CABL Forum - Re: Union?

You have some valid points and are in a sense correct on some other points as well.
As for the meaning of "fairly", I am specifically referring to the fairness of telling a new hire that he will make between $800-$1000 a week (piece rate) and then one year later telling him if he wants to keep his job he will no longer get piece rates and will be paid hourly a max of $480 and an addition $0.44 per mileto cover the cost of his "like new" vehicle, fuel and commercial vehicle insurance.
When Bruister brought in the company owned vehicles (COV's) last year very few of the POV piece rate techs took them up on their offer of a company truck and hourly pay (most didn't want to take the nearly 50% difference in pay then and they still don't today). The company filled most of the COV's with new hires who came in at $10 per hour with the promise of a raise after six months.
Now Bruister is trying to justify the conversion of all employees to hourly rates saying it is not fair to pay some techs piece rate and others hourly. My question is why is it unfair now but was somehow fair when it was instituted last year? Lets say for argument's sake that two different pay rates are not fair, but why is the hourly rate with a mileage payment more fair than paying everyone piece rate and charging a vehicle usage fee to those in the COV's? Other companies do it this way, why not Bruister?
.
When Bruister brought in the COV's last year we were told that there would always be POV tech and that they would be paid piece rate.
The sole reason the techs were trying to unionize our office (I cannot speak for other offices within Bruister) were to keep what we had, not to ask for anything additional. I have said it before and will say again, a well treated employee has no need to seek union representation.

INSTALLATION

CONSTRUCTION / TECH

OFFICE / OTHER

Re: Union?