# Legacy Directv techs having to join unions to fight ATT



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Going on across the country after AT&T cuts Directv techs pay by as much as 50%

http://ibew.org/media-center/Articles/16Daily/1604/160406_DirecTV


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Every one of the ones I've had at my place has clearly been overpaid to begin with.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Sorry you haven't had a pleasant experience with your techs but walk a day in their shoes and you wouldn't feel they are overpaid. Nobody deserves a pay cut for no reason other than corporate greed.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

west99999 said:


> Sorry you haven't had a pleasant experience with your techs but walk a day in their shoes and you wouldn't feel they are overpaid. Nobody deserves a pay cut for no reason other than corporate greed.


No one is forced to work at a company that they believe underpays them or treats them like crap.
Every U.S. citizen has the right to find a new job the moment they feel under appreciated.

So I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

NR4P said:


> No one is forced to work at a company that they believe underpays them or treats them like crap.
> Every U.S. citizen has the right to find a new job the moment they feel under appreciated.
> 
> So I don't see what the problem is.


They certainly do. However, to get the quality techs, you have to pay a reasonable wage.

Sent from my Priv using Tapatalk


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

I guess part of my confusion on this issue is that in the past, some of the techs have complained that working piece-meal was costing them money. The example given was the job that took hours to complete and the pay was the same as the job that took less than an hour. 

Not ever having worked a piece-meal payment job, I can see where that more complex/longer jobs would end up costing the installer wages, but that could also increase the chances of someone taking short-cuts so they could get done and move to the next job.

Am I missing something?

I also think the title the TS came up with is a bit misleading. The IBEW Media Center article talks about how their Union and AT&T have "mutually benefited from labor-friendly neutrality" for the last 20 years.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

west99999 said:


> Sorry you haven't had a pleasant experience with your techs but walk a day in their shoes and you wouldn't feel they are overpaid. Nobody deserves a pay cut for no reason other than corporate greed.


If they don't like their working conditions they have the same options that you or I do. Stay or go.

As for walking a day in their shoes... After one day of me doing what they do they'd hate me because their boss would want them to be as efficient, clean and knowledgable as I would be.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> I guess part of my confusion on this issue is that in the past, some of the techs have complained that working piece-meal was costing them money. The example given was the job that took hours to complete and the pay was the same as the job that took less than an hour.
> 
> Not ever having worked a piece-meal payment job, I can see where that more complex/longer jobs would end up costing the installer wages, but that could also increase the chances of someone taking short-cuts so they could get done and move to the next job.
> 
> ...


I've heard the same thing from installers. The installers we have didn't like going to piece-work, they wanted a salary based on hours worked rather then having to hustle to complete as many jobs a day as they could. I just had a young installer out the other day and he likes the piece-work thing. The installers we used to see here were usually older and less likely to want to hustle thru many jobs in a day. I'd guess it depends on the installer as to whether they want a salary or piece-work. I kinda find it hard to believe that any union would support piece-work. I didn't see anything about that in the link supplied by the TS other than the installers that signed up for the union were looking forward to the benefits of that union, which is a very good union.

You'll note this in that link: _*The largest collection of organized working men and women so far-more than 650-are employed at DirecTV's massive call center in Missoula, Montana.*_ OK, they're not doing piece-work in the call center and I have a really hard time with any union supporting piece-work. They usually strive for a similar pay scale based on hourly salaries across the board so that incomes on more uniform.

Once you join one of these huge unions, you have to adhere to their rules and I cannot see the IBEW supporting piece-work. I also have to wonder what the NLRB thinks about piece-work. Once the installers get into that union, they also will fall under the NLRB rules. They are probably protected under the NLRB at the moment, but I doubt if many of them understand what that body is and the protections it offers.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

One more thought on the union thing. No knock on the IBEW specifically, but big unions are always looking for more dues paying members and will do just about anything to sign them up. The more dues paying members the more the union has to spend. It's just the nature of the beast.

Rich


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Basically Rich, the protection a person gets from the NLRB is the right to concerted activity, which is the right to act in concert with other people, and if you decide to, the right to form a union and collective bargain over wages, benefits and working conditions. Any other rights (minimum wage, overtime, etc.) are protected by the U.S. Department of Labor which is different from the NLRB. Their are protections against discrimination which are covered by other laws but basically, except for minimum wage and overtime your conditions are decided by your employer or a collective bargaining agreement.

As for leaving if you don't like it, they used to say the same thing about countries if you didn't like what the King decided. Their is no Devine right to capital.



Rich said:


> I've heard the same thing from installers. The installers we have didn't like going to piece-work, they wanted a salary based on hours worked rather then having to hustle to complete as many jobs a day as they could. I just had a young installer out the other day and he likes the piece-work thing. The installers we used to see here were usually older and less likely to want to hustle thru many jobs in a day. I'd guess it depends on the installer as to whether they want a salary or piece-work. I kinda find it hard to believe that any union would support piece-work. I didn't see anything about that in the link supplied by the TS other than the installers that signed up for the union were looking forward to the benefits of that union, which is a very good union.
> 
> You'll note this in that link: _*The largest collection of organized working men and women so far-more than 650-are employed at DirecTV's massive call center in Missoula, Montana.*_ OK, they're not doing piece-work in the call center and I have a really hard time with any union supporting piece-work. They usually strive for a similar pay scale based on hourly salaries across the board so that incomes on more uniform.
> 
> ...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Those who had a problem making a living under the piece work system because they couldn't get enough jobs completed per day would have mostly quit now, so the ones who are left are ones for whom the piece work system worked out well. The best among them would make more under a salary system. Hopefully there will be some way of recognizing the "star" performers with bonuses or other benefits to help retain them, otherwise the ones most likely to leave this time will be the best of the best. If they don't leave because they can't get another job with a comparable salary, they'll stay but be pretty unhappy about it which is almost as bad. No one likes to work alongside the guy who just complains all the time about how much his job sucks, and how much he hates those in charge of everything.

I don't see how customer service can possibly be better on a piece work system where the incentive is to get the job over with as quickly as possible and move onto the next. I think AT&T is making this change not only to align with their large existing workforce that has always worked on a salary, but also because they recognize this. There will be some tasks where the piece work rate makes little or no money for the installer, and others that are cash cows that make several times as much money for the same effort. That creates an incentive for installers to avoid the chump change tasks and do more of the cash cows, but those incentives may not align with what is best for the customer or for Directv. That, along with a general incentive to rush through jobs to complete more per day, would lead to worse outcomes for customers on a piece work system. That's not universally true of course, I'm sure some installers take the time to do things right even if they could complete a few more jobs per week if they rushed, but most people adjust their work habits in a way to maximize their pay per unit of effort. Its just human nature.

People naturally hate change in their working conditions, and changing the way they are paid and probably the way their work is evaluated is a pretty significant change. Their frustration is understandable, but IMHO so are the reasons for AT&T making this change.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Unions can be a double edged sword. There are some benefits and some not so benefits things that come from them. I fully expect all DIRECTV employees to eventually be a part of att unions. I do think that will give them much better job security overall. 

As far as pay I have no idea... And as far as us calling and getting some yahoo from overseas... I could see that happening at some point on first contact. I hope not but I won't be surprised.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> They certainly do. However, to get the quality techs, you have to pay a reasonable wage.
> 
> Sent from my Priv using Tapatalk


Yes it's supply and demand.
Pay more for higher skilled and higher quality folks.

If the pay rate is so low that only poor quality techs work, then it bites the company in the butt as customer service suffers.

Somewhere that happy medium is met.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Eventually the installation force will consist of mostly low quality because the pay is so low starting out now. I think they are starting people out at like $9/ hour. The piece rate system in no way forced people to rush through jobs because they paid well enough to where you could spend the time needed on it and still make out. If a job took more hours they had a system setup to compensate for those jobs that took longer. If peoples bill gets raised by $4 there is an uproar on here but when they cut peoples pay by as much %50 its just "meh" find another job. Its not that easy to just find another job for a lot of these people some are very invested in Directv (401k, pension, etc...) I know all of that can be moved but its just not as easy as some of you make it out to be. This company profits billions and without technicians they wouldn't be where they are now. Att bought Directv because they were the best of the best so piece rate didn't have too much effect on customer service and so on.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

west99999 said:


> Eventually the installation force will consist of mostly low quality because the pay is so low starting out now. I think they are starting people out at like $9/ hour. The piece rate system in no way forced people to rush through jobs because they paid well enough to where you could spend the time needed on it and still make out. If a job took more hours they had a system setup to compensate for those jobs that took longer. If peoples bill gets raised by $4 there is an uproar on here but when they cut peoples pay by as much %50 its just "meh" find another job. Its not that easy to just find another job for a lot of these people some are very invested in Directv (401k, pension, etc...) I know all of that can be moved but its just not as easy as some of you make it out to be. This company profits billions and without technicians they wouldn't be where they are now. Att bought Directv because they were the best of the best so piece rate didn't have too much effect on customer service and so on.


My 2¢
At&T/U-verse already has a tech work force, so they're having to change the DirecTV force to fit theirs.
This sucks, but has to happen.
Square pegs don't like fitting in round holes.

From my limited contact with "Phone" techs and U-verse techs, they went through something similar.
The old time phone techs didn't conform well with U-verse.

I looked into a U-verse tech position and frankly it would have been challenging for me [and NOT in a good way].
As things turned out I wasn't "their type", which my guess was "young & dumb".

West... the world isn't fair and "stuff" happens.
It's a shame when it happens to you [or me and it had many times]


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

NR4P said:


> No one is forced to work at a company that they believe underpays them or treats them like crap.
> Every U.S. citizen has the right to find a new job the moment they feel under appreciated.
> 
> So I don't see what the problem is.


Easily said. not so easily done!


----------



## DIRECTV_Tech (Apr 8, 2016)

RunnerFL said:


> If they don't like their working conditions they have the same options that you or I do. Stay or go.
> 
> As for walking a day in their shoes... After one day of me doing what they do they'd hate me because their boss would want them to be as efficient, clean and knowledgable as I would be.


obviously you have no clue what the job entails......I'm sure you wouldn't last 6months.


