Reason for concern
- Thread starter giles
- Start date
? So if this goes through prevailing wage goes out the window? Or at least that's the union fear???
- 38,857
- 260
Prevailing wage is often based on the local non-union wage. So if a union has ownership of the vast majority of the candidate pool and places to work then it becomes inflated. Now if a person who is not beheld to a union and the company believes he has the appropriate experience and training, and he is willing to accept compensation during salary and benefit negotiations less than the union guy, the prevailing wage will drop. To prevent the unions attempt to dictate qualifications by controlling the process to become certified in that trade. A competing apprenticeship program, paid OJT, and other hallmarks of training programs created by private industry would recuce that stranglehold on the candidate pool. ,
So in the construction trades the only people benefiting is the employers. With the new programs apprentices -journey will be paid less(more money for the business)No non union company in the construction trades can or ever will offer a working man more money than a total hourly package of a union contractor. So being a business owner it'd make perfect since to want these new programs. It wouldn't benefit construction workers union or non union what so ever even if the programs exceed the standards of union apprenticeships, it just means less money for the bottom of the company chain. It's not hard to get into a union or start training. U just need a pulse and show up anymore people still don't want to do that.
- 38,857
- 260
It benefits people who want to be trained in a skilled trade and complete an apprenticeship program without having to go through a union. Just because they are willing to negotiate less than the prevailing wage to get the job doesn't mean they're getting screwed or not benefiting.
While not prohibited the expressed intent of the bill is not to target union apprenticeship programs but rather to create them in trades where they don't exist today that are suffering for skilled workers.
I was just on a conference call for IRAPs and have been weekly since July last year. I'll be creating, selling, and delivering them. When I have more time, I'll write more. Currently driving to Marion to take founding members of Appalachian Ohio's first manufacturing sector partnership to tour the RAMTEC at Tri-Rivers Career Center. Sector partnerships are the drivers of this new push for IRAPs and that newsletter from the IBEW is premature, inaccurate, and self-serving in my professional opinion...
The DOL has until 10/1/2020 to tell us what an IRAP is because as of right now, it's merely a concept. The DOL recently put out a RFP (request for proposals) to define an IRAP and they received 800+ applications. You can rest assured the DOL is going to structure these to require the sector partnership, the employer, and the educator to meet several criterion that will make these programs extremely effective at creating more skilled entry-level workers. If the IBEW would look beyond the end of their noses, they'd see this as a great opportunity to leverage a "preapprenticeship" model to drive more folks into their 5-year model.
I'd honestly like to be a little more inflammatory towards the newsletter, but were directly in my professional space and I should maintain some level of professionalism despite this being a "free" platform for me...
I'd honestly like to be a little more inflammatory towards the newsletter, but were directly in my professional space and I should maintain some level of professionalism despite this being a "free" platform for me...
I understand to need for skilled workers, but why would you work for 5 dollars an hour less with no benefits when u can go across the street and do the exact same job for more money.
- 38,857
- 260
Well you're speculating that's what it would be. There are plenty of good paying jobs with benefits that aren't union. In reality the companies may even pay the privately trained applicants more so they don't have to deal with the union bs. I'm sure just dealing with them.alone has a large cost overhead. One major reason why would be because i know i would get the job. I can decide if i want it and at what compensation level. I dont have to deal with seniority crap, and if there is a downsize i don't have to worry about getting bumped by a person with more time there. My merits and performance can stand on their own. I don't have to pay union dues. I don't have to strike when someone tells me too even if I don't want to.
Why is there an automatic assumption that a union job pays more than a nonunion job. I can tell you that is not necessarily the case. I assume it may be different from trade to trade but not all pay more.
I am not for or against unions. I believe they have their time and place but the top has gotten greedy at the expense of the rank and file.
I am not for or against unions. I believe they have their time and place but the top has gotten greedy at the expense of the rank and file.
- 38,857
- 260
Often times it's a product of propaganda. In the minds of the employees they make these companies out to be big bad enterprises who will pay workers minimum age with no benifits and no safety gear if they're allowed to do so. Therefore they have to be part of the union or they'll have working conditions similar to China and be put in chains. And any non-union company that has great pay, benifits, and a work environment is only because the union set the standard and those people should be thankful too.
in the construction trades in my tristate region union total package wages far exceeds what a non union contractor can pay a normal worker. People that are invested in the companies or owners r the comparable or higher paid workers. Non union contractors can offer a semi close wage on the check but they lack total package in benefits. Construction is a different ballgame than industry or IT or any other jobs that could be affected by this at least everywhere I've worked in the tristate region.
- 38,857
- 260
The primary reason companies use contract labor over direct hire labor is with direct hires comes the threat of unionization. They are fearful that the unions will hound their workers and demand access to them to promote unionization. The unions in new Hampshire recently tried to get a state law passed that required businesses to provide the personal contact info for all employees to the union, allow use of the company email system for information, allow the unions to hold employee meetings during business break times, and organize onsite, they also wanted it to be law that a company couldn't refute or say anything anti-union.
It's easy to see why a company would distance itself from the workforce and utilize contract companies for labor when things like that can happen. The contract companies are paid very well by the company. I can't speak to their benefit packages or lack thereof. I worked as a contractor through a company for the federal government for years and received great pay and benefits.
You still have to have people willing to do the work. That’s the bottom line problem here. The workforce today sucks because no one wants to work. My disabled old fat ass will outwork 95% of the new hires, that’s the problem. Adding apprenticeship programs to everything isn’t going to solve a thing.