Surveyors and the Union

[bryanmundia]

I am a younger licensed surveyor, or at least I like to think I am (40 years old) and I was curious if anyone on this forum knows how Land Surveyors became a part of the International Union of Operating Engineers?

In reflecting on our profession, I find it odd that we have been lumped in with people that essentially sit somewhere and operate something for their job, seeing as how surveying as a profession is the complete opposite of that work. I was trying to figure out how and when it came about and a quick google search didn't provide me with any real insight.

Was the reasoning because of the need for an education structure that didn't really exist outside of the Apprenticeship Program? Was it the Union's way of having a strong hold on the construction industry as a whole? Was it a way to allow signatory firms to go after larger projects that they otherwise would not be competitive?

After the IUOE drafted its' letter requesting that Land Surveyors be classified as laborers and not professionals, it really has me thinking about wherein this all started and why.

Any feedback would be greatly welcomed.

[pls5528]

I personally have seen both sides of this coin. When I started out, I was a rear chainman on a four man party in the deserts outside of Phoenix. There really wasn't much unionization anywhere in the state of Arizona at that time. In fact, the only colleges which had surveying classes were part of other programs (like Civil Engineering Technology). I think the party chiefs were making $5.50 an hour without any benefits. I moved to Orange County (where I went to HS) and landed a job with a union firm. It simply took an employer to hire you and take you in at whatever the Union says your rating was. The union would evaluate you academic background and field training elsewhere. Normally if the field training elsewhere wasn't a part of union participated employers, they may give you 1/2 credit. Anyway, I got into the system and started at apprentice level 4. The classes were taught at Santa Ana College and a part of the ABET accreditation. After two years in the program, I transferred over prior college credits from an Associate Science Degree I received previously and received another AS Degree in Surveying. That program set me up for success in taking and passing the LSIT and LS exams first time. The union pay is very good and the benefits are ok. The Local 12 is quite different that the Local 3 in Northern California (in numbers and in education). Personally, I think the unions (in general) make an attempt to keep the field guy, a field guy. With that, I think there should be a system which allows for the education for surveyors, has decent pay and benefits including office (if desired). I don't believe the answer is UNION for that. Unfortunately, as we have seen to many times, the laws of supply and demand prevail. I provided a Zoom presentation last year to Roseburg High School seniors. Most had their heads on their desk with the hoodies over their head. When I brought up potential pay, a few heads lifted off the desk?

[hellsangle]

Bryan,

This answer is coming from a non-union 73 year old . . . so it may not be anywhere close to what's happening currently.

My recollection is this: If Operating Engineers Local #3 were on a project the surveyor had to be with Local #3. The union in the 1970s was very strong and one did not dare tangle them. No union card you had to get off the site. There could be some intimidation.

Some survey firms would create a separate entity that would sign with the union and hire out of the hall just so they could take on those unionized construction jobs.

To "visualize" what I'm writing of . . . watch the movie: "The Offer". 'Splains a lot, Lucy.

I know of a couple of long-time retired union surveyors and they are well compensated in retirement! Well compensated! Much better than Social Security.

If money is all that one is looking for . . . go union or go government. You can sleep at night.

Self employment isn't all that it is cracked up to be. Paperwork. Insurances. Managing. Keeping employees trained, happy and compensated. Motivate licensure without loosing the employee or becoming a competitor. Equipment purchases/upgrades. Yearly software "subscriptions". Waking at three in the morning thinking about a survey . . . a client . . . a project's approval process. Missing family functions. Vacations? You have to double time to leave and triple time to get caught up . . . all while you're on vacation you're worried about the client, employee, etc.

Sorry to go off the rails, Bryan.

Crazy Phil's two cents

[DWoolley]

...
I know of a couple of long-time retired union surveyors and they are well compensated in retirement! Well compensated! Much better than Social Security.
...
If money is all that one is looking for . . . go union or go government.
...
Crazy Phil's two cents

Phil:

I suspect your information on the union pension is dated or like their members, you were told something that is simply not true. Currently, based on the latest information, Local 12's pension is 67% funded. This is known as "critical status" or red zone. The previous two reports showed the pension as 65% funded - which I find suspect to have two years the same percentage funded. Know this, those numbers reflect pre-covid boom times. They will not get any better. When the pension fund hits 64% funded the alarms and bells ring and there is another protocol put in place. There is currently a disconcerting 3% cushion.

Ain't No Sunshine

What does this mean in dollars? Approximately $2 billion in arrears. Let this sink in, Local 12 has approximately 20,000 retirees or qualified retirees (eligible for a pension, but may not be collecting) and yet, they only have a little more than 11,000 people contributing. I am no actuary, but it should be as plain as the nose on your face how that math will work out. Riddle yourselves this, how does a 20,000-member organization amass $2B in arrears? Enron? Madoff? Hoffa?

Where Did the Employer Contributions Go?

For those unfamiliar, the pension contribution is any hourly rate paid by the employers to the union trust. The current Local 12 employer contribution is $13.15 per hour worked, about $26,000 annually. At the current rate, an employer would contribute approximately $750,000 for a fulltime employee over 30 years. The $750,000 is inflated because these field only, typically unlicensed, folks do not work fulltime through recessions. The majority of them will be laid off or work partial weeks/months for extended periods of time i.e. years. Anyone interested in the actual union hours during a recession there is an OC CLSA Ten Minute Surveyor video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04KInynMaU4&t=50s that walks viewers through the history of the field hours carnage. The employers have paid their contributions (and more with recent bailouts by taxpayers), where did the contributions/ money go? I suspect the explanation is an example of Hanlon's Razor. I further suspect future contributions, due to declining membership, is a money pit with a calendared appointment with actuarial destiny.

Cat Food in a Trailer Park

Currently, a Local 12 retiree gets $58 per credit (approximately, $3500 per month after 30 years - this is inflated for simplicity, see previous paragraph). Local 12 retirees have not had a raise since 2007, some 16 years ago. Adjusted for inflation these retirees should be getting $83.28 per credit. There are no raises coming for these retirees in the foreseeable future. Fortunately, the actuary charts work in their favor. The average construction worker retires at 61 years of age. Their life expectancy is 73 years old (this number is from memory; I did not look it up). Keep in mind, older construction workers are more likely to die an untimely death the older they get and continue to work. Darkly, these numbers work in favor of the retirees.

When the pension collapses there is an insurance plan i.e. PBGC. The PBGC was calendared to be defunct by 2026. The Biden Administration bailed out the PBGC last year with a $90B bailout for private pensions (another $36B to the Teamsters this month). The Local 12 folks, upon rollover to the insurance, will receive a maximum of $34 per credit with caveats galore. Conceivably, rather than receiving their $3500 a month after 30 years they could receive $3500 annually. These are murky waters and the one clear fact is when it rolls to the insurance there will be large cuts in the benefits. Back to the good news, retirees do not actually live that long on average and the contributions that are not dispersed are retained by the union trust. Also, under Project Labor Agreements non-signatory firms are required to make pension contributions for every hour worked and their employees will never qualify for a pension, free money for the trust.