----------



## shendley (Nov 28, 2005)

So what country do you live in? In my country, the good ol' USA, there's always a third option: stay, go, or organize. Which is what they appear to be doing.



RunnerFL said:


> If they don't like their working conditions they have the same options that you or I do. Stay or go.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

DIRECTV_Tech said:


> obviously you have no clue what the job entitles......I'm sure you wouldn't last 6months.


Yeah, I do know what it entitles and know the gear better than most "techs" who have shared their "knowledge" with us.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

shendley said:


> So what country do you live in? In my country, the good ol' USA, there's always a third option: stay, go, or organize. Which is what they appear to be doing.


Organize should never be an option. All that does is drive up prices to the end consumer who you would lose in the end because other companies would offer the same service for less.

Just ask the people of California how they enjoy their $20 Big Macs once that $15 minimum wage kicks in out there...


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

shendley said:


> So what country do you live in? In my country, the good ol' USA, there's always a third option: stay, go, or organize. Which is what they appear to be doing.


Wouldn't organize fall under stay?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

[MOD HAT]

Let's be careful NOT to let this thread get political.

The TS has a good point, so let's discuss it and NOT go down the rabbit hole that get this thread closed/locked

[/MOD HAT]


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> Organize should never be an option. All that does is drive up prices to the end consumer who you would lose in the end because other companies would offer the same service for less.
> 
> Just ask the people of California how they enjoy their $20 Big Macs once that $15 minimum wage kicks in out there...


I agree with the other guy. With logic like the above, you wouldn't last month in their work shoes


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> I agree with the other guy. With logic like the above, you wouldn't last month in their work shoes


Because I care for the end customer? If they fire you for that then that explains a few things...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DIRECTV_Tech said:


> obviously you have no clue what the job _*entitles*_......I'm sure you wouldn't last 6months.


What does that mean? I guess you mean "entails"?

We all have a pretty good idea what an installer does, it's not like they're electricians or plumbers or any other tradesmen who have to go to school for years and accumulate thousand of hours on the job before they're allowed to work on their own.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

[mod hat #2]

Remember forum etiquette is to discuss the topic and not the members

[/mod hat]


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> Because *I care for the end customer*? If they fire you for that then that explains a few things...


CSR satisfaction is not even on the list of things your boss is looking for. Their one goal is to look good to their boss and they do that by having great numbers.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Rich said:


> What does that mean? I guess you mean "entails"?
> 
> We all have a pretty good idea what an installer does, it's not like they're electricians or plumbers or any other tradesmen who have to go to school for years and accumulate thousand of hours on the job before they're allowed to work on their own.
> 
> Rich


Still, a skilled tech even in a simple job, will get a job done better and quicker than an unskilled lightly trained worker.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> CSR satisfaction is not even on the list of things your boss is looking for. Their one goal is to look good to their boss and they do that by having great numbers.


That explains the poor service...


----------



## DIRECTV_Tech (Apr 8, 2016)

Drucifer said:


> CSR satisfaction is not even on the list of things your boss is looking for. Their one goal is to look good to their boss and they do that by having great numbers.


That's not true, customer satisfaction is part of the matrix. Here are some things that I go over every week. Cust sat, Protection Plan sells, return calls on broadband decas, estimated time of arrival & estinted time of completion...and so on.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Billzebub said:


> Basically Rich, the protection a person gets from the NLRB is the right to concerted activity, which is the right to act in concert with other people, and if you decide to, the right to form a union and collective bargain over wages, benefits and working conditions. Any other rights (minimum wage, overtime, etc.) are protected by the U.S. Department of Labor which is different from the NLRB. Their are protections against discrimination which are covered by other laws but basically, except for minimum wage and overtime your conditions are decided by your employer or a collective bargaining agreement.
> 
> As for leaving if you don't like it, they used to say the same thing about countries if you didn't like what the King decided. Their is no Devine right to capital.


Sorry it took so long to reply. Have a rather dreadful cold and didn't feel like doing any research. I think you're correct. We never really had any dealings with the NLRB, just used our union's contract as a guideline for what we could and couldn't do. I really thought they had more power than what I just saw on their website. I might take some time and give them a call and ask specific questions I have about overtime for folks that aren't in a union. I'll post about what I find out.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Still, a skilled tech even in a simple job, will get a job done better and quicker than an unskilled lightly trained worker.


I agree with that. My statement was a generality aimed at the vast majority of installers who really haven't been given much training before they're left on their own. I've always asked installers what kind of training they've received and it has always been the same answer...not much. That's not their fault, that's ultimately D*'s fault (or now ATT's fault).

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

What really interests me about the IBEW covering installers is the piece-work issue. I just cannot imagine how the IBEW will deal with that.

Rich


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> If they don't like their working conditions they have the same options that you or I do. Stay or go.


Lot of job options you think in Missoula, Montana?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

JosephB said:


> Lot of job options you think in Missoula, Montana?


Don't have to stay in Missoula, Montana if you don't want to. We have this thing called "Freedom" here in the United States, that includes the freedom to move anywhere you want.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Don't have to stay in Missoula, Montana if you don't want to. We have this thing called "Freedom" here in the United States, that includes the freedom to move anywhere you want.


I was with you until this. Moving isn't that easy for a lot of people. From the cost to family, there's a lot of factors from making it simple.


----------



## adkinsjm (Mar 25, 2003)

RunnerFL is a big individual rights supporter, until it comes to the right to organize.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

[MOD HAT ON]

OK, Time for everyone to take a step back.

If you can't discuss the topic and need to the members, this thread WILL BE CLOSED

[/MOD HAT]

No more warnings


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Life's choices are not trivial and should not be trivialized.


I have only held one union job ... the required union dues lowered my take home pay and I still didn't earn what people now call "a living wage". I worked to get out of that job. Add more education and seek a field that pays more. It was not easy to get away from that end of the pay scale.

There were higher paying jobs that were worse than the lower paying ones. Leaving those jobs did not help the budget, but it helped the sanity. I'd rather not have a job where I come home so frustrated that I yell at the wife and beat the kids.

Hopefully the installers can find something that is a good fit. Perhaps a union would make it better - but that is not my experience.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Rich said:


> I agree with that. My statement was a generality aimed at the vast majority of installers who really haven't been given much training before they're left on their own. I've always asked installers what kind of training they've received and it has always been the same answer...not much. That's not their fault, that's ultimately D*'s fault (or now ATT's fault).
> 
> Rich


It comes from the fact that person in charge of training new hires probably NEVER worked in the field.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

James Long said:


> . . . .
> 
> Hopefully the installers can find something that is a good fit. *Perhaps a union would make it better* - but that is not my experience.


The union took mild cutbacks when Verizon was screaming poverty during the last recent recession.

Now that Verizon profits are back up, they're still looking for cutbacks from their employees & RETIREES.

I can't imagine what my retirement benefits would be like without a 'strong' union.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> I was with you until this. Moving isn't that easy for a lot of people. From the cost to family, there's a lot of factors from making it simple.


No, it's not easy and it's the extreme. I'm sure working for DirecTV isn't the only job in the town.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> It comes from the fact that person in charge of training new hires probably NEVER worked in the field.


I get that, but putting them in the field with a more experienced installer for a week or two? Is that really enough? I know that tradesmen learn far more working on the job than they do at school, but the school work is important too. I attended a seminar titled "Who trains the trainer?" that sought to get the idea across that trainers had to have a good working knowledge of the job the training was focused on. Yet another seminar that nobody paid any attention to.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> No, it's not easy and it's the extreme. I'm sure working for DirecTV isn't the only job in the town.


In my area, the D* installers seem to be paid just a bit more than pest control workers. I've had several installers that did pest control before switching to D* come to my home. They did seem to prefer being an installer. Pest control seems like a nasty job.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> In my area, the D* installers seem to be paid just a bit more than pest control workers. I've had several installers that did pest control before switching to D* come to my home. They did seem to prefer being an installer. Pest control seems like a nasty job.
> 
> Rich


I would think Pest Control in NJ was a big business. LOL


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I would think Pest Control in NJ was a big business. LOL


A jest, I guess? Anyway, it is a pretty big business, many contractors. But it's also a complicated job what with having all those chemicals and having to train everybody in how to use them. I was surprised by how little they pay.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Rich said:


> I get that, but putting them in the field with a more experienced installer for a week or two? Is that really enough? I know that tradesmen learn far more working on the job than they do at school, but the school work is important too. I attended a seminar titled "Who trains the trainer?" that sought to get the idea across that trainers had to have a good working knowledge of the job the training was focused on. Yet another seminar that nobody paid any attention to.
> 
> Rich


For years I tried to change/improve the training and it fell on deaf ears.


----------



## scgms1 (Oct 3, 2005)

west99999 said:


> Eventually the installation force will consist of mostly low quality because the pay is so low starting out now. I think they are starting people out at like $9/ hour. The piece rate system in no way forced people to rush through jobs because they paid well enough to where you could spend the time needed on it and still make out. If a job took more hours they had a system setup to compensate for those jobs that took longer.


west99999, have you ever worked a job like this? I can tell you I have and thrived under the system. But as I've gotten older, not as much anymore. For the installers the years of climbing a ladder, crawling around attics with fiberglass&#8230;, take a toll on the body. The things you could do in your 20's, 30's, 40's...start catching up with you, so have these guys gotten less capable, or was it a crappy system to begin with? 

