OPEIU Union for IT Folks? 6

[ctarr]

I've got a question. Are any of you currently in a union? At my job there are about 50 IT folks, from networking, operations, repair & maintenance all the way to development and administration.

OPEIU is a union that is attempting to form here at my County. We (IT) are being grouped with about 140 other employees (all sorts of jobs outside of IT) who are not in management positions, and being given the opportunity to vote to join the union.

What do you think, what would you do and what would you ask?

Thanks,

Craig

 

[svolpe]

The driving force behind this IT exodus, as we all know, is greed and the desire to make more and more money no matter the cost to the community and the stakeholders. By stakeholders, I mean the employees of the company, the surrounding local businesses and shops; in other words, all the people (and associated companies) that make an economy thrive.

For public companies, CEO pay and business strategies (including the migration of operations to faraway countries) among many other things are voted on and determined by the shareholders…the owners of the company. Of course, most of the people who are interested in keeping jobs here on American soil do not own enough company stock to make the slightest bit of difference. The problem that arises is that the stock we do own, through mutual funds (in both individual accounts and 401K plans), is grouped together to form a significant percentage of ownership that can make a big difference on the business strategies adopted by a company. The many, many people that own just a little bit of stock relinquish their voting rights to the mutual fund company through proxies. Often times, mutual fund executives vote along with management to ensure they retain the company’s business. This can and often is in direct conflict with our best interests. I wonder how many times votes to award CEOs multimillion dollar pay packages (even in the face of poor performance) and to ship thousands of jobs overseas has been cast in our names. And we didn’t even know!

New rules were recently adopted by the SEC that are now going to force mutual fund companies to disclose their proxy votes plainly and clearly. Prior to the passage of this new rule, the way a mutual fund company voted was a closely held secret. These new rules are a major victory for the people. But, it was not without a fight. Top executives from both Vanguard and Fidelity launched an intense campaign to allow them to continue to vote in secret saying that their operations would become too “politicized”. This is all a bunch of BS because what they do behind closed doors in secret has detrimental effects on us. We are seeing the results unfold before our very eyes.

My intention in writing this is that if we, as a country, could all get on the same page, we could put a stop to this s!#@! Some people think it’s no good to get the government involved, but we need to hold our elected officials accountable. We have this right, it is given to us in our Constitution, but all too often we don’t use it because we get “caught up” in our own lives. I ask that everyone pay attention to what’s happening around them…read the paper and watch the news, but more important [because the newspapers and the news stations can be and often is slanted], pay attention to the legislation coming out of Congress as well as how your Representatives and Senators are voting and also pay attention to the policies being proposed by this as well as all future presidential administrations.

 

[algernonsidney]

Cajun,

Leeches seems like a strong word. But I do think the industry needs to police itself a littlre more than it does.

Svolpe,

I'm getting tired of everyone bashing anybody for making money. Most IT professionals want to make money, too.

Chris

 

[svolpe]

Chris:

And your point is...would you care to elaborate?

Sal

 

[CajunCenturion]

I respect your opinion that leeches may be a strong word, but I stand by it.

With respect to bashing anybody for making money. I don't bash anyone for making money provided they do so legally and ethically.

But I wonder since you brought it up, do you think that the tech support workers in India should be bashed for making money? Should we bash or not bash the stockholders of an IT company, who in their desire to make more money, move jobs into cheaper labor markets? Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[KornGeek]

Do you think that the tech support workers in India should be bashed for making money?
My feeling is that they should not be bashed. They are the same as us in many ways. There's just the poor schmucks getting used by the people at the top (just like us). They are simply trying to earn a living (again just like us) by working hard (hopefully, still like us).

Should we bash or not bash the stockholders of an IT company, who in their desire to make more money, move jobs into cheaper labor markets?
My feeling is that these people should be bashed, because they are trying to earn more money at the expense of people who are depending on them. It feels like a knife in the back.

Keep in mind that these are my opinions, nothing more, nothing less. Also, in my mind, these keep in line with another quote from CajunCenturion, I don't bash anyone for making money provided they do so legally and ethically. What the Indian workers are doing is ethical. They are providing a service and asking for compensation. The above mentioned stockholders' actions don't seem ethical (to me at least) because they are simply looking to pay less than (what I consider) a fair rate to get the same services. I see this as mistreating the employees who get laid off and taking advantage of the Indian employees.

 

[chicagoAnalyst]

* WHERE WOULD WE STRIKE? The way the trends are moving now, a small handful of IT Outsourcing companies control a huge part of our industry. These outsourcers are also the source of a huge part of the abuse. Start the union with the IT professionals of EDS, CSC, etc.

*VOTING OUR PROXIES to block outsouring overseas is a great idea - most of us still do have stock.
Yes, it may lower our overall share prices, but if we want job protectionism (against an IT worker in a country where houses cost $400, and other costs are similarly low), then we need to support that on the buy side as well.
ACtually, this is a brilliant idea - it's one of the few places that we still do have power, if we can organize. Make no mistake, the offshoring trand is happening very fast. Too many of us are just putting our hrads down and hoping we ourselves won't get hit.

*WHAT ABOUT EUROPE? It seems that they have many more labor protections in place than the US, yet remain economically viable...are there any techniques we can take forward from them?

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Most may have some stock, however, all of the stock of the "little people" combined is such a small percentage of all stock issued for large corporations that your proxy votes would not have any impact at all.

