SS: Fallout from mergers which ends up screwing things for employees/families

[ufcrusher]

About 2 years ago, the company my wife works for and another similar large company decided to join forces and become one. At the time, they agreed to a hands off policy with regards to my wifes company for 2 years. That period ended on Dec 31st and they have gone hog wild making changes.

First and foremost, they stopped offering the insurance plan that we have been on for several years and was quite satisfactory for the most part. In its place they offered one with MUCH less protection that cost more money and had a lot more requirements. (Deductibles suddenly appeared, co-pays went up, and the coverage went way down.) They also offered another option which was closer to what we had, but still not quite as good (required deductibles, co-pays still up but not as much, and other areas of coverage not as good)....but they wanted two and a half times what we currently had been paying!!!

There were several other options, all of which required primary care physicians which we didnt previously require. However the benefit was that these cost about what we had been paying, had similar coverage (still nowhere near as good but closer than the cheaper of the other two options) Although I really didnt want to have a PCP, we chose to go with this one since with that execption it was probably the closest other than the one that cost 2.5x what we had been paying.

Now, I have been being treated for several years by the same doctor(s) regarding my ankle problem and have appointments already set up for this month. Additionally, I have an appointment with my Orthopod regarding my broken toe in the middle of the month. These are both pre-exisiting appointments from doctors that I have been seeing for long periods of time. I contacted the insurance to see if I still had to see the PCP for doctors who have been treating me for a long period of time. (Of course, I do. :rolleyes: )

After getting that tidbit, I have now spent the last 2 hours trying to set up an appoinment with the guy I chose as my PCP...only to find out that he is no longer at the hospital and there is no way to get in touch with him. I have already sent out a nasty email to the insurance company and I am going to have to spend a few hours looking for a different PCP today. Great...exactly what I wanted to do today.

Secondly, they changed my wifes work schedule from a 2 week 9 day schedule with bi-weekly pay and every other friday off to a 1 week 4.5 day schedule. This means that she looses a whole world of flexibility. She can no longer has 10 days to make up any missed time if she gets sick. Not good.

Third, they changed the travel system so that they now take any money under per diem that my wife is. It used to be that if she was cheap she got the money.

All this sucks.

[cheapie]

sounds like they are putting your wife under the same system that they use.

[OC]

And people wonder why I'm so anti-corporation.

[Jeffbx]

Hey, she's still working though! There is a LOT of duplicate manpower when a company merges with another, and usually there are a lot of layoffs. The fact that they're switching everything over to a different system is a good sign... normally any layoffs are done before starting the effort of migrating users to new systems.

So it does suck that you guys have to pay more to get the same benefits, but at least this give you time in case she wants to start looking for a better job!

[ufcrusher]

Apparently they had been operating under 15 or more different systems from all the different companies that they had taken over through the years and decided to make it easier by going to one system throughout the company.

As for redudancies, not really in this case. Although both companies were/are major defense manufacturers, they had different products, different groups, and completely different internal organization. The people from their side do not have the foggiest idea regarding the different requirements/what to do. In fact, at one point they tried to do it their way and my wife had to go back and fix everything they did. They finally acknowledged that they didnt know what to do and were glad she had fixed the situation.

One of THE most annoying aspects was all the steps backwards that they are now taking. Her company was very progressive and had already gone through a bunch of the growing pains. Apparently the other side, had not as they are raving about how amazing this "new" way of doing things is. Meanwhile, for my wife and her co-workers its like going from a current top end computer to an old punch computer.

[ray]

Don't even get me started on this.

/me goes to find closest bridge to jump off.

[zippyjuan]

Mergers are great- for the lawyers and the underwriters.

[gear02]

what company are you talking about?

Btw when companies do this, people leave, and hence they lose a significant number of people they got from the merger. This company sounds really stupid.

My company was bought out by another one and we lost things like comp time and sick time (we used to count sick time, but here at the new place they don't count sick time, which can be good, but screws those expecting babies and so forth). People started to leave in droves and now they're scrambling to save those who remain.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Fortunately, we're all free to find other jobs.

One of the mergers I went through five years ago had a very interesting outcome. We were purchased by our main competitor, and within three years, *all* of the "aquired" employees had quit, the local office was closed, and now the 14 core employees of the old company have started a new company designing and selling the same type of software.

The old company ended up with a bunch of stale, old, nearly unmanageable code, while most of our original customers have come back to us.