Defined Benefit Plan

The pension is known as a multi-employer defined benefit plan. This means the retiree gets a specified monthly payment. It also means when the beneficiary dies the benefit ends. There are options that, if chosen, will continue a partial benefit to the surviving spouse. In order for the retiree to collect the principal contribution of $750,000 after 30 years the beneficiary would have to live to be 85ish and the spouse would have to continue on into the mid-90s. The same contributions at today's rate calculated annually at a 4% return over 30 years would yield $1.5M and more importantly, would be the retiree's money to will to heirs, in comparison to the defined benefit plan, buy food and shelter. The union's counter argument is their members are not smart enough to manage their own money. Their words, not mine. If interested, look up their biased videos on 401k vs defined benefit plan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBTAMOgD14 . A private pension defined benefit plan may be a good option for an unsophisticated bachelor that is already living in a trailer and has no children.

Union Employer's Status

Want to buy a maxed-out credit card by simply taking over the payments? Buy as signatory firm. The business model of old was based on labor hours. In years past, as long as a firm was growing, measured in hours, the unfunded pension liability was a cost of doing business – especially in an engineering house. When the hours contract, which they will continue to do so, especially in construction, the value of a firm is greatly diminished by the unfunded pension liability. This is a white paper topic on its own.

Most interesting to me is the employers that are willing to fund another entity to destroy their profession. Over 55 years old, I get it, who cares, right?

Free World – Educate Yourself and Chose Your Own Path

Few people think about retirement when they are younger. Land surveyors, myself included, tend to be mentored or apprenticed into the job. It takes years of experience before we realize the quality of a mentor or the mentor's advice. When a mentor, apprenticeship program teacher or a well-intentioned blood relative tells an impressionable young person the defined pension benefits are "one of the greatest benefits", "phenomenal" (quoting the host of Local 3 Podcast episode 9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LA1Heglj8g ) - it will be years before the mentee realizes they are trapped in the system and ultimately, reliant on a diminished payment through the PBGC or possibly, a federal government bailout before we run out of money.

Again, Chose Your Path – Check With a Qualified Financial Planner for Your Individual Situation

In California, if a defined benefit plan appeals to your sensibilities run, don't walk, to public agency employment. The picture I painted about the defined benefit plan does not apply to public pensions in California. If you are in NorCal, surrender your Local 3 contributions (depending on your age) and join CalPERS. CalPERS is underfunded but is guaranteed by the California Constitution. There have been numerous lawsuits and the pension fund is secured. Governor Brown made the necessary adjustments in 2011. CalPERS retirees, unlike Local 12, get COLA (think $58 vs $83.28 and declining. Also, the diminished PBGC receivership benefits).
If you are in private employment, take advantage of an employer's 401k matching contributions. If the employer does not have a 401k, well, see the previous paragraph or find an employer that offers a 401k (required by law for businesses with five or more employees). Land surveying is a profession and should offer professional benefits. There is another option – the state of California now administers 401k benefits for individuals. Google "CalSavers Retirement Savings Program" for more details.

Phil, I am back from the holiday and catching up on my writing. I meant to simply call BS on your statement but have chosen to start 2023 in a productive manner. Thanks for the conversation starter.

BMundia, I hijacked the thread. Mark my words, the union relationship will be the end of professional recognition for land surveying. it has already happened once. The union jacked a land surveying bill, SB556 in 2019, and inserted language to deregulate large swaths of profession as defined in Bus. & Prof. 8726. The under 50 crowd better hope for an inheritance or have a strong Plan B. Our community, viewed as a whole, have the likeness of a dodo bird perched on a rock waiting for the sailors to whack us over the head. We will share a similar fate - but ain't nobody gonna tell us what to do. Anyone else see it differently?

DWoolley

[bryanmundia]

I love the comments Phil.

I have moved into the public sector for this very reason. It isn't about the money for me (don't get me wrong, I have to pay the bills) but for the piece of mind in being able to draw the line between my work and personal life. I worked in the private sector for over 20 years and constantly was worried about client relations and taking phone calls on my so called "vacation" or "time off".

I am interested though in what the argument was to allow surveyors to be included in IUOE. I just have found much more of a disconnect between what a professional surveyor does on a daily basis (or should be doing based on the legal definition) versus what the other trades within the IUOE do on a daily basis.

Michael, I tend to agree with you that the focus of the apprenticeship program as well as the subsequent chainman and party chief classes focus more on the duties of the field surveyor and do not provide enough of an education on the office surveyor. The most recent negotiations that the Union had were shocking to me. For a profession that bases it merits on mentorship and why would the Union push for a $5 raise for 1 man crews but a minimal raise for achieving licensure? I don't get it but maybe I am just stupid.

[bryanmundia]

Dave,

I was doing some research on this and according to the OEFI Annual Report dated October 2022 the pension plan is no longer in the "endangered", "critical" or "critical and declining" stage as of July 1, 2022. According to the same Annual Report, the number of participating members covered by the pension plan is 31,663 with 11,813 being current employees and 15,942 being retired and receiving benefits and 3,908 who are retired or no longer working and have a right to future benefits (your numbers were close on the membership).

The current Fair Market Value of the organizations assets is approximately $2.9 Billion and has a funded percentage of 75% for the 2021-2022 year. This is an increase of almost 5% from 2020-2021 and an increase of 7% from 2019-2020. This could be attributed to the fact that we have had a couple of incredible years with surveyors and development being in high demand.

The concerning factor is that although their funding percentage has increased, their overall liabilities have increased by nearly $300 million in the 2021-2022 calendar year. These liabilities for the most part I would imagine are their payments to retired members. With liabilities being somewhat stagnant during the 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 years at $3.2 Billion, I would imagine that with the next recession imminent, we may see their funding percentage again dip into the "endangered", "critical" or "critical and declining" stages since there will be less members paying into the Union pension plan since work will be scarce.

With the current number of retirees being nearly 2/3 of the membership, I do see a problem in the future if membership is not improved through their organization to help the continued funding of the plan but it seems that things have improved in the short term.

If the pension plan does default and PBGC insurance does step in, each member will be guaranteed a maximum of $35.75 per service credit year (if they had 10+ years of credited service).

One other striking factor is looking at the 2020 Form 5500 filings for the organization, they spend nearly $1 Million a year just in the management of the funds.

In looking further into this, although $3500 per month is nothing to scoff at in retirement (especially for those also receiving social security), the bigger problem is for surveyors who are 40 and under who will not receive really anything in Social Security. That $3500 per month ($42,000/year) will be a drastic cut from their pre-retirement pay which for a party chief could be upwards of $115k per year. With a monthly cost for insurance being between $200 & $400 per month for a member and spouse (cheaper of course if it is just the member), along with the taxes paid on your pension, the reality is that you are looking to live off of probably around $2k per month if you are in the 40 and under age bracket right now.

The other problem I see is that you have no option to take a lump sum payment at retirement to make your money work for you. Instead, you only have the option of monthly payments which at $3500 per month doesn't leave alot to play around with at the end of the month to re-invest into your years of retirement. I would be curious to know how many Union surveyors out there have played it smart and invested their earnings during the good times in outside investments such as an IRA or the stock market versus how many opt for the bigger house/boat/car/etc.

