What is the deal with the dock workers earning 100K+?

Me

[solmar_israel]

On all these newscasts dealing with the strike at the ports, I keep hearing that these dock workers make between $80,000-$160,000.

Does anyone else find that a little strange? Why exactly are they striking?

No one seems to be asking how exactly these guys are getting paid like this... I know surgeons that don't make this kind of money.

Can anyone fill me in?

[pepsionice]

I see one big problem with the union and all these automation jobs. Computer geeks and engineers are typically anti-union. This is the most likely group to want to split from the main union itself. My guess is that the geeks will be begin to question union fees and really cause them heartache.

[AppyPappy]

Yeah, they don't have the b*lls to walk out and tell their boss to kiss the butts.

That's because the company has the freedom to hire someone else without the risk of getting someone's head busted open by a union thug.

[nanny]

"So figure their income is $80k annually after taxes, benefits, etc"

No one said their salaries were 'after taxes'. Does anyone make 100,000 a year and only pay 20,000 in taxes and benefits? Boy, I want to know their accountant.

The last I heard, the average American works until June for the government. This doesn't leave 80,000 a year from a 100,000 salary, not by my 'arithmetic'. That is not a lot of money, if you are paying your own way in the world

I repeat, a 'salary' of 80,000 to 100,000 a year does not allow one to live 'high on the hog', even in Taxes (sorry Texas).

I don't know about big houses, nice car, BMW's and such but, $1500 a month for insurance, taxes, utilities, gas, food, clothing, just living, is unrealistic. Judging by what my small fixer-upper, not fixed-up, costs me in taxes, insurance, and minimum utilities, those figures just don't work.

But why shouldn't a person doing manual labor make a good wage. I just don't see why it bothers everyone so much that someone who works with his hands is making a living. Seriously- why?

[BikerNYC]

Unions today live by this creed: "Less work for more pay."

I'm afraid to ask what it should be: "More work for less pay?"

I don't see anything unusual for workers of whatever stripe bargaining as best they can for more pay and more time to be with their families (or whatever). While management would like to squeeze the life-blood out of workers, workers fight in the opposite direction; which is all a part of the struggle between management and labor.

[Revolting cat!]

I hope our union dues paying Mayor would approve of this fact filled fun article from this morning's Wall Street Journal, titled "On the Waterfront".

[RooRoobird14]

I'm sorry, but I've worked in two companies which had workers in the AFL-CIO and IBEW. I watched LOTS of union members harass good and decent managers with frivolous grievances, orchestrate coordinated "illnesses" to ensure maximum overtime pay, and claim "short term disability" ala feigned illnesses whenever they wanted to take an extended vacation.

Unions not live by less work for more pay, they also strive to ensure there are no top performers in the workplace--their ideal is the maximum number of workers performing at mediocre to barely acceptable standards.

[BikerNYC]

You're right, of course. There are abuses in every system. I'm sure there are plenty of managers that are completely inept as well, and undeserving of any stock options they might receive as a reward for a company's good performance.

I subscribe to the theory that a worker will attempt to exert some level of control in his job, to whatever extent he can, in order to give himself some measure of self worth. In some jobs, the only level of corntol a worker has is to call in sick. Other workers are able to control others, and they make lives a living hell in order to exert control. In general, if a worker has little control over his job and little responsibility in determining his job functions, he will exert control in other ways, perhaps in some of the ways you mentioned.

[airedale]

Are the jobs related to Homeland Defense in anyway? Of course. The ports are vital to our economic well being. Second most of the military supplies still need to be delivered by ship and even more so in time of war.

Whether the new jobs are union or non-union doesn't affect homeland security one way or the other as long as they work.

[airedale]

Traditionally I'd agree that computer geeks and engineers have been anti-union but they are aging and are going to see their jobs taken away by younger kids. At 55 the average paper pusher in an office through middle management is almost unemployable if they loose their job. The cost more in salary, they won't put up with the BS a younger person will, their benefits cost more. They are much more likely to require expensive health care and they are closer to retirement and much more likely to collect it with little time for the company to put in enough money to pay for it. Shortly the computer geeks and engineers in their 20's and 30's are going to be in that same boat and probably at a much younger age. Because of that they probably are going to start shedding their aversion to unions.