I'm an auto mechanic, and as it's called within this profession it's not piece rate, but Flat Rate. There are many abuses I could tell you about, but that would true with any pay system you could devise. The way I think about things and the way you think about things could align, what happens when we get a broader spectrum involved? There's always going to be a segment to find a way to get around things, some will do well, others are abusers, some get out, and others complain. The saying within this business is Flat Rate eats its' young. Paying this way is a young man's game. It's not something that most will continue to produce at the same rate when they're young, as into retirement. Quite a few careers as you age you become more valuable with your experience and knowledge...Not with this pay system, your pay goes down the older and the more worn out you get. Nice 

Saying paying under piece rate would mean a quality job because they are paid well is just as false as saying they (installers) woke up this morning and found they are now getting a 100k salary, now they'll do a good job. If that's not enough, let's say 200k, or _____. See above. So, on the employee side there will probably never be a perfect system, because, well, none of us are perfect.  

Saying we need a union to protect us from the Evil Corporations (EC's), is true in a lot of situations, but how has that worked? We don't have to look very far to see how well that worked with the Auto Industry. (As well as other industries) Have you seen Detroit lately? At some point the scales have turned from protection to extortion and now the unions are trying to run the companies. Now the EC's need protection and they made a decision (Actually, Probably forced to) to look elsewhere for their labor force. They're still greedy, so now the new workers need protection from their new employers. Rinse and Repeat.

I'm of the opinion, like the late Walt Kelly, who wrote the strip Pogo - "We have met the enemy and he is us."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

scgms1 said:


> west99999, have you ever worked a job like this? I can tell you I have and thrived under the system. But as I've gotten older, not as much anymore. For the installers the years of climbing a ladder, crawling around attics with fiberglass&#8230;, take a toll on the body. The things you could do in your 20's, 30's, 40's...start catching up with you, so have these guys gotten less capable, or was it a crappy system to begin with?
> 
> I'm an auto mechanic, and as it's called within this profession it's not piece rate, but Flat Rate. There are many abuses I could tell you about, but that would true with any pay system you could devise. The way I think about things and the way you think about things could align, what happens when we get a broader spectrum involved? There's always going to be a segment to find a way to get around things, some will do well, others are abusers, some get out, and others complain. The saying within this business is Flat Rate eats its' young. Paying this way is a young man's game. It's not something that most will continue to produce at the same rate when they're young, as into retirement. Quite a few careers as you age you become more valuable with your experience and knowledge...Not with this pay system, your pay goes down the older and the more worn out you get. Nice
> 
> ...


Good post! And quite true. I spent all my working life in places that had unions and there are pros and cons to unionized shops. I never really utilized a union even tho I was a shop steward for a couple years in one place. What I found out was that most of the union members didn't bother with union politics and rarely attended union meetings. That's a mistake. What you end up with is a union run by the decisions of a few (enough for a quorum) union members that were rather obsessed by union politics. That makes it easy for a union board. All 3 unions I belonged to had this problem.

About the age thing: I think it's normal and occurs in any setting. The older you get the less you want to do. The last place I worked had a maintenance force made up of employees that had a lot of years of service and it became more a social gathering than a work force. That caused us to contract most big jobs out (with the permission of the union) and that lack of work eroded our people's skills. Made it easier for those of us in management, the contractors did the jobs faster and better than our people would/could and it cost us less. But we still had to pay our own mechanics, so it kinda evened out cost-wise.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> The older you get the less you want to do.


I'll accept that as your confession, not an accusation against older workers. 

I have found that as I get older the more I am expected to do. The young guys get some slack for being inexperienced ... the old guys don't get that slack. In my experience, when a young guy forgets something or needs bailing out the old guy does the bailing.

The old guys have to mentor and train the young guys ... as well as get their work done. And (to a certain extent) if the young guy isn't trained right the old guy takes some of the blame. (The "I was never shown that" complaint from the young doesn't work forever.)

There are physical limits that kick in when one gets older. It can be a little harder to do the crawling and bending and climbing compared to the agile days of youth. I am sure that there are some who want to do less ... but I'd be happy having the workload I was hired to do years ago instead of what the workload has grown to be over the years. One could ask for help ... but that plays into your claim that older people want to do less.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

scgms1 said:


> I'm an auto mechanic, and as it's called within this profession it's not piece rate, but Flat Rate.


As a customer I like "book rate" and do not go to mechanics that do not charge book rate for repairs.

If the mechanic can get it done faster then I am "overpaying" for the hours ... but as long as the work is done right I don't care. If the mechanic cannot get it done in the allotted "book" hours I don't get penalized twice for their slowness (once by not getting my car back and once by paying for extra hours).


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> As a customer I like "book rate" and do not go to mechanics that do not charge book rate for repairs.


When I was a mechanic, seems a lifetime ago now, I used to love book time. Get paid 4 hours for something that took 1? Yes, please.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Rich said:


> About the age thing: I think it's normal and occurs in any setting. The older you get the less you want to do. The last place I worked had a maintenance force made up of employees that had a lot of years of service and it became more a social gathering than a work force. That caused us to contract most big jobs out (with the permission of the union) and that lack of work eroded our people's skills. Made it easier for those of us in management, the contractors did the jobs faster and better than our people would/could and it cost us less. But we still had to pay our own mechanics, so it kinda evened out cost-wise.
> 
> Rich


I would disagree with the older you get the less you want to do. I'm retired now, but even in doing volunteer work I out work most people, regardless of age. I've always charged hard, just my type A nature I guess. I set the pace, everyone else had to hussle to keep up. No unions or tenure involved, just good honest work.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

carl6 said:


> I would disagree with the older you get the less you want to do. I'm retired now, but even in doing volunteer work I out work most people, regardless of age. I've always charged hard, just my type A nature I guess. I set the pace, everyone else had to hussle to keep up. No unions or tenure involved, just good honest work.


My work philosophy has always been work smart, not hard.

I was around when computers first started appearing on everyone's desk. How we work greatly changed. Which caught Ma Bell and the Unions unprepared as to what could be accomplish by a worker during a normal work day.

Picture your boss now with zero knowledge on how to perform your job, trying to insist how fast a tech, also new to the technoligy, should work on a job. Don't know who, but someone came up with a work load figure. So at night, foreman would be creating phoney tickets and closing 'em out a few minutes later in order for the office to make it numbers. This went on for over two years until the second-liner was transfered and the new put a stop to that practice.

This caused an immediately collaspe of the office fantastic numbers. Upper management immediately assume it was union sabotage and the office was invaded by almost 100 investigators. It was months before the last one left the office. Upper management never believe it wasn't an union plot to control the work load.

The next round of AT&T desktop allow the user to program 512 keystrokes. I managed to program a few basic tests. I was able to turned a 20 minute test into a 5 minute one. I tried to keep it secret, but being the office top tester, I got all the VIP jobs. When I was able to sectionalized the problem while the customer was still talking to the second-line. The second-line wanted to know how I did it.

Every few years, the company would like to reorgaized itself by moving offices and personel around. My office moved, but due my low seniority I didn't. I now found myself in installation. It was more of the same. Foreman would sign off on installation even if it failed its test or was even incomplete on the hope that customer wouldn't test their new line in 30 days.

The work environment was hell for everyone because of unrealistic assumtions by upper management. It was and still is the lower mangement vs. the laborer vs. the customer with a no winner outcome.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> Don't have to stay in Missoula, Montana if you don't want to. We have this thing called "Freedom" here in the United States, that includes the freedom to move anywhere you want.


I just moved 20 miles in the same metro area and it cost thousands of dollars and I am a single man with no children and a pretty good job. I wonder how hard it would be for a single mother without a job to move to another state, especially one as far away as you'd have to move from Montana


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

JosephB said:


> I just moved 20 miles in the same metro area and it cost thousands of dollars and I am a single man with no children and a pretty good job. I wonder how hard it would be for a single mother without a job to move to another state, especially one as far away as you'd have to move from Montana


Look, the point is we all have choices in life. You don't HAVE to stay at a job you don't like or a job that doesn't pay well. Moving 20 miles away was your CHOICE, you weren't forced at gunpoint I'm sure.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> Look, the point is we all have choices in life. You don't HAVE to stay at a job you don't like or a job that doesn't pay well. Moving 20 miles away was your CHOICE, you weren't forced at gunpoint I'm sure.


And a choice that people have is that they can join a union so that they can make demands of their employers. And, their employers are free to hire anyone they choose should those employees walk out on strike.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

JosephB said:


> And a choice that people have is that they can join a union so that they can make demands of their employers. And, their employers are free to hire anyone they choose should those employees walk out on strike.


I never said that wasn't a choice....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Drucifer said:


> Foreman would sign off on installation even if it failed its test or was even incomplete on the hope that customer wouldn't test their new line in 30 days.


Don't get me started on "the phone company". Rarely are any the installs I have requested right the first day. Even though I always order business lines as "tagged and tested at the demarc". One would think that if a tech has to be there to tag it they would test as well, but it seems that they like to get the installs done (marked completed) and if it doesn't work that is a repair problem. (Residential repair two weeks, business repair 48 hours.) I have had PRIs that were not right - so one waits for a tech to drive across town during the scheduled turn up call, Oops ... forgot a connection in a pedestal. Try it now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> I wonder how hard it would be for a single mother without a job to move to another state, especially one as far away as you'd have to move from Montana


I wonder how many single mothers are DIRECTV installers?

I have a sister in law that works with the phone company ... although she has been there long enough that she gets the better jobs and uses a bucket truck when in the field instead of free climbing poles. The same as the guys with her seniority. I just don't see a lot of "single mothers" gravitating toward satellite installation.


----------



## scgms1 (Oct 3, 2005)

James Long said:


> As a customer I like "book rate" and do not go to mechanics that do not charge book rate for repairs.
> 
> If the mechanic can get it done faster then I am "overpaying" for the hours ... but as long as the work is done right I don't care. If the mechanic cannot get it done in the allotted "book" hours I don't get penalized twice for their slowness (once by not getting my car back and once by paying for extra hours).


There's a lot I could write on this subject, but this system was set up by the manufacturer to reimburse the franchise dealers for warranty repairs. The individual dealer principles then in turn reimbursed their employees based on this. There are a lot of problems with putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but the main thing is they have a vested interest in keeping warranty costs down. Sure they could build a better vehicle, but...

