Union Time?

[Deleted member 130081]

Unions are for pre-1900's. After that they are a redundancy. This redundancy is a negative to all, including the union workers who make $60/hour for a job worth $15. It's a negative for them as it turns them lazy and uncompetitive if the union ever goes bust.

For the rest of us, unions hurt every aspect of the USA, economy and so on.

Yea, I don't know about all that. I would agree that in some cases unions have pushed their power too far, to the demise of certain industries. However, to say that those instances ruin the concept as whole, is an over-statement. Union workers are not categorically lazy and unaccountable. I know many union guys who can attest to that. They get hired and fired very quickly if they cant produce, usually because the wages are so high, the company needs efficient people to compete. Union shops have to win jobs too.

 

[chad hampton]

Most people focus on the word union. Too many of us forget history and fail to remember what life was like prior to unions. We should all get on our hands and knees and pay respects to the unions that made this country what it is today. If you ever had a 5 day a week job, got HI, paid holidays, OT pay, etc, then you have a union to thank.

It doesn't have to be a union, but we seem to be one of the few professions in RE that doesn't have a powerful professional organization. AI could have done this years ago, but decided not to. I think the next step will be the state coalitions joining together. The framework is in place.

How many RE agents are there in the country? Ever wonder why they are still getting 6%? It has nothing to do with the free market.

Don't be scared of the word union, it's just a word. Replace it with whatever word you like, but sitting in your home office and hoping things get better won't work. If we were even somewhat organized, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have today in this profession.

And some of you think you can negotiate better on your own? Congrats, you'llbe the first person in the history of the world than can.

 

[Deleted member 134708]

Too many of us forget history and fail to remember what life was like prior to unions. We should all get on our hands and knees and pay respects to the unions that made this country what it is today

No one denies this. Unions are now redundant. Don't need them. They do far more harm than good to society as a whole.

And some of you think you can negotiate better on your own?

Nope, you can't. Unions are great for the brass and workers. Get paid $60 an hour for a $15 hour job.

Unions hurt the society/economy as a whole. Majority of times non-union small business can't bid on jobs if they aren't union. If they can bid, they have to pay their guys that typically make $15 an hour and the owner would charge $20K for the job, the union/bid makes them pay the $60 an hour and now the job is $50K. It's not a free market. It's a politicized market that feeds the machine.

I have a bunch of friend who work for PG/E (gas/electric company) and they make $90K-$170K. All have zero college. They made $90K w/ OT (get as much as want) 1st week on the job, plus 10% 401(k) if contribute and a separate non-contribute 8% 401(k) plus health or take $8 an hour increase and pay your own health. This is zero education. Get in their union hall and just wait is all.

Have a friend that works for a non-union doing roughly the same gas mapping. He makes $45K.

So unions hurt society as a whole. 70mm households paying a collective ??????? who knows how much $$ that is way beyond free market prices. Say electric bill $400 a month union, free market be $150 x 70mm households = $17.5 Billion that could have went back into the economy.

Union is awesome for the worker. $60 an hour for doing $15 worth of work. For everyone else, not so much.

 

[ucbruin]

Should cops and firefighters be allowed to unionize???

 

[djd09]

REVAA is cleaning clocks on 15th street.

All the appraiser needs is a grade A lobbyist firm. No unions needed.

 

[Mr Rex]

I'm not a pro union guy but I do wonder if the AI wouldn't be better off as an organization and a representative for residential appraisers if they moved to union status and get away from their "quasi union"/education provider role. Very little change would be needed except that they call themselves what they are for all intents and purposes: A union. I think alot of appraisers would participate if the dues were reasonable and they saw that the AI was actively lobbying in their interest. Most residential appraisers feel like the red headed step children of the AI, even though some of the AI disciples proclaim the AI is not CG centric.

 

[hastalavista]

Most residential appraisers feel like the red headed step children of the AI, even though some of the AI disciples proclaim the AI is not CG centric.