Based on my observations I would imagine that the gross majority have opted for the latter thinking that they are guaranteed their pension and been told that the pension is "excellent" as part of the selling point to get them in the Union. I would hate to be in their shoes in 15 years when they are closing in on the age of retirement and realizing that $3500 15 years from now is going to be chump change with our current rates of increase in cost of living, etc.

Now lets get back on track, how in the hell did Surveyors get lumped in to the IUOE?? No one seems to have a real answer yet.

[hellsangle]

Bryan,

I assume the answer to your first post is whatever union secures membership.

Like: the teamsters for some cannabis workers . . . https://teamster.org/420-2/

Again Paramounts - "The Offer" movie is kinda how some unions can be. (Great movie, by the way! As good as the Godfather.)

[DWoolley]

bryanmundia:

I will assume we are each looking at Local 12's pension, not 3 or the international. The pension fund climbed 13% in the last two years? That is believable when considering in 2021 S&P 500 gained 26.9% for the year. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) gained 18.7% in 2021, while the Nasdaq Composite gained 21.4%.

The fact the pension is "only" at 75% when we'll likely never see another market year like 2021 again is the harbinger. Just the same, the writing is on the wall for those folks i.e. cat food and trailer parks. The 2022 numbers have likely knocked a hole in the 75% and forthcoming recession should finish it off. Sad state of affairs for folks that believed their pensions were "phenomenal" as advertised.

In contrast, the Laborer's pension is fully funded. So much so they had to vote to lower the contributions or move the additional to an IRA. Also, they lowered the retirement age. The Laborers also have email. For those uninitiated, Local 12 only recently adopted email.

I approached the OC CLSA this year to begin a Local 12 food drive for retired surveyors. I started to late and the OC team didn't recognize the need yet. I think folks believe the pension was all puppies and wild flowers - after all, the employers have made their payments.

Lastly, there is no lump sum option. Retirees in a defined benefit plan do not earn interest. Technically, it isn't their money. In fact, there are several rules that, if broken, could result in losing their pension. Like you said, if you're under 40 it is probably best to cut the loses, walk away and make other arrangements.

Suggestion: when negotiating a wage make part of the wage a 401k contribution. The annual allowance is increasing.

DWoollley

[DWoolley]

And they have not had a cost of living raise in the last 16 years.

DWoolley

[bryanmundia]

And they have not had a cost of living raise in the last 16 years.

DWoolley

I wouldn't expect a cost of living increase for a pensioner. The problem lies in formula for the potential retiree. The $58 per service credit 16 years ago was not too shabby, but like you mentioned, adjusted for inflation and cost of living it should be in the $80 per service credit range. The Union has been too busy negotiating salary terms for its current members and has not focused on an amendment to their retirement plan at all.

I have attached the Annual Funding Notice for your reference, it is in fact specifically for Local 12.

Bryan,

I assume the answer to your first post is whatever union secures membership.

Like: the teamsters for some cannabis workers . . . https://teamster.org/420-2/

Again Paramounts - "The Offer" movie is kinda how some unions can be. (Great movie, by the way! As good as the Godfather.)

So I guess the days of a Union aligning with your work has gone away? Do these new job markets approach the Union and give them their best sales pitch in order to get selected to join? What does it take for a profession to be released or removed from the Union?

[Mike Mueller]

Our community, viewed as a whole, have the likeness of a dodo bird perched on a rock waiting for the sailors to whack us over the head. We will share a similar fate - but ain't nobody gonna tell us what to do. Anyone else see it differently?

Dave,

I see it differently. I think our community will be changing drastically in the next 10-15 years and becoming younger, more educated, fewer in number, and more integrated into other businesses rather than standalone businesses. I include in our community all levels, IE trainees, LSITs, LSs. This change will not be the end of surveying, but a change in the economic niches that we occupy. So it is not a dodo waiting for sailors, but more like a group of hikers confronting a hungry angry bear. Its not about outrunning the bear....

Reasoning and Evidence:
The last survey done by CLSA showed that most folks are in small shops or large organizations, with most of the licensed folks in the ±60 year range. The small shops generally had 1 or 2 LSITs iirc, with few employees, and when you excluded the large organizations the industry seemed very pipe like in shape, rather than the more traditional pyramid that economic/demographic data sets have looked like. Considering the demographic transition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition ) that is what we should expect. The large organizations seem more pyramidal, but I think that is due to their imperviousness from direct economic factors.

Based on 1)Mike Belotes comments about how the other professional groups he is aware of are having the same sorts of issues that CLSA and surveying are having, 2)widespread pushes for deregulation, and 3) harder economic times, it seems to be large scale factors at play. One of those large scale factors is the greater knowledge available via the internet. How to lawyer folks like LegalZoom? How do mechanics like the youtube videos that show you have to fix anything? County GIS maps provide a satelite image with a boundary, contours and building foot prints. They can literally print screen and get a pretty darn good sitemap that is better than some that I have seen prepared by licensed people... How can I complain about a client not hiring me for 2-3K to prepare a product that they can't understand how its better? (discussion aside about how to educate folks why they need surveyors) If they are not forced to come to me, I now have less work to support fewer techs.

If demographics and economics and common sense are pushing our industry to be smaller, the only way to fight that is legislatively like Oregon and their gas station attendants. As I am not a communist/socialist etc I personally think its needed, but painful, for the invisible hand to prune off the inefficient. So I guess I should change my original metaphor to a group of capitalists are confronted by the invisible hand :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Thank you for the detailed post about the retirements, I have already used that in a discussion of estate planning with a coworker.

[Jim Frame]

I wouldn't expect a cost of living increase for a pensioner.

Why on earth not? Without a COLA you're doomed to a declining standard of living. Since someone retiring today at 65 can reasonably expect to live until 85 or more, 20 years of inflation will cut an unCOLA'd pension in half or more.

Back to the original question: I entered the game as a green Local 3 apprentice in 1977 at a big (for the day) Sacramento engineering and surveying firm (The Spink Corporation). Some of the old hands at the time told me that there had been a predecessor union (might have been Engineers and Scientists of California, at least it sounded like that), but that union wasn't able to negotiate much of a wage/benefit increase. When Local 3 came along promising a substantially larger package, the crews voted to change horses. Local 3 wages were attractive, even for apprentices, compared with comparable private-sector jobs at the time.

I was in the union for less than 4 years when the 1980 recession hit. After a few months of no survey work (I built greenhouses for minimum wage at an ag startup run by a guy I knew in town), I went to work for a non-union firm in Yuba City, and eventually followed a friend/colleague to his own company in West Sac. I was there for 10 years before hanging out my own shingle with part-time field help in 1993, and went full-solo in 2016.

I'm one of the old guys Dave writes about. No union pension awaits, but I've made a good living over the years, and my retirement -- when I decide to go there -- will be comfortable unless the politicos succeed in crashing Social Security.

Among the things I haven't done is mentor anyone. I had one employee who was with me for 18 years, but my efforts to interest him in the profession fell flat -- he was content to stand behind the gun all day and collect a paycheck. He was smart, conscientious, reliable and a totally nice guy, but didn't want to invest time and energy in learning more about land surveying. (He has a degree in wildlife biology, and eventually turned his other part-time job with an ag analysis company into a decent career position.) My son has never shown an interest in surveying; he's pursuing a PhD in fluid mechanics at UM instead.