Each manufacturer 'says' they do time studies. The way time studies work is they take a new vehicle. The person doing the time study gets to read the service procedure on the job and then gets to do the job to get familiar with it. Now, the time study starts. Tools, (including special service tools) parts, and everything needed is right there. The clock starts when the person is working on the vehicle and stops when they grab another tool, go to the bathroom, take a break... Back on the vehicle the clock starts again and so on and so forth. Back when warranties were pretty limited they, the manufacturer, were not accounting for rust, clean up of parts, broken fasteners...So these were more of in the best case scenario time studies.

They also did not account for testing, or diagnosis to even see what needed to be done. Back when cars had an ignition system, lights, and a horn - there wasn't a lot to diagnosis. It could usually be done on the service drive. Not so today, just the networks alone are beyond most of the typical 'mechanics'. CAN, LAN - High & Low speed, LIN, UART, Expansion, Chassis, MOST, KW2000...General Motors answer to this is a .3 of an hour diagnostic charge that's included in the labor operations. Wow, 18 minutes, that's awfully generous of them. It takes 18 minutes to find the car, test drive, hook up equipment...

Then there's the aftermarket companies - Mitchell, Alldata, Motor, which are compilers of regurgitated factory 'time studies'. They essentially take the manufacturers warranty times and add a little to each operation. I've maintained that these are guides and nothing more than that. A well equipped shop that has specialized in your type of vehicle will usually be familiar with your car. They should have the training, tooling, equipment, and software for your vehicle. That would be the type of shop that I would frequent. I wouldn't get hung up on the 'book time' as that might not even be realistic. I'd also look for the quality of workmanship. If you can pop the hood and see this, or that has been done, that's usually not a professional job. I'm looking for every nut and bolt is put back where it came from.

Finally, at least in California, piece work/flat rate could be a thing of the past. It really seems like it's moving in that direction. There has been some recent legislation that won't allow employers to average wages to account for down times. In other words the way it used to work, I had to be paid twice minimum wage for the time I was there. Currently minimum wage is $10 an hour where I'm at. That would mean I had to make at least $160 for an 8 hour shift. A lot of dealers tried to get around 2X minimum wage by setting up a shop box. They'd go to Sears, or wherever, and buy a tool box with basic hand tools for $1,000, or?. Part of the conditions of employment would be to sign a disclaimer that essentially amounts to - Mr. ESO (evil shop owner) supplies all the tools necessary to do my job. If I elect to bring my own tools, it is at my discretion, but is not necessary. The ESO's that did that were taken to task on that and have lost almost every single case.

What's different about this legislation is it takes into account the downtimes that I'm not working, no work and for breaks. Under the old system I was guaranteed at least $160 for an 8 hour day. Let's say I only worked 4 hours and was paid $40 per flat rate hour (FRH) (which almost no one makes that much today. It was a 50-50 split when I started. For example the shop's labor rate was $100 an hour and I got $50 FRH. Now the percentages are sometimes as low as 10%-20% FRH.) To get back to the above - I still made $160, even though I was standing around and doing nothing for 4 hours. The new law means they have to pay me the $160 plus the 4 hours of doing nothing. Things will be changing.

New legislation - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1513

Sorry for the long winded post...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> I wonder how many single mothers are DIRECTV installers?
> 
> I have a sister in law that works with the phone company ... although she has been there long enough that she gets the better jobs and uses a bucket truck when in the field instead of free climbing poles. The same as the guys with her seniority. I just don't see a lot of "single mothers" gravitating toward satellite installation.


Well, the DirecTV location in Missoula, Montana we were talking about was a call center


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> I'll accept that as your confession, not an accusation against older workers.
> 
> I have found that as I get older the more I am expected to do. The young guys get some slack for being inexperienced ... the old guys don't get that slack. In my experience, when a young guy forgets something or needs bailing out the old guy does the bailing.
> 
> ...


In my experience, that is absolutely true. To add to it, new mechanics that we added were ostracized if they exceeded what the older guys were doing. But that was in a union environment, I have no idea what environment you're talking about.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> When I was a mechanic, seems a lifetime ago now, I used to love book time. Get paid 4 hours for something that took 1? Yes, please.


When I became a supervisor I quickly learned to pad the time estimates. Our guys just did not want to hustle to get things done. And I had to put the estimate on every work order. I even went so far as to tell them that if they got the jobs done quickly they could just hide for the rest of the estimated time. Didn't speed them up at all.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

carl6 said:


> I would disagree with the older you get the less you want to do. I'm retired now, but even in doing volunteer work I out work most people, regardless of age. I've always charged hard, just my type A nature I guess._* I set the pace, everyone else had to hussle to keep up.*_ No unions or tenure involved, just good honest work.


I did that too, for years. I got a lot of benefits out of working that way, but the union certainly didn't appreciate it.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> When I became a supervisor I quickly learned to pad the time estimates. Our guys just did not want to hustle to get things done. And I had to put the estimate on every work order. I even went so far as to tell them that if they got the jobs done quickly they could just hide for the rest of the estimated time. Didn't speed them up at all.
> 
> Rich


All I did was hustle. There were times I could get paid 20 hours for an 8 hour day. lol


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> All I did was hustle. There were times I could get paid 20 hours for an 8 hour day. lol


That doesn't happen in a union environment.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> That doesn't happen in a union environment.
> 
> Rich


Just one of the many reasons unions are bad.


----------



## scgms1 (Oct 3, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> All I did was hustle. There were times I could get paid 20 hours for an 8 hour day. lol


It sounds like you got out at the right time. That used to be true, but for the most part, the days of pattern failures and easy maintenance have gone away. Once a year tune ups have gone to 100k plug replacement. Brakes last forever, not quite, but...Pretty much most everything lasts longer and the warranties are much longer, so - It sounds like you got out at the right time.


----------



## scgms1 (Oct 3, 2005)

Rich said:


> That doesn't happen in a union environment.
> 
> Rich


I guess that reinforces my opinions on unions.  And I've worked a few union jobs. Funny thing is I'd be retired by now and collecting a pension, that is as long as California doesn't go broke. Nah, it'll never happen...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> Just one of the many reasons unions are bad.


And there are plenty of reasons that corporations are bad. Wonder what the common thread is? Oh yeah, people.

Unions aren't inherently bad any more than government or even companies. It's the craptastic people we choose to lead them. Unions have done quite a bit for society throughout history, just like corporations, governments, and individual people.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

scgms1 said:


> It sounds like you got out at the right time. That used to be true, but for the most part, the days of pattern failures and easy maintenance have gone away. Once a year tune ups have gone to 100k plug replacement. Brakes last forever, not quite, but...Pretty much most everything lasts longer and the warranties are much longer, so - It sounds like you got out at the right time.


Oh yeah, no doubt about that. I definitely got out at the right time.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> But that was in a union environment, I have no idea what environment you're talking about.


Non union. At will employment. People can be fired for any reason as long as the reason doesn't violate the law.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

JosephB said:


> And there are plenty of reasons that corporations are bad. Wonder what the common thread is? Oh yeah, people.
> 
> Unions aren't inherently bad any more than government or even companies. It's the craptastic people we choose to lead them. Unions have done quite a bit for society throughout history, just like corporations, governments, and individual people.


Unions are bad for both the employee and the consumer, period. Union is just a different term for Mafia.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> Well, the DirecTV location in Missoula, Montana we were talking about was a call center


There has also been discussion (including in the original article) about technicians doing piece work. This is about more than call centers.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Unions are bad for both the employee and the consumer, period. Union is just a different term for Mafia.


If the world was black or white, maybe so BUT it isn't.

I once worked for a company who in it's failing months/years proved WHY a union can be a good thing.

I'm not saying "always" nor would I say "never".

The world "just might be" bigger than your views/opinions.


----------



## scgms1 (Oct 3, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> If the world was black or white, maybe so BUT it isn't.
> 
> I once worked for a company who in it's failing months/years proved WHY a union can be a good thing.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's why I try not to use a very broad brush when painting. Invariably I'll get paint on myself when doing so.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> Unions are bad for both the employee and the consumer, period. Union is just a different term for Mafia.


Yeah, we were all better off when ten year olds were working in coal mines and companies didn't have to BS around with employee safety until the damn unions had to ruin it for all of us


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is not a union rule that keeps DIRECTV installers off of roofs or forces them to use a ladder safely. OSHA is not a union.

Both sites could nit pick lists of times where unions have helped and unions have failed. Unions are strongest when members are working together for the betterment of all. Unions fail when they protect bad workers and do not treat all of their members fairly.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

JosephB said:


> Yeah, we were all better off when ten year olds were working in coal mines and companies didn't have to BS around with employee safety until the damn unions had to ruin it for all of us


Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Just one of the many reasons unions are bad.


Yeah, can't disagree with that. I never got much out of the union dues I paid for so many years. And then having to deal with them from the "other side" is another story. Something I try not to think about.

Unions are good for making sure companies adhere to safety and health concerns and for collective bargaining. Aside from that, only miscreants seem to get a real benefit from them. And miscreants are usually only a small percentage of the work force.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JosephB said:


> And there are plenty of reasons that corporations are bad. Wonder what the common thread is? Oh yeah, people.
> 
> Unions aren't inherently bad any more than government or even companies. It's the craptastic people we choose to lead them. Unions have done quite a bit for society throughout history, just like corporations, governments, and individual people.


True, everything in your post is, I think. Yeah, it's always about the people. They screw up corporations just as they screw up unions. But, without people...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Non union. At will employment. People can be fired for any reason as long as the reason doesn't violate the law.


That's a completely different life experience than I had. Always worked in places that were unionized.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> There has also been discussion (including in the original article) about technicians doing piece work. This is about more than call centers.


I'm really surprised by the lack of comments about how the installers are gonna be affected by the IBEW. I cannot believe that they would permit piece-work. The call centers are easy to unionize, that I get, but the installers? I don't see that.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> I'm really surprised by the lack of comments about how the installers are gonna be affected by the IBEW. I cannot believe that they would permit piece-work. The call centers are easy to unionize, that I get, but the installers? I don't see that.