That is the AI's reputation among many (if not most) residential practitioners. And, as sorry as I may be to admit it, that reputation isn't without merit. However, the AI is currently making changes (real ones, not fluff) to change that perception. It will only be successful in that regard if the changes are real and not window dressing/superficial. From my limited involvement, I'm more encouraged those changes will happen than discouraged they won't.

We'll see!

As to the unionization component, as an AI member, I wouldn't be in favor of that because I don't think it best serves the industry. The AI and other groups can be great advocates for positive changes. The more we speak with a single voice (or speak in chorus collectively) the better our chances are in affecting change. What has been missing in the past (IMO) is the coordination of the groups on issues that we all the groups can agree with.
For example, I'm not aware of any appraisal organization that is in favor of increasing the de minimus (commercial or residential). That is an area where the groups can mobilize their membership to become more vocal with their representatives and the regulators.
But the groups (AI, ASA, IFA, you put the initials here) are only as effective as their membership's involvement energizes them to be.
There are a lot of passionate appraisers on this forum; this forum is not an average slice of the appraisal industry. The groups (and I'll call out the AI in particular) should be more engaged with their members in laying out:
A. What changes are in the wind
B. What those changes mean to appraisers
C. What the organization's stance is on those issues (hopefully, it represents the member's position.. and if not, this is the time to re-align the organizational goals with membership goals)
D. And what the organization and the individual members can do to help achieve those goals

The NAR does this well (both the national and state organizations). They lay out a clear objective and engage their members to assist in its advocacy. The number of appraisers is much smaller than real estate agents, but the process isn't much different.
Organizations are most effective when they have their membership informed and engaged. We all don't have to belong to a single organization, but certainly those organizations can agree to supporting a single advocacy position on many issues.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Should cops and firefighters be allowed to unionize???

No. No gov employee should be allowed to unionize, but a governmental ombudsman should be available.

 

[Gobears81]

How many RE agents are there in the country? Ever wonder why they are still getting 6%? It has nothing to do with the free market.

Overall, I appreciate your post and agree with the reasons that unions were founded. But, brokers are a good profession to debate. The hard 6% commission rate has increased the inefficiency associated with buying or selling a property (textbook theory, not my own assertion) and the lack of price competition is hardly for the benefit of anyone not associated with the brokerage industry. You sell two million dollar homes and get half of the 6% commission, depending on how much of that you actually pocket, you might have made sufficient income for the entire year. That is a skewed example because of the price point and the amount of that 3% that they actually take home, but they still have potential to make serious income for not all that much work in many cases. I know that's not true in all cases. There was a Realtor in my old town that came up with a different model-pay him $500 and he puts your house on MLS. That's it. No front end or back end services. Other brokers despised him and some refused to show his houses. He was the scab of the real estate brokerage industry.
I have never run across a shortage of Realtors, and I'm guessing that you haven't either. That is where these "standard" price points runs amok. I have been surprised that they have been able to maintain this price point in the age of the internet. But, the problem is that appraisers aren't brokers. Artificially crank up the prices to a minimum of $800 for a 1004, which seems great-less work and more money. But, there are two things that happen as a result: a surge of new appraisers flooding the industry and b-an eventual exodus towards computerized valuation models.

 

[leasedfee]

Very little change would be needed except that they call themselves what they are for all intents and purposes: A union.

The power of a union is forming a monopsony on labor to counter a monopoly of the manufacturer. A doable thing for a large industry where the union shut down manufacturing -- and terrified people from taking scabs jobs. Not possible when there are 1,000s of appraisers and 100s of clients. The 6% thing: it was really interesting to discover that there are huge conglomerates that own many brokerage-house names. Drive down the street and you see a dozen different for-sale signs -- perhaps half off them are in the conglomerate. HomeServices has 41,000 real estate professionals in 30 states. Huge brokerage conglomerates won't allow fee competition. If AI declared itself a union, their strike would be broken before 5 p.m. EST.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/real...360011663b4_story.html?utm_term=.a71647dd1bea