[INeedAVacation]

I have a friend who would say, "Management can do whatever they want, its their business. The employees could easily locate another job if the company went out of business and they would hardly be affected. The business owners and management would be in a much more difficult position."

I completely disagree.-Try selling his point of view to the employees of Enron and so many others who lost so much. I say people should empower themselves and their coworkers with knowledge and positive effects of organizing in a union. Look at www.teamster.org , www.ufcw.org , www.opeiu.org and see what they have to offer. Search the governments statistics on labor and see that unionized workers are far more likely to be covered by a healthplan than their counterparts and make, on average, 20% more in pay. If only for the fact that you may be making 20% more in pay and have benefits, would it be worth the $20-$30 a month in dues you pay into your union?

[cheapie]

I have a friend who would say, "Management can do whatever they want, its their business. The employees could easily locate another job if the company went out of business and they would hardly be affected. The business owners and management would be in a much more difficult position."

I completely disagree.-Try selling his point of view to the employees of Enron and so many others who lost so much. I say people should empower themselves and their coworkers with knowledge and positive effects of organizing in a union. Look at www.teamster.org , www.ufcw.org , www.opeiu.org and see what they have to offer. Search the governments statistics on labor and see that unionized workers are far more likely to be covered by a healthplan than their counterparts and make, on average, 20% more in pay. If only for the fact that you may be making 20% more in pay and have benefits, would it be worth the $20-$30 a month in dues you pay into your union?


they are also far more likely to have their jobs outsourced because they are not cost-competitive. :rolleyes: search for statistics on the most inneficient way possible to employ a workforce...

don't even get me started on the union. i work in the automotive industry. talk about stepping all over their collective di$%s.

[Jeffbx]

:stupid:

You can't *force* a company to cater to the employees at the expense of the business.

Enron is a bad example because the execs there were breaking the law. Management at most other companies are simply doing what they're paid to do - make money for the owners/stockholders. It sometimes comes at the expense of the workers, but that's the way a company stays in business. I know that sounds bad - callous & insensitive. However, as I've said before, corporations exist for ONE reason only - to make money. Not to provide jobs, not to provide goods & services - to make money.

By changing the focus of the company - for example, to provide guaranteed jobs at guaranteed wages - the money making aspect will just affect other areas. Quality may drop, manufacturing may be shifted overseas, business functions may be outsourced, or worst case, they won't be able to remain competitive & the company may go under.

As an employee, you always have the right to leave & go elsewhere. The company has the same right - if they need to cut employees for whatever reason (within the boundries of the law, of course), they should be able to. Employment is a privledge, not a guarantee or a right. If you suck at your job, or if you're not needed anymore, why should a company be forced to keep you on & continue to pay you?

[ray]

As an employee, you always have the right to leave & go elsewhere. The company has the same right - if they need to cut employees for whatever reason (within the boundries of the law, of course), they should be able to. Employment is a privledge, not a guarantee or a right. If you suck at your job, or if you're not needed anymore, why should a company be forced to keep you on & continue to pay you?

:stupid:

When I accepted my current job, I knew damn well that the company was being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Of course, the company I wanted to purchase us ended up dropping out of the bidding about a month after I joined.

Alas, I am to the point where I have gone through the due diligence, have learned more than I could have ever asked for, BUT have done all this at the expense of my happiness.

As JeffBx has so eloquently stated, as an employee we have a choice to leave and as an employer, they have the choice to let us go. I'm sure many of you have read my other thread about my current situation and I am 99.9% sure I will be leaving my job on Feb. 4th. I made the choice to join 1.5 years ago, I made the choice to stick around last August, and now I am making the choice to get out.

[LegendKiller]

I have a friend who would say, "Management can do whatever they want, its their business. The employees could easily locate another job if the company went out of business and they would hardly be affected. The business owners and management would be in a much more difficult position."

I completely disagree.-Try selling his point of view to the employees of Enron and so many others who lost so much. I say people should empower themselves and their coworkers with knowledge and positive effects of organizing in a union. Look at www.teamster.org , www.ufcw.org , www.opeiu.org and see what they have to offer. Search the governments statistics on labor and see that unionized workers are far more likely to be covered by a healthplan than their counterparts and make, on average, 20% more in pay. If only for the fact that you may be making 20% more in pay and have benefits, would it be worth the $20-$30 a month in dues you pay into your union?

Heh, from my experiences Unions cause as many problems as they solve.


1. Unionization encourages mediocrity. Why? Because people think that if they can't get fired or pay reduced, then they don't have to work as hard. I have seen this at the Post Office.