As long as the brotherhood gets their dues they will figure out how to accept the workers.

I am not sure how the union will help DIRECTV workers. Is there a list of campaign promises made by the union?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Rich said:


> I'm really surprised by the lack of comments about how the installers are gonna be affected by the IBEW. I cannot believe that they would permit piece-work. The call centers are easy to unionize, that I get, but the installers? I don't see that.
> 
> Rich


Should be interesting. But I noticed in the article that some workers complained that piece work had been eliminated by AT&T and was costing them wages. The IBEW didn't (at least in this article) state what they plan on doing with regards to piece work.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

James Long said:


> It is not a union rule that keeps DIRECTV installers off of roofs or forces them to use a ladder safely. OSHA is not a union.Both sites could nit pick lists of times where unions have helped and unions have failed. Unions are strongest when members are working together for the betterment of all. Unions fail when they protect bad workers and do not treat all of their members fairly.


I think you have to be pretty naive to believe that OSHA was created because someone in Washington was worried about working people. OSHA came from the same place pensions, employer based healthcare, the 40 hour week, just cause discharge, paid vacations and paid holidays came from. The Labor Movement.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

ATT has done away with all piece rate pay and changed everyone over to hourly. They are making a lot of changes and not for the good of anyone. (except maybe investors) I say maybe because they may be doing more bad than good overall. Here is a link to your new customer service people you will be calling into eventually.

At least 3 new centers opening in Eastern Europe to handle EG customer care: Brno (Czech Republic), Kosice and Bratislava (Slovakia). Jobs all start in May.
DTV offshore job posting:
http://connect.att.jobs/cz/brno/customer-service/jobid9965043-at&t-customer-care-agent-jobs
Uverse offshore job posting:
http://connect.att.jobs/sk/bratislava/customer-service/jobid9861114-at%EF%B9%A0t-customer-care-agent-jobs
Successful candidates will be expected to start between May - July 2016
A willingness to work U.S working hours - timeframe from 14:00 to 1:00 CET
Uverse & DTV offshore job posting:
http://connect.att.jobs/sk/kosice/customer-service/jobid9968329-at%EF%B9%A0t-customer-care-agent-jobs
We're launching a new customer care teams in Bratislava, Slovak Republic to support our innovative digital TV, internet and voice services called U-Verse and Direct TV. 
Successful candidates will be expected to start between May/July/August/September 2016


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> As long as the brotherhood gets their dues they will figure out how to accept the workers.
> 
> I am not sure how the union will help DIRECTV workers. Is there a list of campaign promises made by the union?


I missed the part where people are being forced to join the union anyway.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> I missed the part where people are being forced to join the union anyway.


It wasn't in my posts. If you're claiming I said "forced" then you are making a false claim. If you're not claiming I said "forced" then we are on the same page. IBEW encouraging union membership. Hoping to add to the number of dues paying members.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> Should be interesting. But I noticed in the article that some workers complained that piece work had been eliminated by AT&T and was costing them wages. The IBEW didn't (at least in this article) state what they plan on doing with regards to piece work.


Piece-work goes against every thing I know about unions. The thrust of most unions, if not all of them, is to get the highest wages for each member. How do you accomplish that with a piece-work model? It's easy to say the IBEW will find a way to let that model exist for some members but I just cannot imagine a union that size doing that. Those people doing piece-work are not being paid by the hour and being paid by the hour is the only way to equalize wages.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Billzebub said:


> I think you have to be pretty naive to believe that OSHA was created because someone in Washington was worried about working people. OSHA came from the same place pensions, employer based healthcare, the 40 hour week, just cause discharge, paid vacations and paid holidays came from. The Labor Movement.


Right, I think. And unions don't fail when they protect bad workers. That's one of their reasons to exist. And because of that, they really don't treat all their members equally, tho they might try.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

west99999 said:


> _*ATT has done away with all piece rate pay and changed everyone over to hourly.*_ They are making a lot of changes and not for the good of anyone. (except maybe investors) I say maybe because they may be doing more bad than good overall. Here is a link to your new customer service people you will be calling into eventually.


So, all the installers will now be getting hourly wages again? Was that change caused by the unionization by the IBEW or was it ATT that decided to make the change?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JosephB said:


> I missed the part where people are being forced to join the union anyway.


I've worked in places that had unions and you weren't "forced" to join the unions. But you had to work according to the contracts set down by collective bargaining by the unions. In other words, if you chose not to be in the union, nothing changed but the fact that you didn't have to pay dues. Those people that chose not to pay dues were still protected by the unions, still could use shop stewards, still fell under the contract in all things...but they were not liked by union members. I'm not sure there are any "closed shops" anymore where you absolutely have to belong to the union to work.

Rich


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Rich said:


> I've worked in places that had unions and you weren't "forced" to join the unions. But you had to work according to the contracts set down by collective bargaining by the unions. In other words, if you chose not to be in the union, nothing changed but the fact that you didn't have to pay dues. Those people that chose not to pay dues were still protected by the unions, still could use shop stewards, still fell under the contract in all things...but they were not liked by union members. I'm not sure there are any "closed shops" anymore where you absolutely have to belong to the union to work.
> 
> Rich


Have any of the DirecTV groups been certified as a bargaining unit? Have any of them had a contract negotiated and ratified? Nope. You can join the union and still not be under a contract, and you can be under a contract and not a member of the union. I highly doubt that any union rules or contracts have been applied to DirecTV yet.

At any rate, AT&T seems to actually have a pretty decent relationship with their unions and bargaining units. They're one of the few companies where the wireless side is significantly unionized, and I don't remember there ever being a strike at BellSouth in my lifetime, and I've never heard of one at SBC (though I don't live in an SBC area so it doesn't mean it hasn't happened)


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

JosephB said:


> Have any of the DirecTV groups been certified as a bargaining unit? Have any of them had a contract negotiated and ratified? Nope. You can join the union and still not be under a contract, and you can be under a contract and not a member of the union. I highly doubt that any union rules or contracts have been applied to DirecTV yet.


Actually multiple states have been certified as a bargaining unit. No contract talks yet but will start soon.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Rich said:


> So, all the installers will now be getting hourly wages again? Was that change caused by the unionization by the IBEW or was it ATT that decided to make the change?
> 
> Rich


Att did it and they cut it by a significant amount which is why everyone called the unions in. I could work 70 hours a week and still not make what I was making.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

west99999 said:


> Att did it and they cut it by a significant amount which is why everyone called the unions in. I could work 70 hours a week and still not make what I was making.


Huh. Can't help but wonder if ATT saw what was coming and acted on that. Just speculation, but it seems to kinda odd for them to do that. Was any reason given?

In an earlier post in this thread I said I had only worked in places that had "open" union shops. Upon reflection, it dawned on me that I did work in a glass bottle plant that had a "closed" union shop. That union was the GBBA (Glass Bottle Blowers of America) and it wasn't a pleasant place to work. The union board actually could terminate someone's employment simply by kicking them out of the union. The only choice the company then had was to terminate the person because he was no longer in the union or to promote him to a salaried position if they really wanted to retain him. I saw that happen to a couple of guys who aggravated the president of that local union board. The company declined to retain them and they were just...gone. Unions really shouldn't have that kind of power, I think.

Anyhow, I'm sorry you're not making what you made. In a perfect world, the company would have raised the salaries to the levels you were making doing piece-work. In a perfect world...

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The two union shops I worked in were closed. In one I paid the dues and still didn't get a living wage (and was paid more at similar non-union jobs).

The other was a shop where the union allowed temporary workers but after 60 days the temporaries had to be hired in and start paying dues. So the temps worked eight weeks and then the agency sent another temp for the next eight weeks. After sitting out a couple of weeks the old temps could work there again - and they had enough temps that there was usually someone hitting their 8th week when someone was eligible to return. Most of the work force were temps - year round.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> The two union shops I worked in were closed. In one I paid the dues and still didn't get a living wage (and was paid more at similar non-union jobs).
> 
> The other was a shop where the union allowed temporary workers but after 60 days the temporaries had to be hired in and start paying dues. So the temps worked eight weeks and then the agency sent another temp for the next eight weeks. After sitting out a couple of weeks the old temps could work there again - and they had enough temps that there was usually someone hitting their 8th week when someone was eligible to return. Most of the work force were temps - year round.


IIRC, and I'm going back quite a bit in years, the hourly people were required to join the union after 90 days or lose their jobs under the GBBA's rules (read "contract" here). The same thing applied to the union jobs in the other two places I worked but they were given a choice of joining the union or not joining and no termination of employment was involved. I can't help but wonder if "closed shops" exist anymore. That glass factory was the first place I worked after leaving the Navy and I was surprised that all union weren't "closed shops" after I left that place. Yet another learning experience.

In any event, I really think "closed shops" shouldn't exist. That's just way too much power for a union to have over its members. And I saw that power abused several times for no other reason than a disagreement with the local union's policies.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Let me ask this question without burying it in another post. Do "closed union shops" still exist?

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> In any event, I really think "closed shops" shouldn't exist. That's just way too much power for a union to have over its members. And I saw that power abused several times for no other reason than a disagreement with the local union's policies.


If the union refuses to have a person as a member I do not believe that person should lose their job, closed shop or not. If the person refuses to join and it is a closed shop that is a different problem. I do not believe that businesses should be closed shops.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

A "closed shop" is technically one where you have to be a union member before you can even be hired for a job. A "union shop" is where you don't have to be a union member to be hired, but you have to join the union within a certain period of time. Closed shops have been illegal since after WW II. Union shops are illegal in right to work states.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> A "closed shop" is technically one where you have to be a union member before you can even be hired for a job. A "union shop" is where you don't have to be a union member to be hired, but you have to join the union within a certain period of time. _*Closed shops have been illegal since after WW II.*_ Union shops are illegal in right to work states.