Since I've never been a joiner, I've also avoided active participation in CLSA or NSPS. My only contributions to the profession are via this forum and the one at SurveyorConnect. I feel only mildly guilty about this -- some people have a personality more attuned to working closely with people, while some of us would rather go it alone. Mea culpa, but such is life.

I got a little off track there, but one thing led to another...

[DWoolley]

Mikey:

I appreciate your detailed post. There is iron in your words of life (stolen from Ten Bears). I think we are equal parts correct in the life and death of the profession.

The most recent Nevada Traverse has an article by Trent Keenan citing the following:

"There are currently 35,000 licensed land surveyors. An estimated 44% are over the age of 61 and are going to be retiring in the next 10 years. That’s a loss of 15,000 which means our profession needs an average 1,500 new licensed surveyors a year just to maintain the status quo. Meanwhile, only 596 people are taking The Principles and Practice of Surveying (PS) exam right now, and only 68% [406] of those will likely pass." Dodo bird ending +1.

I believe Nevada has only licensed 19 in-state people in the last ten years. Point towards the dodo bird alternate ending, director's cut.

Another article I read recently by Carl C. de Baca cautioned California to remain vigilant so as not to allow Professional Engineers back into the authority to practice mix – engineers are estimated at 513,000 nationally.

Again, Mikey, you are correct in that chosen few will make it applying their wiles of the devil (and diversifying their skillsets) and some plain old fashioned luck. Happily ever after ending +1.

Rooting for and facilitating our demise is the Operating Engineers [evidenced by the 47,000 letters to the USDOL in support of land surveyors becoming laborers], GISPs latest suggestions for the model law, licensed contractors currently self performing, drone operators, site plan providers, underground utility locators, and anyone else inconvenienced by our licenses. Dodo bird ending +1.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "…the only way to fight that is legislatively like Oregon and their gas station attendants." Mikey, you have been a contributor on this forum since November 6, 2012, you are certain to have read the surveyors opposition to any regulation that exceeds wiping your feet at the door. There are many that would rather see the profession die – and they will – before asserting themselves into the outside world. Like a cat with a dead rat, I will lay it on their pillow. Dodo bird ending +1.

The path we have chosen is well worn by those before us; the master craftsman, wainwrights, window knockers, lamplighters, automakers in Detroit, textile factory workers, Kaiser steel workers, and many, many others.

As is my nature, I will fight. As it was for Travis, I have no illusions as to the final verdict.

"...The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country - Victory or Death." William Barret Travis, February 24, 1836. The Alamo fell March 6.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Dave,

I love that I always want to read your posts two or three times and look things up to ensure I get the reference correctly :)

I am struggling to put into words why I felt the need to disagree with your characterization. I think a major part of it is that it seems like you are accepting/believing that this is a death struggle (see Josey and Alamo References), when I see it more as an adjustment. An adjustment that is a part of all professions, trades, jobs, practices, etc, just like you referenced. There are still auto workers, and Kaiser Permanente is a nifty outcome from those steel works in WW2.

For the record I do not want surveying to die out. I do want surveyors to change as needed. Knowing how and when to change is right up there with understanding the stock market. Real easy in hindsight.

I gather from your posts and suggestions at CLSA that your company is probably already adjusting and positioning itself to handle a changing work environment. That makes me think that you are not a dodo :) One of the reasons I respect your opinion so much is that I see you constantly trying to save folks from their own dogged decline. My question is this: Considering Darwin and all that, if someone(or a business) is really a dodo, isn't it just a natural consequence that they get eaten? Follow up question: Why is that bad?

Your advocacy sometimes seems to be more like Cassandra, IE cursed to always know the future and never be believed, ALA Trojan Horse. However I think your efforts will bear more fruit than you might think, because I see a coming paradigm shift ( Planck's version), that will allow new ideas to flourish.

One of the most important changes I hope will occur is to divorce ourselves as a profession from unions. It is an albatross that we need to shed, both intellectually and politically. I think having a structurally baked in separation between field and office is one of the defining characteristics of your "dodo". It prevents so many positives and provides what? A career path for someone who doesn't like office work, in an environment that needs fewer and fewer people on field crews...

I will be the first to state that I am not an expert on all matters union. However I have personally yet to see a positive that is uniquely a result of union efforts/causes since my career started in 2006 . I can also point to many negatives that are a direct result. The basis of unionization was/is to give the workforce a better situation to bargain with the owners. Most people I know in our profession (outside of government) know their employees as people, and the negotiations are far more personal, so collective bargaining is unneeded.

I think one of the reasons for my stance on the Oregon gas station attendants is that it seems very similar to unions efforts to use politics and laws to shield their members from the negative consequences of their own parasitizing actions. A good example to me is how most minimum wage laws have some sort of union exemption or "escape clause: I do not want to see surveyors become another example of legislatively demanded, but otherwise unneeded, increased costs passed to our society. (https://www.uschamber.com/assets/archiv ... mption.pdf) https://economics21.org/html/why-unions ... -1339.html

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Sorry to continue the thread re-direct, but it is an interesting topic.

[bryanmundia]

Mikey,

No apologies necessary because even though it is off the original topic it is where my mind was going when I originally wrote this post. As we are seeing this shift in what the duties/responsibilities are of a licensed practicing surveyor becoming, is there a way out or are we destined for deregulation? In my mind the answer is definitively yes, and part of that answer requires a separation of surveying from Union practices. I like you have yet to really see any positive that is uniquely associated with union efforts and can also think of many negatives directly associated with union interference.

Another part of the answer is to relinquish control on the construction staking on projects. Heck, the trades do half of the work off our control now a days anyways. I can see us becoming more of a QA/QC person on the job and performing the initial setup of control for the project but leaving the hub pounding to the trades.

Lastly, The separation of "office surveyor" and "field surveyor" is one that also needs to change. We as a profession need to be able to train people to do both on any given day and those people are the ones that are valuable to the profession. I think that with a week of training I can teach anyone how to hold a rod straight and pound a hub in the ground, but it takes time to understand the nuances of the field and develop the critical thinking skills associated with performing quality field work. The same can be said for the office staff, anyone can be taught to draw some lines and set some points in CAD but the real value comes in the artistry behind creating maps, field packages, etc. and how is anyone in the office supposed to know what is valuable to the field crews without experiencing it first-hand. For the field surveyors, I think it is important to know how a project is drafted and what their fieldwork looks like when it comes in the office. It creates a much more collaborative approach to the overall program.

I think that this group (being those that participate on this forum and with CLSA) are the vast minority to see the writing on the wall and understand what is happening right now. Some are close enough to retirement to not really care and those that aren't here talking about these things and trying to advance the profession are the ones that will be left behind and probably will pursue another equally paying career outside of surveying when the shift happens (ala 2008 recession).