Second if the crane operator is making #150 to $200K per year with great benefits how long do you think it’s going to take a geek or engineer to figure out where the money is.

[clamboat]

I know you worked on the ships and not on the docks, but do you have any idea how much of, say, a 100K gross salary would have to be kicked back to the union in the form of dues or whatever else? Do you think 5%? 10%?

The salaries sound good, but I wonder how much the guy in the dock actually gets to keep.

[steveegg]

Are there any docks in the Midwest? I could use that kind of money!!!

Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit (though they mainly handle intra-Great-Lakes shipping.

[IronJack]

What is the deal with the dock workers earning 100K+?

Two words: Stinking. Union.

[edwin hubble]

Their average current compensation is $105,000 PLUS the benefits of $40,000 + or -.

[KDD]

But why shouldn't a person doing manual labor make a good wage. I just don't see why it bothers everyone so much that someone who works with his hands is making a living. Seriously- why?

Let me try to explain. If I am a low skilled laborer and am willing to work harder for less money then the "protected" Union member, in a fair market I could bid my skills and wages to the employer and merit and competition would be the standard for employment in the workplace. The moment the "Union", through threats or violence prevents me from trying to get that job the union member walked out on or slowed down on we are dealing in what is simply Union extortion. If They don't like their high Union pay, there are millions of young Americans who would be more then happy with it. But they aren't allowed to compete for these jobs. They will be threatened, attacked and called "scabs". Extortion is extortion...Unions are extortion rackets.

[KDD]

What if you owned a company and a Union told you how much you were going to have to pay your employees for their work? And if you didn't like their demands, they would not work for you, nor allow anyone else to either?

[nanny]

"The moment the "Union", through threats or violence prevents me from trying to get that job the union member walked out on or slowed down on we are dealing in what is simply Union extortion. If They don't like their high Union pay, there are millions of young Americans who would be more then happy with it. But they aren't allowed to compete for these jobs. They will be threatened, attacked and called "scabs". Extortion is extortion...Unions are extortion rackets."

I said I was not being pro-union - my take was all the angst that some blue collar worker was making $85,000 a year. This is a recurring theme when there is a post concerning the union. I am not a union sympathizer, believe me. Just wish the rhetoric would be more along the lines of anti-union, rather than anti-blue collar.

Your post answers the union question (which I didn't ask), but it still doesn't answer why a blue-collar worker shouldn't make a good living.

It really was not about the union, it is the jokes of the plumber making as much as the doctor, etc. Sorry, this just bothers me.

[nanny]

"What if you owned a company and a Union told you how much you were going to have to pay your employees for their work? And if you didn't like their demands, they would not work for you, nor allow anyone else to either"

If you read my post, you would see I am not a supporter of the unions. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of supporter of the unions. OK?

The posts was regarding working class people and the elitism shown here. But most of the posts are not necessarily anti-union. Many of them imply a working man has no right to make a good living. Not everyone wants to sit in a carpet-lined cubicle staring at a computer screen. Just because they don't doesn't mean they do not have a right to make a living. We need working men and women and we don't need to be importing our serfs from south of the border.

[KDD]

Your post answers the union question (which I didn't ask), but it still doesn't answer why a blue-collar worker shouldn't make a good living.

As with any worker, I would like the blue-collar worker to make as much as the free market will pay.

But there are many young men with families starting out that would see a 45,000 a year salary as a god-send. They are the ones being ripped off by Union extortion. Unions skew the labor market and many more people especially young blue-collar workers are being screwed. .

[nanny]

"But there are many young men with families starting out that would see a 45,000 a year salary as a god-send. They are the ones being ripped off by Union extortion. Unions skew the labor market and many more people especially young blue-collar workers are being screwed."

No way am I disputing that. I just don't like elitism in any form, it bothers me. .

[KDD]

The Union worker driving the forklift for 100,000 dollars a year is the elitist relative to to 28,000 dollar a year non union forklift driver. Don't you recognize unionized blue-collar elitism for what it is?