A majority of all stock is held by investment firms, capital venture firms, the wealthy and so forth. Take General Motors, just a random large company. They have millions upon millions of shares. Sure the general public can buy shares, but most are held by firms such as US Bancorp Piper Jaffray who control the majority of stock.

Not that people shouldn't buy stock, but as for proxy votes on large corporations where you own stock, it would most likely have no influence.

 

[chicagoAnalyst]

I don't agree - I think a huge percentage of shareholders don't bother to vote their shares at all, giving those that do an unusual impact.
I worked for a company whose board recommended eliminating a poison-pill generous employee severance plan in cases of buyout, about a year before before our company was indeed bought out. The recommendation actually didn't pass, I think because enough employees (all of whom owned stock through their ESOP program) voted their shares, while other shareholders didn't bother to vote.

The down side that I see to this plan is that it would never work without serious organizing. And (without unions), there is no one out there with spare time and energy to do that for free.
So while I think this idea could work and have great impact, by the nature of the situation, all of us doing well think we don't need any assistance, and that we'll be fine because we're just better than all the rest of us. Those of us who have been hit already, and are now unemployed or underemployed, don't have the resources to organize this or any other organized response. They're just trying to keep their heads above water.

 

[svolpe]

Institutional Investors...mutual fund companies own significant percentages of company stock that could indeed make a difference in the decisions of executive management. Who owns these mutual fund shares? Small investors…many “little” people own mutual fund shares directly in individual accounts as well as 401K plans. Now, if these thousands (if not millions) of small investors could get on the same page--and when alerted to the news that the mutual fund they own just voted with management to shut down U.S. operations so that cheap labor could be exploited in India--consequently dump every share of said mutual fund, the mutual fund’s share price would then plummet and then and only then would we have the attention of the mutual fund executives who just voted (proxy votes I should add) with the company’s management in a direct assault against the employees.

One thing for sure is that such an effort would take a tremendous amount of organizing, but once the potential results are realized by the “little” people, the effort would grow on its own momentum…and that is what Corporate America fears most.

 

[AIXSPadmin]

I don't think you people realize how much stock is issued for large corporations and that the little person as a total share is relatively minor.

Look at a financial statement for GM. They issue 559 million shares of common stock at around $40 per share. Now the average person making a per capita income of $35,000 does not have the capital to invest in many shares of stock at a $40/share price.

Class H stock is a tracking stock which has fixed or floating voting rights. Floating voting rights get adjusted periodically, generally based on the market price of the stock. GM had 1.1 billion outstanding Class H shares which vote as a separate class. And the GM Class H stock has millions in losses and dividend's.

That would mean for the GM stock each working American (100 million roughly) would approx. own 15 shares each of GM stock. Mean stock ownership is $5,000; hardly a collective coercion tool for companies to fear. As of 1997 the median household financial wealth (marketable assets less home equity) was $11,700; hardly showing much stock ownership. 86 percent of stock market gains between 1989 and 1997 flowed to the top ten percent of households while 42 percent went to the most well-to-do one percent. In 1998 the top-earning one percent had as much income as the 100 million Americans with the lowest earnings.

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Also, anticipated Social Security payments are now the largest single "asset" for a majority of Americans.

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Annual average earnings in 1999 of adults age 18 and over with a bachelor's degree, $45,678. This compares with an annual average of $24,572 for those with only a high school diploma. Percentage of the nation's adults age 25 and over in 2000 who had attained at least a bachelor's degree, 26%.

 

[jymm]

in most areas today you can not swing a dead cat without hitting a Lawyer, A Realtor or an out of work IT person (or one that is underpaid or under appreciated). I on the other hand have found the dream job --- why? because I would not accept a union telling me what I could negotiate with the employer (in other words - I was working harder and should get more of something - not same as slacker next door).

I was an HR programmer and watched SEIU and another union come into my work place (for non IT positions - not from their lack of trying mind you). Although a few folks thought that it was a good idea - I know that I am a professional getting paid to get the job done. whatever it takes. I am not getting paid to ask how I can get out of work (which is what SEIU did with the people that they got). More antagonistic people I have never experienced. It was their way or no way.

The union even lied to their people about contract talks (I was in the meetings and saw the paper the next day).

Recently things were so bad that the people in the union were asked to re-evaluate if they needed the union - votes are still out for that group - but if you do not feel that you are being treated fairly (and you need/want a union to help) my 2 cents is to first look at yourself... if that yields nothing then look for another job and watch for those folks who want to just skate by while others do the work.

 

[cmpgeek]

the hospital i used to work at was a union hospital... where i work now is not... i get treated better here than i EVER did at the other hospital, but i dont think that is because we dont have a union here... the mgmt at the first hospital did everything they could to undermine the staff... the tension and animosity between the 2 forces is unbelieveable... (i was working as a regular RN at the point...)
the only thing i can say of that hospital is, i would not work there now if they doubled my salary even with a union; and without a union - they could offer to pay me in cash money off the books and i would still not go back - that place is a prime example of how unions got started in the first place.

some businesses do very well without a union, but if there is a union in place - it was needed... unions do not guarantee anyone's job... they are not there to protect unproductive unqualified people... they are there to make sure mgmt doesnt snatch the rug out from under John Q. Public when he/she is busy doing their job...

<the views expressed here are mine alone... i respect everyone else's freedow to think differently and hope all will return the favor...>

ShannonLea