Re: Simplex wants Union workers to install there product

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 21, 9:30=A0am, "petem" <petem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "mleuck" <m.le...@xxxxxxxxx> a =E9crit dans le message de groupe de discu=
ssion
> : be9095da-456e-41ea-a6a9-af959e5b5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 8:44 am, "petem" <petem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> "Jim" <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> a =E9crit dans le message de groupe de discu=
ssion
> >> :
> >> b6ac79dd-4e30-4b4d-a108-9fadba6d8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> > On Jul 20, 1:37 pm, "petem" <petem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> "nick markowitz" <nmarkow...@xxxxxxxxx> a crit dans le message de
> >> >> groupe
> >> >> de
> >> >> discussion :
> >> >> fedb877b-304a-4fa4-808b-7c465d57b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
.
>
> >> >> > Have a contractor I do sub work for that has a large retirement
> >> >> > village he handles and they like our work .
> >> >> > We have been installing Simplex equiptment with no problems and i=
t
> >> >> > works great.
> >> >> > Now al of a suden the rep for Simplex says they only want Union
> >> >> > workers installing there products there. Needless to say the
> >> >> > management told them No . It us or no one .
>
> >> >> > Since when is its simplex buisness to say who installs ther stuff=
.
>
> >> >> Could it be that the client asked for union only worker?...
>
> >> >> BTW it been prooved that in the construction business, union worker
> >> >> have
> >> >> a
> >> >> better rating then non-union worker....
>
> >> > Proved? =A0 =A0How would you "prove" that?
>
> >> here in Alberta, there is a large construction site, the horizon proje=
ct,
> >> and some part of it is build by non-union worker, and some part with
> >> union
> >> worker,
>
> >> =A0on the electricity part of the project we had access to the ratings=
 of
> >> the
> >> whole project.
>
> >> a normal day of work as a rating of 1 , the whole project on the non
> >> union
> >> part had a rating overall of .6 on the union side we were at 1.5. on
> >> on the defect part we were at 94% no defect on the non union they were=
 at
> >> 80% no defect.
>
> >> now if those number doesnt speak by themself.....
>
> > Without knowing who did the ratings and how they measured what you
> > said is meaningless and it also appears to be just one instance
> > instead of an average of several instances.
>
> of course , when its coming from the management of an union, and that the
> numbers were provided to them by the management of a milti billion projec=
t,
> those number cant be taken seriously...

It's still meaningless when one doesn't know the specifics of the
information collected and it's only one "project"

My experience with Unions is the exact opposite however I'm not
foolish enough to assume they are all bad.