Nope, I worked in one in the middle sixties and might have worked in one (I can't really recall which it was) in the later sixties. Then I went to a chemical company and that was an "open union shop" in which you could opt to be in the union or not to be a member. It wasn't pleasant not to be a dues paying member, but we did have a few guys that never joined the union, never paid dues but were treated the same way under the union contract.

Rich


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Rich said:


> Huh. Can't help but wonder if ATT saw what was coming and acted on that. Just speculation, but it seems to kinda odd for them to do that. Was any reason given?
> 
> In an earlier post in this thread I said I had only worked in places that had "open" union shops. Upon reflection, it dawned on me that I did work in a glass bottle plant that had a "closed" union shop. That union was the GBBA (Glass Bottle Blowers of America) and it wasn't a pleasant place to work. The union board actually could terminate someone's employment simply by kicking them out of the union. The only choice the company then had was to terminate the person because he was no longer in the union or to promote him to a salaried position if they really wanted to retain him. I saw that happen to a couple of guys who aggravated the president of that local union board. The company declined to retain them and they were just...gone. Unions really shouldn't have that kind of power, I think.
> 
> ...


Rich

Somebody should have told you this back then, but the law hasn't allowed closed shops since Taft Hartley became law. Even in places with union shop language ( and there is a difference between closed shop and union shop) you can't be fired for not being in the union if the union won't let you in, only if you refuse to join. Since the Supreme Court Beck decision Union shops have pretty much disappeared to. What is left is sort of a semi union shop that allows for objectors to pay a service fee.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Rich said:


> Nope, I worked in one in the middle sixties and might have worked in one (I can't really recall which it was) in the later sixties. Then I went to a chemical company and that was an "open union shop" in which you could opt to be in the union or not to be a member. It wasn't pleasant not to be a dues paying member, but we did have a few guys that never joined the union, never paid dues but were treated the same way under the union contract.
> 
> Rich


As I said in an earlier post, a closed shop makes you already be a union member before you can be hired. These are no longer legal. A unio shop requires an employee to join a union after being hired. As slice1900 said these are not permitted I right to work states. Also, after the Beck decision employees have the right to pay a reduced agency fee. They are not union members but are bargaining unit members. They are entitled to the terms of the CBA but don't get to vote on it since they are not union members. An open shop, most common in right to work states, makes union membership voluntary.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Billzebub said:


> As I said in an earlier post, a closed shop makes you already be a union member before you can be hired. These are no longer legal. A unio shop requires an employee to join a union after being hired. As slice1900 said these are not permitted I right to work states. Also, after the Beck decision _*employees have the right to pay a reduced agency fee*_. They are not union members but are bargaining unit members. They are entitled to the terms of the CBA but don't get to vote on it since they are not union members. An open shop, most common in right to work states, makes union membership voluntary.


The chemical company's union where I worked didn't extract any dues from the pay of those that didn't choose to join the union. First it was a totally autonomous union, just the people that worked at that site, then they joined OCAW (Chemical and Atomic Workers) for some reason I never really understood. Why no dues were paid by those workers, even reduced fees, seemed to be the norm. But I have only that one experience to relate.

As to the closed shop thing, I found _*this*_ on Wikipedia. I read a lot of it and don't see anything about outlawing closed shops. There is a provision in the Taft-Hartley Act does seem to touch on the closed shop issue, but if it's true that closed shops were outlawed I couldn't find anything in that link that said that specifically. Pretty confusing, if I hadn't lived thru it I might not believe it, but I did and I saw a few members get kicked out of the union and their employment was terminated. Whether this was legal or not, I have no idea, but it did happen.

After a little more research (and I'm done now), it does appear that the closed shops were outlawed in 1947, but there seems to be more to it regarding the time period the workers had to join the union or be terminated. Maybe the guys I'm referring to fell into that time period. I really wasn't into the union all that much way back then and so much time has passed that I really have no idea if that local and the company were doing something illegal and never got caught. The whole thing really puzzles me now.

Rich


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Rich said:


> As to the closed shop thing, I found _*this*_ on Wikipedia. I read a lot of it and don't see anything about outlawing closed shops. There is a provision in the Taft-Hartley Act does seem to touch on the closed shop issue, but if it's true that closed shops were outlawed I couldn't find anything in that link that said that specifically. Pretty confusing, if I hadn't lived thru it I might not believe it, but I did and I saw a few members get kicked out of the union and their employment was terminated. Whether this was legal or not, I have no idea, but it did happen.
> 
> Rich


Third paragraph of the Background section on the link you posted:



> In 1947, however, Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley Act, which amended the NLRA. Title I, Section 101 of the Taft-Hartley Act added a new Section 14 to the NLRA, part (b) of *which banned the closed shop*:[13]


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> Third paragraph of the Background section on the link you posted:


Yeah, I read it. Maybe my memories are incorrect. Might be losing my mind.

Rich


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

I've also noticed my short-term memory isn't what it used to be..... Getting old isn't fun, but I guess it beats the alternative.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> I've also noticed my short-term memory isn't what it used to be..... Getting old isn't fun, but I guess it beats the alternative.


I gave this some more thought last night. When I worked for that glass company I had just gotten out of the Navy, this was at the end of 1964. I had no interest at all in unions just knew I needed to join up when I was hired. The plant was new, not even making glass yet. Spent about 6 months working in a warehouse doing whatever I was told to do. Finally, they got started and I went to a production line. I was making $1.41 an hour and the job of packing and inspecting bottles was horrible. I quickly worked my way up to a crew chief and life got a little easier. OK, all that's pretty clear to me. About that time the local union elections were finally held and we got a contract. I have no recollection of the contract, not sure I ever saw one.

So, brand new plant, brand new contract, brand new local union board. We're into 1965 and I'm the highest paid production worker along with 7 other crew chiefs on the 4 shifts. Messages go up on the boards about union meetings. I don't remember having any interest in attending at first, then something happened and the other crew chief on my shift and I decide to go to the next one. They're being held in a local beer hall, and being quite the beer drinker, that sounded interesting. So, Horace and I go to the next meeting. We're met in the parking lot by a board member who tells us that we should go home because a few of the crew chiefs who were ratting out the guys who worked under them were gonna "have some problems" and he said we didn't need to get caught up in something we were no part of. So, we left. The next day, at shift change, the oncoming crew leaders came in to relieve Horace and me and they looked like they'd been beaten pretty badly.

After that, there were a couple of "blanket parties" in the parking lots after shift changes. More rats pummeled. I began to wonder what I had gotten myself into. That's when I started to pay attention to what was going on with the local union (I have no idea if the GBBA had any knowledge of these beatings).

Here's my question: I never really got involved with unions to any great extent until I got promoted while working for the chemical company years later. I was advised that reading the union contract and understanding it would make being a supervisor a lot easier. I took that advice and for the first time read a union contract from beginning to end and understood what it meant. Now comes my question: How did I know about "closed shops"? How did I know that you would be terminated by company if you were expelled by the union? I don't see how I could know these things unless I lived thru them. Yeah, I read thru the link I posted last night and did a lot more research on the subject of closed shops after that.

Has my memory played tricks with my mind? Does what I just wrote sound like a memory glitch? I have absolutely no way to prove what happened so many years ago in that glass plant, but does it sound like my memory is screwed up?

Those of you who read this post can make up your own minds about what I've written. What I truly remember is a closed shop and some pretty nasty things happening to union members who stepped over certain lines. I don't know what else to say.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Well union guys beating up other union guys for "stepping over certain lines" certainly isn't legal either so they might not have cared that closed shops were illegal. All they'd need is a clause in the contract that stated that if the union leadership asked for a union guy to be fired that management would do so, and they could have run it as a defacto closed shop, law be damned.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Well union guys beating up other union guys for "stepping over certain lines" certainly isn't legal either so they might not have cared that closed shops were illegal. All they'd need is a clause in the contract that stated that if the union leadership asked for a union guy to be fired that management would do so, and they could have run it as a defacto closed shop, law be damned.


The loophole was "kick a guy out of the union and he must be fired" so it would be an issue of whether a union could ask for a non-union guy to be fired. The reality is that if a union is strong enough to get an employer to agree to a "union shop" then if they want someone gone they will be gone. Employees protected by the union will refuse to work with the targeted person or otherwise sabotage them - without any assault and battery or other laws broken.

Even in a "right to work" state employees can find themselves out of a job (union job or not) if other employees do not want them there. Complaints come in and "at will" employment is terminated. And a non-union employee doesn't have the union to back them up. They have to fight their own battles. So unless the termination puts them on the radar for the ACLU or other deep pocket protectors of employees, the fight is short.

And the terminated employee goes through life hoping that "would not rehire" is not the reference they receive when the next potential employer calls for work references. Welcome to real life.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

OK, I usually can be accused of not knowing what I'm talking about but not on this subject. Let me state my bone-fides before I start. For 15 years I was the principal officer of a lack union affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In that position I processed unfair labor practice charges, initiated and processed grievances, ran the local and negotiated labor agreements with 30 different employers, both private and public sector. Prior to that I worked for Pepsi Cola for 16 years where I started as a union member and worked my way up to chief steward before taking the local over. For the last 18 years, since I left the union, I have been a labor mediator (actually, I'm Director of Mediation) for a large Northeast state. While serving as a local union officer I also served as an officer for the joint council, which covered the western half of the state and the state conference which covered the whole state. In short, I do this for a living. that being said, let me reply to a few of the recent quotes. 
Rich, if you are talking about the early 60s what your saying doesn't surprise me. Law or no law, the early 60s was a boom time and no body wanted labor problems. I can only tell you that closed shops were illegal since Taft-Hartley was passed and union shops didn't allow for workers to be fired for being kicked out of the union. They could be fired if they refused to join the union. Basically, that had to have the same opportunity to be members as everyone else in order to be fired for not joining the union. Otherwise, what you would have had was a delayed union shop which, as I mentioned, was not allowed. Court decisions since 1970 have really rendered the union shop meaningless. As far as blanket parties, they typically were handle data plant level and specifically didn't include union officers in order to maintain deniability.