One thing that I think we lack on the private side of the workforce is trying to be equitable to the Union. This means equivalent pay (if not better), a solid 401k or retirement plan, insurance benefits, job sharing/equitable time in the field & office and most importantly education. I have had the privilege to work for companies that had all of these things and believe it is one of the reasons (too many others to list) that I didn't go to the Union side. I think we are starting to see this shift already as the labor force of seasoned and knowledgeable technicians is becoming less and less. More employers are offering school tuition reimbursement, better wages and appealing to the masses by allowing them the chance to work in the office and the field.

Please keep the comments coming, I know we have gone off the rails from the initial topic but I don't think we have strayed too far away from where my mind was at initially.

[CBarrett]

I was advised very early in my career to not join the union, since I already had education. I am still not convinced that this was a very good advice.

If there are questions, I might elaborate later, when I'm past the vacation mode.

[bryanmundia]

I was advised very early in my career to not join the union, since I already had education. I am still not convinced that this was a very good advice.

If there are questions, I might elaborate later, when I'm past the vacation mode.

With everything said in this thread why do you not think that was sound advice?

[CBarrett]

I was advised very early in my career to not join the union, since I already had education. I am still not convinced that this was a very good advice.

If there are questions, I might elaborate later, when I'm past the vacation mode.

With everything said in this thread why do you not think that was sound advice?

Because there are many additional obstacles outside the union.
Here are some examples from my career. When you are early in your career, and in need of money, people are often encouraged to work for a private company because they tend to pay more than a public agency. These companies are often union companies, so you are basically stuck working in the office. Yes, union companies can sometimes offer field work to a non union person as a temporary swap, but those occasions are very rare.
In my personal case, it took me extra 10 years to get sufficient field experience because I was a non-union female. In the initial years I had gotten non-union field experience across 3 small non union companies. When it came time to sign for my experience, two people chickened out because Howard Bruner used to question "How can a non union female get sufficient field experience to be an LS' (he actually called me personally to question this very thing. I had 12 years of experience in surveying at the time. So long story short, small time surveyors got scared of the climate at the board of registration at the time (circa 1998). I also discovered by accident that what they told me they wrote in my application, and what they told the board are two different things. Small company, no rules, no recourse for me. You are unprotected.

Large companies with union field crews would outright discourage an office person, especially a female, to join the union, because placing a female would be a PITA among the male party chiefs. Had I joined the union, 12 years into my career I would have had plenty of field experience. Being Non Union this was a big struggle.

Public agency course - well, initially for people with no degrees, or those with unaccredited degrees (like mine), would be knocked back a few 'grades' till they prove themselves. I was in this country alone, with no family and had to be self-supporting from the start, so maximizing my pay was a survival issue, even living with roommates and very frugally.

Secondary concern with public agencies, thankfully this has been clamped down on drastically, but in the 90's and early 2000's there was rampant sexual harassments in subtle and less subtle forms. This prevented me from going to work for more than one agency. What I saw and experienced from some of the industry leaders at the time. Union, at the time already had more protection for minorities. At 22-25 years old, while I was a survey college grad, I was completely unprepared to navigate these situations in the industry by myself. Yes, there were marriage offers too. There are also females in surveying who had a reputation that 'they only got licensed because their husbands signed for them'. I didn't want to be lumped into that batch either, so I never dated a surveyor. I was also often labeled as 'she must be gay' - as if that was of any relevance to anything survey related.

Since the Women's surveyor summit group was founded a few years ago, I thought I was unique in these experiences, but in recent years I have learned that this is actually a very common path for most women in the industry. Finding a mentor in the industry to help along... chances are slim even today. In my early days, I went through at least 6 or 7 people whom I hoped would be mentors, and had to distance myself from them because they were all too interested in getting into my pants. Mostly marred men twice your age. Two were actually decent enough to have been freshly divorced and offered a 'proper chance at a relationship'. Alas, I don't date people in the business as a rule, it gets to complicated.
Would that have been much different if I was in the union, probably not, except they would have had to come up with a better excuse about why they don't want to let me do the field work beyond 'It's is a girl, they can't carry their weight'.

Pensions? my career spanned 3 recessions and two busy periods (and a part of a third, current one). Any attempts at pension (401) K savings melted when trying to survive layoffs which lasted 2-3 years at times. Like I said, I have no family to fall back on. So, the fact that union pension also melted away, I am looking at it as a "welcome to the club" case. Catfood in Blythe, ha, if I am lucky I will die of a heart attack on the job before I need a pension. That's my retirement plan. If I was in the union, I may have had a little bit of a mismanaged retirement plan, or I would have been licensed much earlier and had a chance to work for higher wages, and save more.

So in the private industry, as a woman, first no-one wants you to go to the field because internally most men still think you can't pull you weight out there, even if they will decline the same in your face, then they will use that against you to hold you back... well, you need more and more of this experience, but you will not get it at this company.... Also if they see you switching companies too many times, they will guilt trip you at the same time for 'changing your jobs so many times'... Sorry, see the first 5 companies I worked for in first 10 yeas in business? Only one survived the recession. But how do you prove that when people skip town... With union, your longevity often goes along with the union. History and knowledge of companies hiring and laying off is little better documented and believable than with free agents.

Oh, and by the way the same early mentors who discouraged union part also discouraged working for an agency. That got compounded even more once I started working for places like RBF, or Keith Companies/Stantec.

Networking opportunities with your, uhm, peers outside of the union - weren't that great, unless you are a beer drinking boy. At the Union, well, at least you have classes they make you take etc. so you are almost forced to get to know people... Also, at the time, Union was much more eager to give me credit for my school (even if non accredited), over a public agency.

Now outside of my personal experience, where I think as a minority and noone to fall back on I would have done better with having Union advice and at least on paper someone protecting part of my interests. Some of the arguments I see against the union are pure stereotypes, from people who seem to have an axe to grind. Most of my career, I have worked with union Party Chiefs, or they have frequently worked under my direction. Yes occasionally there is a bad apple or two that oversells themselves, but mostly the arguments I see are stereotypes - by people who don't work with union crews often. Yes, I know, some of the arguments are quality of boundary work done by union crews who specialize in construction staking. We do recognize that different people specialize in different things, until we are ready to harp on the stereotypical union party chief. Then he is no good because he doesn't know everything.

Union vs. non union factions and the stereotypes being flung around have existed since I have been in the business, and anecdotally I hear they have existed for decades prior to that.

What I think needs to happen is we need to look outside of the constraints of this dichotomy, and find the best of both worlds.

I know however, much of the union vbs. non union maneuvering runs much deeper than that of what is good for the profession or people who work in it. Maneuvering is done by the influential minority who is after lucrative contracts, and they move legal chess pieces trying to beat each other out of this or that contract. The PR fluff is there to try and attract the masses.

Union is the only one who is still successfully getting people into surveying. Theirs is the only impacted program that only opens up once a year and is not lower their admission standards. You know where the failure is, the professional association attracting their involvement. We blame it on the union and want the union to 'make them get licensed'. WHY? it's a lot of effort to get licensed and encourage people to get licensed, and the financial move up from a union party chief to an LS is not commensurate to the effort it takes (unless you have funds to start you own company).

This doesn't necessarily mean that the Union is doing it wrong, maybe the rest of the industry is weak. We are not giving Union people much to look forward, or up to.