2. Unionization protects those who should be fired. At the PO I saw people drink and drive forklifts, get their license suspended for 2 weeks, then walk away with a job still.

3. Unionization is against progress. Need we look any further than the dockworkers from a few years ago? They fought modernization and pay reductions, despite making 80k+ average, yet being 4-5x slower than the average mexican or canadian dockworker.

Steel? Auto? All of them fought modernization so they could keep their jobs. As a result the industries fell/are falling to cheaper and more modernized foreign competitors.


4. Unionization encourages trench warfare. "I am not going to budge on this contract, screw management" type of attitudes are MUCH more common under union conditions. My father, a member of the Teamsters, refuses to let his employer cut benefits in the next contract. However, much like airline employee's, Auto workers, and other unions, most of the people fail to realize that if they don't help out, then the company goes under (witness Bethleham steel). Then, their nice fat pensions get turned over to the government, who can't afford to pay the full amount, so the workers are screwed anyway.


Growing up under a union supported family was beneficial in all ways, it put food on the table. However, the model is flawed in many ways.


LK

[INeedAVacation]

Heh, from my experiences Unions cause as many problems as they solve.


1. Unionization encourages mediocrity. Why? Because people think that if they can't get fired or pay reduced, then they don't have to work as hard. I have seen this at the Post Office.


2. Unionization protects those who should be fired. At the PO I saw people drink and drive forklifts, get their license suspended for 2 weeks, then walk away with a job still.

3. Unionization is against progress. Need we look any further than the dockworkers from a few years ago? They fought modernization and pay reductions, despite making 80k+ average, yet being 4-5x slower than the average mexican or canadian dockworker.

Steel? Auto? All of them fought modernization so they could keep their jobs. As a result the industries fell/are falling to cheaper and more modernized foreign competitors.


4. Unionization encourages trench warfare. "I am not going to budge on this contract, screw management" type of attitudes are MUCH more common under union conditions. My father, a member of the Teamsters, refuses to let his employer cut benefits in the next contract. However, much like airline employee's, Auto workers, and other unions, most of the people fail to realize that if they don't help out, then the company goes under (witness Bethleham steel). Then, their nice fat pensions get turned over to the government, who can't afford to pay the full amount, so the workers are screwed anyway.


Growing up under a union supported family was beneficial in all ways, it put food on the table. However, the model is flawed in many ways.


LK


Wow...

First, I'll start with what you made as your last point, "Growing up under a union supported family was beneficial in all ways...". Your father is a smart man and obviously provided you with a good homelife which you would not have had if not for his gainful employement gained by his union membership (which you seem to agree with). He, and his fellow Union Members, have no intention of putting the company out of business.-As you said were that to occur everyone would lose. Instead, they are negotiating decent compensation for their work, collectively-this is how you had the standard of living to which you have become accustomed. Is it a perfect system?-No. Is pure captalism?-No.

Next, I'm not aware of those statistic in your third example.-Can you provide the source which backs up your claim that "Mexican and Canadian dock workers are 4-5x faster". The dock workers involved in the strike here recently were fighting to keep from pay reductions, that is correct; Their 80k wage is not. Some jobs did pay as high (or higher than 80k), others did/do not. I'm also not sure what you mean by "progress". The Unionized workers did not want to participate in the great "race to the bottom" with their wages. As far as technology, they wanted the *new* jobs, which would replace some existing jobs done by Union Members, to be Union Member jobs.

As a Union Member, you are entitled to representation during disciplinary actions. The representative is there to defend you, the member, to the best of their ability to see that the outcome is fair and just. If management wanted to fire you because they don't like your tie, that would not be fair and just. If management wanted to fire you for driving a company vehicle while drunk, that may be deserving.

Lastly, your first point; if a Union Member is not performing per the agreement (or contract) it is Mangement's responsibility to take disciplinary action. As with most agreements, depending on the severity of the behavior, the person may have opportunities to correct the issue or be terminated.-Seems fair to me.

[INeedAVacation]

:stupid:

When I accepted my current job, I knew damn well that the company was being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Of course, the company I wanted to purchase us ended up dropping out of the bidding about a month after I joined.

Alas, I am to the point where I have gone through the due diligence, have learned more than I could have ever asked for, BUT have done all this at the expense of my happiness.

As JeffBx has so eloquently stated, as an employee we have a choice to leave and as an employer, they have the choice to let us go. I'm sure many of you have read my other thread about my current situation and I am 99.9% sure I will be leaving my job on Feb. 4th. I made the choice to join 1.5 years ago, I made the choice to stick around last August, and now I am making the choice to get out.