Slice1990, a clause in the contract that is illegal is not valid and can't be enforced. That is why CBAs have seperability and savings clauses which provide for the rest of the contract staying in place if part of it is illegal and can't be enforced.

James Long, whether a state is a right to work state or not is not the issue in discharges. What is the issue is whether the employer is organized and does the CBA have a just cause clause in it. Without a contract employees in most states are at will. That means, barring illegal reasons like discrimination for race, creed and national origin, employees can be fired just because the employer wants to or because he isn't liked or because the bosses nephew needs a job or whatever. If that happens neither the ACLU or Barrack Obama or Ted Cruz or Donald Trump ( let's get real, Donald is more likely to be firing him than trying to get his job back) can help him. This isn't as true for public sector employees. Supreme Court decisions have at least given them the right to a hearing and some property rights to their jobs. If they do have a contract, whether they are in a right to work state or not, they have protection. And f they are a member of a bargaining unit the union had to defend them whether they are a member of the union or not.

The truth is, people have a lot more legal rights against the union than the employer and they don't need the ACLU. There are plenty of anti-union organizations ready and willing to help them against the unions.

As I step down off of my soapbox I would like to say I usually stay out of political and labor/management discussions on the Internet because normally no good comes from them but I couldn't resist here, probably because this has been for the most part a polite and interesting discussion.

In closing, go Pirates.


----------



## tn_tech (Apr 24, 2016)

I survived the transition. I was a piece rate tech. My hourly rate is more than my 6 month average as a piece rate. We have monthly bonus incentives. AT&T has treated us well. No techs in knoxville have quit. That should tell you something.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Well union guys beating up other union guys for "stepping over certain lines" certainly isn't legal either so they might not have cared that closed shops were illegal. All they'd need is a clause in the contract that stated that if the union leadership asked for a union guy to be fired that management would do so, and they could have run it as a defacto closed shop, law be damned.


I dunno. I wish I had kept a copy of that contract. This is the most I've ever talked about unions in my life and I'm pretty confused right now. The beatings were pretty appalling, I had seen similar things happen in the Navy (blanket parties and scrub brush parties for guys who just wouldn't shower were...not common, but they did happen) and the beatings didn't really shock me at the time. Back in the '60s South Jersey along the shore was pretty wild and as long as I was left alone I didn't much care what happened. I had learned my lessons about ratting guys out in the Navy and those lessons stick with me to this day.

The firings: I'm kinda fuzzy about that memory-wise. I don't remember much about them and don't remember it affecting anybody I knew. I just remember hearing about them and listening to the explanations. The chemical factory union certainly wasn't like the glass company's union.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> The loophole was "kick a guy out of the union and he must be fired" so it would be an issue of whether a union could ask for a non-union guy to be fired. The reality is that if a union is strong enough to get an employer to agree to a "union shop" then if they want someone gone they will be gone. Employees protected by the union will refuse to work with the targeted person or otherwise sabotage them - without any assault and battery or other laws broken.
> 
> Even in a "right to work" state employees can find themselves out of a job (union job or not) if other employees do not want them there. Complaints come in and "at will" employment is terminated. And a non-union employee doesn't have the union to back them up. They have to fight their own battles. So unless the termination puts them on the radar for the ACLU or other deep pocket protectors of employees, the fight is short.
> 
> And the terminated employee goes through life hoping that "would not rehire" is not the reference they receive when the next potential employer calls for work references. Welcome to real life.


NJ is not a "Right to Work" state. I just found _*this*_ and if you read it carefully you will see that it says:

"Also, New Jersey courts have upheld union agreements that require union membership."

Wouldn't that statement mean that closed shops still exist in NJ? I read the whole article in that link and it certainly seems like it to me, which contradicts the Wikipedia link I posted the other day. Now I'm really confused, but learning. If you read the second paragraph of that link, that's a description of how the chemical company's union worked. You didn't have to be a member, didn't have to pay dues but still worked under the contacts rules and we had to defend (I was a shop steward for a couple years) them as if they were dues paying members.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Billzebub said:


> OK, I usually can be accused of not knowing what I'm talking about but not on this subject. Let me state my bone-fides before I start. For 15 years I was the principal officer of a lack union affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In that position I processed unfair labor practice charges, initiated and processed grievances, ran the local and negotiated labor agreements with 30 different employers, both private and public sector. Prior to that I worked for Pepsi Cola for 16 years where I started as a union member and worked my way up to chief steward before taking the local over. For the last 18 years, since I left the union, I have been a labor mediator (actually, I'm Director of Mediation) for a large Northeast state. While serving as a local union officer I also served as an officer for the joint council, which covered the western half of the state and the state conference which covered the whole state. In short, I do this for a living. that being said, let me reply to a few of the recent quotes.
> Rich, if you are talking about the early 60s what your saying doesn't surprise me. Law or no law, the early 60s was a boom time and no body wanted labor problems. I can only tell you that closed shops were illegal since Taft-Hartley was passed and union shops didn't allow for workers to be fired for being kicked out of the union. They could be fired if they refused to join the union. Basically, that had to have the same opportunity to be members as everyone else in order to be fired for not joining the union. Otherwise, what you would have had was a delayed union shop which, as I mentioned, was not allowed. Court decisions since 1970 have really rendered the union shop meaningless. As far as blanket parties, they typically were handle data plant level and specifically didn't include union officers in order to maintain deniability.
> 
> Slice1990, a clause in the contract that is illegal is not valid and can't be enforced. That is why CBAs have seperability and savings clauses which provide for the rest of the contract staying in place if part of it is illegal and can't be enforced.
> ...


Seems like State's Rights mean something in this issue? Good post, BTW.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tn_tech said:


> I survived the transition. I was a piece rate tech. My hourly rate is more than my 6 month average as a piece rate. We have monthly bonus incentives. AT&T has treated us well. No techs in knoxville have quit. That should tell you something.


That's interesting. First post about someone's actual experience over a good period of time. Let me ask you this: I gather you work for a contactor who has a contract with D*? If that's true, does that contractor outsource work to other subcontractors and if they do, are those subcontractors still doing piece work? I've only had one D* guy at my home in the last year or two and he was here about 3 weeks ago and was a subcontractor working for Multi-Band when they needed extra guys. He really liked the piece work model and said he didn't want to go on a salary. He was a young guy and told me that he had already done 8 jobs (this was in the early afternoon) and was hustling to get more jobs done that day. He wanted no part of going to an hourly rate.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> NJ is not a "Right to Work" state.


That isn't what I said. What I said was that EVEN in a right to work state (or union job or not) office politics can get people fired. If your coworkers want you gone they can get you gone.



Rich said:


> ... which contradicts the Wikipedia link I posted the other day.


Wow. In my experience Wikipedia is always correct. :rolling:


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Rich said:


> NJ is not a "Right to Work" state. I just found _*this*_ and if you read it carefully you will see that it says:
> 
> "Also, New Jersey courts have upheld union agreements that require union membership."[/size]
> 
> ...


While NJ courts may have upheld those agreements I'm afraid they are trumped by the US Supreme Court Beck decision
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> That isn't what I said. What I said was that EVEN in a right to work state (or union job or not) office politics can get people fired. If your coworkers want you gone they can get you gone.
> 
> _*Wow. In my experience Wikipedia is always correct.*_ :rolling:


Yeah, just when I began to trust it...but, you have to admit Wackypedia has come a long way in a relatively short time (my spellchecker actually accepted Wackypedia, did not expect that).

Rich


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Billzebub said:


> While NJ courts may have upheld those agreements I'm afraid they are trumped by the US Supreme Court Beck decisionhttp://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm


By the way, I apologize for linking to the national right to work group. I'm sure I'll burn in hell but they do explain this situation. Probobly because it makes them so happy.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

/


Billzebub said:


> While NJ courts may have upheld those agreements I'm afraid they are trumped by the US Supreme Court Beck decision
> http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm


I get that, but what happened back in the '60s with that union I belonged to? How did they get away with what they were doing? Was it ignorance on both the union's and company's part or am I missing something?

Reading further in that link, I have to wonder why the union in the chemical company I worked in didn't exact any dues from the guys that opted not to join the union. That link seems to say that the union had the right to make them pay something.

Rich


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

tn_tech said:


> I survived the transition. I was a piece rate tech. My hourly rate is more than my 6 month average as a piece rate. We have monthly bonus incentives. AT&T has treated us well. No techs in knoxville have quit. That should tell you something.


Knoxville was one of the 1st sites to go union so you must be in the minority. Directv had quarterly bonuses that payed way more than the bonus ATT gave.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Reading further in that link, I have to wonder why the union in the chemical company I worked in didn't exact any dues from the guys that opted not to join the union. That link seems to say that the union had the right to make them pay something.


Perhaps an oversight ... any answer now would just be a guess.


----------



## samrs (May 30, 2004)

Rich said:


> That's interesting. First post about someone's actual experience over a good period of time. Let me ask you this: I gather you work for a contactor who has a contract with D*? If that's true, does that contractor outsource work to other subcontractors and if they do, are those subcontractors still doing piece work?
> 
> Rich


DirecTv had O&O Techs. When AT&T bought out DirecTv the O&O Techs became AT&T employees. They changed those techs to hourly, and introduced the Union. Some of the ones I know quit, some are on the fence and some are happy. I'm still piece rate and Union free. Mastec.


----------



## scgms1 (Oct 3, 2005)

Rich said:


> We're met in the parking lot by a board member who tells us that we should go home because a few of the crew chiefs who were ratting out the guys who worked under them were gonna "have some problems" and he said we didn't need to get caught up in something we were no part of. So, we left. The next day, at shift change, the oncoming crew leaders came in to relieve Horace and me and they looked like they'd been beaten pretty badly.
> 
> After that, there were a couple of "blanket parties" in the parking lots after shift changes. More rats pummeled. I began to wonder what I had gotten myself into. That's when I started to pay attention to what was going on with the local union (I have no idea if the GBBA had any knowledge of these beatings).