[bryanmundia]

Connie,

I completely understand the need to keep yourself afloat early on but I don't know that I can agree with you on some of the things you said.

1.) Private Companies tend to pay more than Agencies - Albeit, this might not always be the case but from as long as I can remember, salaries between the two sectors have been competitive and even if they weren't, it was much more likely to get an equity raise in a public sector versus the private sector over and above the typical 2.5%-3.5% COLA. Besides this the benefits packages offered by agencies was always far superior to private firms and was a main selling point for many agency employees.

2.) Union companies do not give you the necessary field experience to qualify for your license - This is untrue, the definitions for qualifying field experience CAN include office personnel directing field crews and/or being in responsible charge of the crews from the office. It is important to understand the technology and process that a field crew uses in the collection of data but that could be done through college courses and a few weekend trips out with a survey crew.

3.) Had you joined the union you would have had plenty of field experience - It isn't just about field experience but field experience being in responsible charge under the direction of a licensed land surveyor. Seeing as how licensed union party chiefs are like unicorns, this validation of time would have had to come from the survey manager or other office surveyor who is licensed. If you wanted 12+ years of construction staking experience and experience in setting subdivision corners you probably are correct, if you wanted a well rounded field experience over the course of those 12+ years, you more than likely would not have received that from a union field crew.

4.) Mentors who discouraged union also discouraged agencies - Honestly this doesn't mean anything, those same people would have probably discouraged you from working anywhere else but for them. Be honest, if you took the time to invest training and mentorship in someone, would you want them to just up and leave and take all of that knowledge with them to another company? I didn't think so.

5.) The union is the only one who is still successfully getting people into surveying - I have three words, Santiago Canyon College. We are constantly having people complete their certificate and Associates Degree. My Survey 118 & 119 are constantly full and waitlisted with students who want to get in to the program. There is no lack of survey students who want to get into the profession or improve their knowledge of surveying.

6.) We are not giving the Union people much to look forward or up to - This is because their curriculum hasn't changed since I started my surveying career 20+ years ago. It is still heavily based in a dying sector of the industry and doesn't appear to be changing any time soon.

I have had the opportunity to work for both non-union and union survey firms on the private side and I can say that the non-union survey crews are well rounded in their understanding of the principles of surveying. They are willing to absorb knowledge and take direction, are they superstars at staking? Probably not but that isn't everything there is to know about surveying.

Besides this is probably the most important part, bringing a non-union field surveyor into the office and training them isn't a total fiasco. One, the pay differential is not as drastic between a unlicensed party chief and an unlicensed survey technician in my experience. The other is that most private companies focus and reward education and certifications/licensure. Unions reward longevity and hours worked, did you know that if I certify that I have over 10,000 hours of field experience I can self certify myself as a party chief with the Union?

I cannot speak upon your experiences with sexual harassment and gender stereotypes. I can imagine that is difficult to deal with and definitely is not the way that I look upon the people on my field crews. My only hope is that through education and time we can continue to progress with more equity amongst everyone in the profession.

I digress as I don't want this to feel like a bashing of the Union. They do have some good folks within their organization and they do have a good structure to the limited education that they provide.

Based on my experience I would not have changed a thing or gone Union. For me it has to do with the limiting factors of what the Union provides.

[DWoolley]

The land surveyor’s union, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12, to be specific, is actively working to deregulate the profession of land surveying. A land surveyor cannot be a professional and be a laborer and mechanic at the same time. Being recognized and classified as a professional means the land surveyor is selected by a Qualification Based Selection process according to the Brooks Act or state specific, Little Brooks Act. Laborers and tradesman, by the California Public Contract Code, are legally selected by lowest responsible bid. Professionals competing for work under the lowest responsible bid puts every firm under pressure to cut corners to cut costs. Putting the corner cutting aside, professionals are expected to be licensed – this means trained and maintain a training calendar, professional discretion to offer advice based on circumstances, being deliberative, working closely with other professionals on equal standing etc. In a low bid environment, training is not recognized (or needed) and as a laborer, the person on the shovel is interchangeable.

You Can Call Me Dumb

Laborers, it is in this context that Local 12 wrote the US Department of Labor explaining that land surveyors are dolts, by Local 12’s stated “facts” field surveyors do not exercise discretion, judgement, and that cannot make decisions without being directed by an engineer. Read their words for yourself. They are much less generous than I have offered here. One of the bylines of being a union member is they offer employees “dignity”. This dignity means they can call their own members mindless numbskulls to serve a greater good – and employers and employees will pay them for doing so. Unsolicited side hustle, for $50 I will send you a handwritten postcard - with a survey theme - to tell you you’re a dimwit and in turn, you will become a subscriber paying monthly to prove my point AND I will not try to ruin your business.

Financing Deregulation

In reading a Project Labor Agreement – all the rage these days in California – they exempt all professionals and management from the provisions of the agreement….wait for it….except land surveyors. Technically, that is deregulation. Prohibiting professional firms from competing for work – trading for low bid – does not benefit the profession or professional firms. PLAs finance the deregulation. Again, if you’re 55 or older, who cares what happens to the profession or professionals under 50? Under 40, well, you're (rhymes with plucked), ah, sorry not sorry. You stood up and made sure there were no signs on your trucks displaying your license number and the maps do not have accuracy statements and ain't nobody going to tell you to file a map, tag a monument or quit doing "record" boundaries, you win.

Defunding the Profession

Also, keep in mind, Local 12 will dispatch their field staff to a project contractor – even though a professional firm was awarded by QBS – and bypass the signatory firm all together. Restated, the union will allow, actually encourage, contractors to self-perform the work and cut the professionals out of the project. I can provide over $1b worth of examples. Difficult to be a principled professional when you have no work. For those unfamiliar, a signatory professional firm nominally charges $300 an hour for a two-person crew (two people fulfills the professional training philosophy). The union dispatches the same two people (usually one) for $160 or $80 as a single to the contractors. That is a 75% discount for (formerly) professional services. As a proverbial shovel operator, what’s the difference? The difference is the professional firm has an unsustainable business model. First to hit the street, the licensed chief of parties and the technician working towards licensure.

Qualified, but Will Not Take an Exam? Suspicious.

If the union members are so awesome and highly qualified (they prefer to be called a “trained and skilled workforce”) why are LSITs nearly nonexistent among their members? Are they to busy to schedule (and pass) a four-hour exam? How can a firm be the most qualified if they have staff that is exclusive to the field or office? Especially true with exclusive to the field. I would argue a qualified office person can do the job of field person in a matter of months. In the opposite, it takes a field exclusive person, presuming the proper temperament, approximately 3 years to become marginally proficient.

Why Aren't All the Cool Kids Doing It?

The union’s unfunded pension liability makes a firm practically worthless in a resale market. The engineers are figuring this out. There is a reason HDR, Moffitt-Nichol, Fluor, AECOM, Parsons, etc. do not offer land surveying. If land surveying made sense these sophisticated firms would offer it, right? As firms age and the land surveying principles that help found the company retire the math in the financials will tell the tale - especially when a 40 year engineer is being courted to becoming a principle. There are only so many fools. For those unacquainted, does your employer have a land surveyor as a principle owner? No? The fuse has been lit.

