have been ineligible to run or much less hold that office. The documents you had sent to the DOL also included Pete Foley, your current Director of Bargaining Unit Protection; Jay Carrasco (Track division); Dominick Spagnola (LES); Derrick Echerrivia and Paul Piazza ( senior Station Division officers); Josh Friedstein (RTO) all of whom are know as being among your major supporters -- and many others.
Do you realize that you are quoting from a email sent out by Roger Toussaint?
ReplyDeleteThis is not an official DOL document.
Once again you not only show who you work for, but also misrepresent things just to fit your argument.
Just like I said you did.
Take care Jimmy-boy you are not worth my time.
Oh that must mean your innocent! It'll come out in the wash........scab.
ReplyDelete