So we come up unions to save us from the Evil Owners (EO) and Evil Corporations (EC)? Where are we going to look to save us from ourselves? 

The problem isn't the unions, the EO's, the EC's, the democrats, the republicans...We have a 'people' problem and the sooner we wake up to that fact, the sooner we're going to see who the real enemy is. Like a good magician, we've fallen for the art of deception, and instead of getting down to the real issues we're left arguing about nits over nats.


----------



## scgms1 (Oct 3, 2005)

James Long said:


> Wow. In my experience Wikipedia is always correct. :rolling:


James, of course not, but it's much better than anything else that is out there. Everyone gets a shot at adding to the subject at hand. You're probably aware of this, but you can edit the information that is wrong. I've seen things that are just flat out incorrect and changed the listing. Sure we used to have encyclopedias and the content was up to a group that that went to 'experts' for their information. Unfortunately that wasn't always accurate and was subject to what we knew at that time. You had to wait another whole year to get mistakes changed. That also meant you had to update your library yearly as there was always changes and additions. At first I wasn't a big fan of Wikipedia, but I've grown to think it's the best we have. It's not perfect, but... It's certainly better than most of the information that is on the net.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

scgms1 said:


> You're probably aware of this, but you can edit the information that is wrong.


My biggest problem with Wikipedia is people editing information that is correct and making it wrong.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

I don't think that many people who have contributed to this thread have any idea of what the residential satellite TV system installation business is like.

Satellite TV installation differs fundamentally from other utility installations in that: 1) the work entailed to complete each installation varies more wildly and unforeseeable than any other utility installations, 2) the satellite TV industry attempts to recoup or cover that cost with longer service commitments than do other utilities, and, 3) both DISH and DirecTV incorporate the business practice of pissing on subcontractors to complete and service installations. Both companies, to date, have believed they are better served by sending out idiots to blindly attempt to complete any and all installations that their telephone sales employees can sell, coercing them into attempting and completing installations including those that cannot reasonably be completed profitably or in a manner that will be technically reliable, and then coercing them to return to "repair" defective installations at their own expense, and if they do not, then they risk being given fewer and less desirable future assignments or none at all.

That model works, which is part of why the two DBS providers have made billions of dollars over the years, but why I don't work for them. I have read that when some of the DBS contractors send out any technician for a paid service call, he then "owns" the job for the next 30 days, so if he goes out and determines that a system was failing because it had a bad receiver or remote and replaces it, and if, two weeks later, a coax that runs under an outdoor porch with an impermissible, unsealed barrel splice fails, then the cost of remedying that wiring problem is incumbent upon the guy who swapped out the receiver or remote, and he can either go find and repair the wiring problem himself at no charge, or the DBS provider will backcharge him for the entire amount he was paid for the service call he made because he was not allowed to leave that job site with a non-conforming splice in it.

Last year, VOS and I participated in a thread in which a residential installation had a dish estimated to be 500 feet from the house, and that system to be serviced repeatedly due to its failure to perform reliably. As best as I could determine, when the initial installation was made, it was a legacy system, where four trunklines carried amplified L-band signals at frequencies up to 1,450 MHz, and the anemic signal levels that reached his house were just strong enough to provide reliable multiswitch distribution.

But then, he got "upgraded" to a Ka, wideband system, where the trunklines carried signals at 2,150 MHz, with greater loss, and that is when his nightmare began. While we can't tell from the resident's incomplete chronicling of which installation company did what and when, this became an obvious case of installers being the "fall guys".

It probably started when the customer wanted access to the new high definition programming that came on Ka frequencies. Given his physical situation, it would have been reasonable for "DirecTV" to say "bye bye", because their authorized residential technology was inadequate to support his situation, but there is no such person as "DirecTV". There are employees who benefit from keeping him as a customer, so someone representing DirecTV authorized an installation that likely entailed this customer paying an up front lease fee of a few hundred dollars and refreshing his two year commitment, while furnishing him with hundreds of dollars worth of HD DVRs, the capital cost of which gets amortized over the duration of the lease.

Unfortunately, the wiring infrastructure could not be made to reliably deliver the Ka band signals using distribution technology that DirecTV authorizes its residential installers to use, so the customer had a system that was doomed to failure, yet the DirecTV sales and installation and repair employees had to "stand behind" that installation, much to the consternation of all. The resident thought that he was "lucky" that he kept getting back the same technician who had "fixed" his problems previously, but he did not realize that he was getting the same technician back because, as far as DirecTV was concerned, the technician hadn't fixed it right during each previous visit so he was working for free, yet destined to fail again and again. 

If DirecTV is going to have just hourly employees and pay them for everything they do, then they are going to have to decline certain jobs that they now accept. That includes declining to write them in the first place, and canceling others upon on-site determination of their unsuitability for DBS satellite service using conventional residential installation materials and practices. Whether DirecTV then will want to establish a procedure for having a grade of technician perform premium installations, I will tell you as a person who has done just that for over a decade that it is a losing proposition, as many customers will perceive the premium installation to be bait-and-switch. I've dropped over half a dozen multiple dwelling unit customer accounts where I had the "exclusive" permission to do such wiring, in part because I got sick and tired of customers telling me I was screwing them when I would not do all the same things for free that DirecTV did for them for free at their previous residences.

There has also been the misapprehension expressed in this thread and elsewhere that the "better" installer can thrive where the lesser one fails, but that is simply not true. It takes longer for the better technician to do the better installation. It takes longer for me to determine that a wall is internally clear before drilling it and to precisely ascertain where my drill bit will pop through on the other side than to do it recklessly. It often takes longer for me to run a continuous wire than to splice one together, and it takes longer and costs me more to ground in full compliance with the National Electrical Code. A union will probably be well suited to negotiate standard workloads for technicians, but they should expect stiffer resistance from DirecTV than the unionization of office workers did because DirecTV stands to gain more by abusing installers than by abusing office workers.


----------



## bamasat22 (Apr 26, 2016)

I re joined this forum after reading this thread.
( most every word) .
I worked in this trade for over 20+ years and had a sizable tech force in 3 States.
I also am well informed in " the Union verse" to say the least.
I also as a fact am now at this time quite familiar with the company that bought DirecTV.

There is a lot of misconstrued and simply wrong information being printed here.

I will by start by saying this :
Are any of you ( besides 2 I see print )
Aware that the whole design structure of the dbs installation services ( unless now in house with payment with an att check ) ,
with the sub contracting / piece work mentality is in most cases by its
very nature and by design is completely illegal according the NLRB?
Do you guys know how bad and for how many years DirecTV, and their chosen few WITHOUT BID subcontracting giants have fought unions?
The entailments,? The Union busting 
technics directed at single family homes with exercised threats?
Didn't think so.
Well it's there and it's ugly.
( I'm refraining here )


Also, do any of you guys not think the referred to and as " the company" knows this? Or what has been brought to their attention? 
Ie: They ( the company ) can not continue operations like this and escape scrutiny. ( fact)


So all of what you guys see as a evil empire and taking money from your table is not necessarily true per say as many of you imply in every situation.
There IS a huge mess here and has been for years.
I will say this in quite the confidence however..
Some may not like the way it's being cleaned up. 
But it IS. 

Also as a hint:
Any techs reading this who work for a particular large sub contractor on the east coast, ( as i read ) my advice to you is to seek the CWA and Att as your direct employer in the very near future .




----------

Support the CWA
Against Verizon.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

west99999 said:


> Knoxville was one of the 1st sites to go union so you must be in the minority. Directv had quarterly bonuses that payed way more than the bonus ATT gave.


Do you work directly for D* or for a contractor? I'm confused. I don't see contractors putting out quarterly bonuses.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Perhaps an oversight ... any answer now would just be a guess.


Yeah, I know the last union president of the local at that site, but I doubt he would know what I'm talking about. I left that place 22 years ago and finding someone who could answer that question would simply be beyond my abilities.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

samrs said:


> DirecTv had O&O Techs. When AT&T bought out DirecTv the O&O Techs became AT&T employees. They changed those techs to hourly, and introduced the Union. Some of the ones I know quit, some are on the fence and some are happy. I'm still piece rate and Union free. Mastec.


Gotta ask: O&O? I have no idea what that means. Never seen that before. Any doubts about an acronym not being understood should always be followed by a brief explanation, I think.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Owned and operated.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

scgms1 said:


> So we come up unions to save us from the Evil Owners (EO) and Evil Corporations (EC)? Where are we going to look to save us from ourselves?
> 
> The problem isn't the unions, the EO's, the EC's, the democrats, the republicans...We have a 'people' problem and the sooner we wake up to that fact, the sooner we're going to see who the real enemy is. Like a good magician, we've fallen for the art of deception, and instead of getting down to the real issues we're left arguing about nits over nats.


Most of the problems we have in today's world are caused by people. Same thing historically, I think. The things that went on in that union were deplorable, but as I said, I saw the same things happen in the Navy.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Owned and operated.


Thanx. I had no idea at all...wait...owned and operated by D*? Is that right?

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Thanx. I had no idea at all...wait...owned and operated by D*? Is that right?
> 
> Rich


 yes. But now is O&O by ATT


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

So, what happens to the contractors D* uses, like Multi-Band in NJ?

Rich


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Rich said:


> Thanx. I had no idea at all...wait...owned and operated by D*? Is that right?
> 
> Rich


I would have thought that anyone who had been here during the rise of HD would have known this one. As HD was becoming available, the phrase was being used constantly to describe why some people were able to get national HD programming and others couldn't, due to the fact that the networks allowed temporary waivers to people living in O&O markets (where ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox owned the local station) that either weren't airing HD or did not yet have an HD deal, with DirecTV.


----------



## Leroyjackson (Sep 30, 2016)

veryoldschool said:


> For years I tried to change/improve the training and it fell on deaf ears.


 its actually 8 weeks for a a new hire. Then 2 months later service training


----------