Ain't Nobody Anti-Union

Personally, I am not anti-union, I am anti-deregulation of land surveying. Conversely, I favor more regulation of the profession – the more the better. The regulations to protect the public are what separates the professionals from the trades and being a laborer. I am pro land surveyors being recognized as professionals. I am pro QBS. If the union prepared their members by licensing them it would increase the number of licensees, disincentivize deregulating the profession and create a clear line between the tradesman that currently self-perform land surveying - the profession would have a good faith partner. Caltrans recognized the need for professionals in the field more than 35 years ago, good on them for their leadership. Signatory owners and the union have had the same 35 years to follow Caltran's lead by developing professionally and they have done nothing. Then again, why would they develop professionally? Caltrans will readily contract their unlicensed field staff - says so in their RFQ and 35 years of practice.

When a public agency hires signatory firms under the guise of QBS they are hiring unlicensed staff and paying firms to deregulate their profession -they are not incentivizing licensure and professional preservation, quite the opposite. A Resident Engineer and the inspectors would readily recognize the field staff need to be licensed and limit the carpenters and plumbers from self-performing. Again, if you’re 40 and hiring these firms through the agency you are working against your own interest and the interest of the profession, point blank. Conversely, trashcan their SOQ and by the next contracting cycle there will be a lot more licensees - I can guarantee it.

Got some Stockholm Syndrome?

Our community is a textbook example of Stockholm Syndrome. Our captors are engineers, the union, developers, and anyone else willing to sequester us, we'll welcome it so long as do not ask us to act in our own interest. The proof is a willingness to be pay someone to call us stupid and run our professional business model into the ground. Email me your address and $50 and the postcards will follow.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Dave, what you are talking about here sounds like am argument for refinement in classifications in geodhetic sciences. Few other countries have this.

Leave union to the construction operators, and add a level of professional stature for those willing and able to do more. Then you can have segregation from the market corner where union already has the monopoly, and protect the rest. You say yourself that boat has sailed?

Otherwise, how do you propose surveyors at the tail figure out how to wag the union? Looks like you ate spending a lot of time figuring out what big faction is where and what political game they are playing, and failing to communicate this to the average surveyor, and then begrudging it that they are not following you on larger numbers, sort of going on sounding like you are convinced that everyone else is just too stupid to understand.

If the message you wish to communicate is failing to reach the audience, rethink your approach with your audience, instead of belittling them. That's one of the EQ basics, and very much needed when playing with politics.

[CBarrett]

Connie,

I completely understand the need to keep yourself afloat early on but I don't know that I can agree with you on some of the things you said.

1.) Private Companies tend to pay more than Agencies - Albeit, this might not always be the case but from as long as I can remember, salaries between the two sectors have been competitive and even if they weren't, it was much more likely to get an equity raise in a public sector versus the private sector over and above the typical 2.5%-3.5% COLA. Besides this the benefits packages offered by agencies was always far superior to private firms and was a main selling point for many agency employees.

I was reading an HR related article on LinkedIn just last week abut how benefits are near the bottom of the list of what people are looking for in their compensation package. While nice benefits package can be a tipping point, people very seldom go for lower pay rate higher benefits package combo. Especially in the primary breadwinner category. Most of us surveyors are the primary breadwinners.

2.) Union companies do not give you the necessary field experience to qualify for your license - This is untrue, the definitions for qualifying field experience CAN include office personnel directing field crews and/or being in responsible charge of the crews from the office. It is important to understand the technology and process that a field crew uses in the collection of data but that could be done through college courses and a few weekend trips out with a survey crew.

Ha, good luck with claiming that. When I applied for my LS the first time around, I had 2 years of experience as a field supervision handling 2-4 crews on regular basis. The experience was declined by the board. I got a phonecall from the board (Brunner) and he recommended that I stop doing weekend and part time fieldwork, join the union and do my time as a proper party chief. I had a degree and 12 years of experience at the time (11 with an LSIT). Plenty to accrue a year of responsible charge in the field, between part time field work and being a field supervisor. This is WITH the LS I worked for signing for it. Then I got a phonecall from George Shambeck, (whom I knew well at the time), telling me that he is one of the examiners and that he did not agree with Brunner, but I still did not get admitted to the test. This all happened about 3 days before the test.

It also turned out that the person who said they are signing for my part time experience (different LS from the 1st example), wrote in my application that, while I did everything I claimed to do for him, "Part time filed work is not a qualifying field experience". Exactly the opposite from what he told me. I actually found out by accident what he wrote, he was asked by the board to re-sign my letter at the 11th hour, and instead of mailing it to the board, he mailed it to me. I opened it after the application was declined, and got to see what the actually wrote.

3.) Had you joined the union you would have had plenty of field experience - It isn't just about field experience but field experience being in responsible charge under the direction of a licensed land surveyor. Seeing as how licensed union party chiefs are like unicorns, this validation of time would have had to come from the survey manager or other office surveyor who is licensed. If you wanted 12+ years of construction staking experience and experience in setting subdivision corners you probably are correct, if you wanted a well rounded field experience over the course of those 12+ years, you more than likely would not have received that from a union field crew.

I had a 4 year degree and 12 years of experience at the time, The only reason I needed the union is to cut down on being jerked around with being allowed to work in the field. When negotiating with the union abut classification, they were only going to require me to do first aid and few safety classes and a year in the field to test out for chainman classification and start 'party chief school'. I'm sure learning 'the union way' would have been useful. I had already specialized in doing boundary and ALTA and subdivision work, rather than construction staking.

4.) Mentors who discouraged union also discouraged agencies - Honestly this doesn't mean anything, those same people would have probably discouraged you from working anywhere else but for them. Be honest, if you took the time to invest training and mentorship in someone, would you want them to just up and leave and take all of that knowledge with them to another company? I didn't think so.

Average employment length in our industry is about 3 years. I am at a company right now which is very conscientious about retention. After 30 years in business, this is a first for me.

5.) The union is the only one who is still successfully getting people into surveying - I have three words, Santiago Canyon College. We are constantly having people complete their certificate and Associates Degree. My Survey 118 & 119 are constantly full and waitlisted with students who want to get in to the program. There is no lack of survey students who want to get into the profession or improve their knowledge of surveying. [/quote]

I used to be very involved with SCC, little bit before your time. I took all those classes myself, some years before they were accredited, just to hemp me translate some of the material to English. It is nice to see it grow and join forces with the union school. I had some discussions with union people about teaching some of the material in more recent years, but ended up not having enough time to pursue it.

6.) We are not giving the Union people much to look forward or up to - This is because their curriculum hasn't changed since I started my surveying career 20+ years ago. It is still heavily based in a dying sector of the industry and doesn't appear to be changing any time soon.

Union curriculum gets evaluated every few years, I forgot if it is every 2 or every 5. Several collages at MBI are involved with the process and we had conversations about this. There is a feedback loop between the industry needs and the union curriculum. "The industry" is not motivated to push party chiefs to get licensed, because A) noone requires it, and B) you can get non-union LS's to come and work for you for $10-15 dollars an hour less than a Union chief.