Yes, you do have that choice. You have the choice to quite, and start all over at another job and hope you don't end up repeating that same cycle too many times. You also have the choice to stay at your current job and make it better by organizing with your coworkers who probably want a lot of the same things you do.

[INeedAVacation]

:stupid:

You can't *force* a company to cater to the employees at the expense of the business.

Enron is a bad example because the execs there were breaking the law. Management at most other companies are simply doing what they're paid to do - make money for the owners/stockholders. It sometimes comes at the expense of the workers, but that's the way a company stays in business. I know that sounds bad - callous & insensitive. However, as I've said before, corporations exist for ONE reason only - to make money. Not to provide jobs, not to provide goods & services - to make money.

By changing the focus of the company - for example, to provide guaranteed jobs at guaranteed wages - the money making aspect will just affect other areas. Quality may drop, manufacturing may be shifted overseas, business functions may be outsourced, or worst case, they won't be able to remain competitive & the company may go under.

As an employee, you always have the right to leave & go elsewhere. The company has the same right - if they need to cut employees for whatever reason (within the boundries of the law, of course), they should be able to. Employment is a privledge, not a guarantee or a right. If you suck at your job, or if you're not needed anymore, why should a company be forced to keep you on & continue to pay you?

I agree with the premise that you can't force a company to accept ridiculous demands be it for pay or anything else. But you can bargain for a fair and reasonable agreement.

It is in the best interest of the company, the shareholders and the employees for the company to make money. If circumstances are presented where the company must cut jobs for this to occur or the company will not be solvent, Labor and Management negotiate the best course of action to be taken and sometimes jobs are lost. So, just because you are a Union Mmber does not mean you will always have a guaranteed job, it usually means you have a certain amount of job security (usually much more than were you a sole employee working for a company).

[INeedAVacation]

they are also far more likely to have their jobs outsourced because they are not cost-competitive. :rolleyes: search for statistics on the most inneficient way possible to employ a workforce...

don't even get me started on the union. i work in the automotive industry. talk about stepping all over their collective di$%s.

The U.S. as a whole, is not "cost-competitive" (regarding many jobs) when compared to countries with much lower qualities of life. Does that mean we should lower our wages to 18 cents a day? Maybe we should throw out the child labor laws. Or how about the safety requirements? Or how about gutting the pollution laws? We would not have many of these laws which you and I benefit from if not for the Labor Unions. How many of these items which you take for granted should we give up so we can "compete" with places without them?

Again, Union Members don't intend on demanding unreasonable expectations be met, but that a fair and reasonable agreement be reached.

[cheapie]

The U.S. as a whole, is not "cost-competitive" (regarding many jobs) when compared to countries with much lower qualities of life. Does that mean we should lower our wages to 18 cents a day? Maybe we should throw out the child labor laws. Or how about the safety requirements? Or how about gutting the pollution laws? We would not have many of these laws which you and I benefit from if not for the Labor Unions. How many of these items which you take for granted should we give up so we can "compete" with places without them?

Again, Union Members don't intend on demanding unreasonable expectations be met, but that a fair and reasonable agreement be reached.


you're high if you think they only try to get fair and reasonable compensation. do you know they also get about 15 unexcused abscenses a year. that means 15 times they could just not show up. plus the sick days and vacation. also, in one of our customer's plant they guy only had to be at their station around 50% of the time. so...they would have their job-share parter show up one day and then they would work the next. i'm not going to say which company it is but it's initials are GM. :rolleyes: there are tons more examples of this. today's business environment demands an extremely efficient work environment. i'm not saying that unions can't provide this. i'm just saying that certain unions like the UAW seem to fight this.

i haven't even talked about the unions involved in trade shows. we used to have a major tradeshow in chicago. hah. utterly freakin' ridiculous. let's say we had a light bulb go out in our booth. we couldn't change it ourselves. we had to order a union electrician for $50/hour. now let's say we needed to put up a banner with lights. we had to have a teamster bring it in, a different union guy handle the rigging, to hire a machinist (sp?) to mount the stuff, and an electrician for $50/hour to screw in the light bulbs. of course, even if they worked 2 minutes, they charged a minimum of an hour. that's $200 for a total of about 20 minutes of total work. of course, we didn't have an agreement with the union. the mccormick place did. and guess what. we don't go there anymore.