Case in point, in recent years I was negotiating my salary as an LS with 30 years of experience to match or exceed the rate of a union chief (since I am supervising them etc...). One of the comps for my salary that my employer offered is a long standing ad by DWA, where he is offering $50 an hour for an experienced well rounded LS mapper type. Union LS chiefs were getting paid $65 at the time. It takes about 6-10 years to become a union chief (non LS chiefs were at $63 and some change). This is when I decided to renew my discussions with the union, once you are an LS, your Chief certification is more or less automatic, just pay the dues. So once again, my non-union 'brethernen' are the ones throwing me a curveball. First with fieldwork and being scared to tell the board what they were telling me to keep me working for them, then with pay rates.

Yes, I see some of our leadership wants to have more support with dealing with the big picture, but at the same time they are interested in keeping their potential supporters in the state where they don't have time or energy or access to be contemplating the big picture. They they get pissy that 'surveyors just don't understand'. This is what I mean about the industry not being ready to offer more advanced people opportunities. It is set up so that most people are stuck in paycheck to paycheck mode, and any extracurricular development is a luxury. Union is little better at paying their people than the non union side. Even in retirement, except for the small minority who have a long tenure at a public agency.

I have had the opportunity to work for both non-union and union survey firms on the private side and I can say that the non-union survey crews are well rounded in their understanding of the principles of surveying. They are willing to absorb knowledge and take direction, are they superstars at staking? Probably not but that isn't everything there is to know about surveying.

Besides this is probably the most important part, bringing a non-union field surveyor into the office and training them isn't a total fiasco. One, the pay differential is not as drastic between a unlicensed party chief and an unlicensed survey technician in my experience. The other is that most private companies focus and reward education and certifications/licensure. Unions reward longevity and hours worked, did you know that if I certify that I have over 10,000 hours of field experience I can self certify myself as a party chief with the Union?

Yes, I know how union works. You can self certify, and if you don't perform at the needed level, you are sent back to whomever dispatched you. Just like anyone who padded their resume heftily. I've seen a number of Party Chiefs "not work out well", I've also seen a number of LS's unable to perform the needed work (field or office), even though they passed what is lauded as the most difficult LS test in the nation.

I cannot speak upon your experiences with sexual harassment and gender stereotypes. I can imagine that is difficult to deal with and definitely is not the way that I look upon the people on my field crews. My only hope is that through education and time we can continue to progress with more equity amongst everyone in the profession.

I digress as I don't want this to feel like a bashing of the Union. They do have some good folks within their organization and they do have a good structure to the limited education that they provide.

Based on my experience I would not have changed a thing or gone Union. For me it has to do with the limiting factors of what the Union provides.

Don't blame limited options on the union, they are taking care of of their people rather decently where it counts for most. Professional incentives beyond that are not up to the union to provide. I don't recall Union ever being seen as or advertised themselves as 'the pinnacle of professional achievement', they cater to a segment in construction industry. Union is a way for people who missed out on college to get some semblance of a technical education which makes them functional and useful on a construction site. Back home, we had this category as well, they were called 'geometers', and were in a qualified technician category. For some people that is where their career topped at. They were very qualified in plane surveying and field techniques, and needing additional two years of higher level education and post secondary set of certifications to earn a title of a 'geodetic engineer' and a 30%-50% increase in potential earnings. Commensurate with Civils, Mechanical, Structural, Architects etc.

There is a lot more to surveying than technician work. It is up to the rest of the professionals to 'spread their wings' so to speak and show the way ahead.

[bryanmundia]

So Connie are you saying it is all about the money? Most of your arguments hinge on the fact that the Union pays better and provides weekend classes to their members who want to take them and pursue higher steps within the organization, mind you they still have to WANT to take the classes and move ahead.

I will share that you would have been in the same boat (based on what you have said) in regard to your responsible office time had you joined the Union that you were with your field time based on your explanation of your application.

I have been an office surveyor for most of my career with a decent amount of fieldwork but will tell you that I didn't have over a year of continuously ongoing responsible charge fieldwork experience being a party chief or running a crew when I applied and low and behold I was granted the opportunity to take and pass the exam using my office experience with managing crews as qualifying field time alongside my intermittent field time. I was very forthcoming in my explanations for this when I applied to the Board. Maybe I just got lucky?

You don't need to tell me that there is more to surveying than technician work, I think I have a pretty good grasp on that after 20+ years around the industry. Also, the same argument could be made for the field work in that there is more to field work than just construction staking.

What I am trying to wrap my head around is how you think the Union would be a better, more viable solution to become licensed? The Union teaches very little, if anything, about the office side of land surveying and with the pay disparity between Union field surveyors and office surveyors, looking at it fiscally gives Union field surveyors very little encouragement to come into the office even though they should look at it as an opportunity to keep working on rainy days alongside the fact that they need it to develop as a professional.

How am I supposed to "show the way ahead" to a group of individuals who don't share the same ideology as me in the fact that licensure is the end goal (which I think you would agree with), especially when they have an organization behind them telling them (either through pay or other methods) that licensure isn't important to their professional development? I believe the Union just bargained for somewhere around a $5/hr increase if you run a 1 person crew on top of their COL adjustments. How does that bode well for a profession that has its roots based in mentorship and experience? I guess it gives me a few more bucks in my pocket to hire a tutor or take survey classes?

But I digress, there is no reason for anyone in this thread to figure out who is wittier with their snippy comebacks or belittling comments, instead, lets get back on track to the original question:

How did land surveying become part of the IUOE?

[DWoolley]

Dave, what you are talking about here sounds like am argument for refinement in classifications in geodhetic sciences. Few other countries have this.

Leave union to the construction operators, and add a level of professional stature for those willing and able to do more. Then you can have segregation from the market corner where union already has the monopoly, and protect the rest. You say yourself that boat has sailed?
...

CBarrett:

The land surveying community should not give up one inch of the statutory protected practice, which includes construction staking, site plans, topography, underground utilities, etc. We should be claiming more work as part of the practice. As detailed in earlier posts, the number of land surveyors are to few, why would we willingly cut off any segment of the practice? In exchange for what? This is our "from my cold, dead hands" moment.

As you so readily offer me advice, I will gladly accept your guidance as to how I can best offer my perspective on the issues of the profession - expecting the same in return - without invoking any, far to personal, sorry tales of professional woe that date back to the old country. Where is that conversation expected to go (awkward)? Turn this forum into the wailing wall of sorry surveyor stories and I might run out into traffic. It's not you, it's me.

Impress me with what you write next.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

How did land surveying become part of the IUOE?

I'm in Local 3 country and know little of Local 12, but it seems pretty clear to me: lots (most?) survey crews in Northern California metro areas were doing construction staking, working on job sites alongside Local 3 equipment operators and grade setters. The union business agents saw a group ripe for organizing -- remember, unions are businesses, albeit ones ostensibly with the goal of bettering the lives of their members -- and convinced the field crews that they could offer a much better package than they were receiving from their employers. Votes were taken and -- bingo! -- most of the companies providing surveying services to large construction projects became signatories.