Wisconsin to be 25th RTW state!

[soundforbjt]

There is a difference between money for bargaining, and money to give to politicians.

No one is forcing you to work for a union company, are they?

 

[trenchfoot]

Heh, so we have RTW shops that are unionized but each employee has the option to join the union or not. In many of these shops that were mandatory for hourly employees to join the union, those unions were bargaining hard for their workers for many years. The rewards that the employees got from those years and in many cases decades of unity and hard bargaining is what ALL of those employees equally shared in.

So now there's a change in the laws where employees aren't required to join an in situ union if they don't want to. Yet, they still would benefit from all of those years of bargaining and the resultant rewards and benefits these efforts yielded.

Too, and correct if me if I'm wrong, these RTW workers who choose not to join will still get any and all benefits that their unionized counterparts have/will receive without the risk of losing their jobs should their unionized counterparts risk losing theirs via bargaining for better wages and benefits should the success of the company they work for warrant it.

If it's fairness that RTW proponents want, then shouldn't they each be making their own negotiations with management and take the same risks their unionized counterparts have to experience with their employer?

Yet, all of that is completely besides the point of why Repub controlled states are demanding and getting RTW laws enacted.

The one single essential thing that RTW laws instill in a union shop is the ability to divide and conquer the workforce. It is THE reason Repub lawmakers, at the behest of their business benefactors, want to enact such laws.

Break the unions and the ability to bargain as a cohesive and united workforce is gone. Management can then start playing all of those games they play with their workers in their efforts to drive down wages and benefits to the bare minimum to maximize profit for themselves.

Let that snowball roll downhill like the way it's been for decades now, and the effects are now irrefutably and glaringly evident: The middle class is shrinking not because more and more of them are climbing the ladder to prosperity. Rather, they're being hammered down into the ranks of the poor at an ever increasing rate.

Is that really what makes a nation great? Prosperity for the chosen few and destitution for everyone else?

It's where we're UNDENIABLY headed, even with our improving economy.

 

[senseamp]

I don't say this to you very often, but damned good post.


Here in Chattanooga the UAW tried to unionize the VW plant workers and got caught having promised the northern plants to cut wages at VW to match unionized plants' wages.


Doesn't that depend on the union and the employer? Trade unions in my experience deliver a lot of value both to the employee and to the employer. Even labor unions have their place; I know several places whose work forces are almost entirely illegals. I bet their former employees would have appreciated some union protection.

I applaud Wisconsin's progress, but let's not assume that all unions are bad all the time. Yes, many of them do bad things. This is true of virtually any enterprise built of humans - we're such twats.

Illegals are cheaper than union labor though. If Wisconsin and other RTW state workers want to compete with illegals by working more for less pay, it is good for us consumers, and we should not discourage it.

 

[Subyman]

Unions fuck over workers all the time. My union did, taking money from may pay check without permission and giving it to politicians I don't support.

Oh yeah, I guess that hand delivered letter was too much of a burden for you this year?

 

[DCal430]

Oh yeah, I guess that hand delivered letter was too much of a burden for you this year?

The first year I joined I wasn't informed of this requirement, I found out just after a month on the job. By then it was too late, the union had taken my money $600 worth basically, and i couldn't do anything about it. The union also was busted taking millions from people even though they filled out objection letters in the narrow window and took time off work to deliver those letters.

 

[DCal430]

No one is forcing you to work for a union company, are they?

Same argument applies for minimum wage, no one forces you to work for a company that pays so low.

 

[umbrella39]

So when is the next Battle of the Overpass and who will be the modern day counterpart to Frankensteen to have their coat pulled over their head... or has it already happened...

 

[ivwshane]

While I agree with what you are saying I have to say that I do not favor unions in that I wouldn't work for one. I say this because my personal experience has led me to believe that unions protect workers who deserve to be fired and interfere with management from doing their job of managing employee performance. Not only that but they use strong arm tactics that I would never agree to and voting seems totally pointless. Now, having said that, I do believe that unions are valuable and necessary to some degree.

I feel a wtr state would allow me more leverage in an employee/union relationship in that I could distance myself from them with no repercussions when they do things I don't agree with while also allowing me to support them when they do things I support.

So what would be your solution to make me happy and to strengthen unions?

Heh, so we have RTW shops that are unionized but each employee has the option to join the union or not. In many of these shops that were mandatory for hourly employees to join the union, those unions were bargaining hard for their workers for many years. The rewards that the employees got from those years and in many cases decades of unity and hard bargaining is what ALL of those employees equally shared in.

So now there's a change in the laws where employees aren't required to join an in situ union if they don't want to. Yet, they still would benefit from all of those years of bargaining and the resultant rewards and benefits these efforts yielded.

Too, and correct if me if I'm wrong, these RTW workers who choose not to join will still get any and all benefits that their unionized counterparts have/will receive without the risk of losing their jobs should their unionized counterparts risk losing theirs via bargaining for better wages and benefits should the success of the company they work for warrant it.

If it's fairness that RTW proponents want, then shouldn't they each be making their own negotiations with management and take the same risks their unionized counterparts have to experience with their employer?

Yet, all of that is completely besides the point of why Repub controlled states are demanding and getting RTW laws enacted.

The one single essential thing that RTW laws instill in a union shop is the ability to divide and conquer the workforce. It is THE reason Repub lawmakers, at the behest of their business benefactors, want to enact such laws.

Break the unions and the ability to bargain as a cohesive and united workforce is gone. Management can then start playing all of those games they play with their workers in their efforts to drive down wages and benefits to the bare minimum to maximize profit for themselves.

Let that snowball roll downhill like the way it's been for decades now, and the effects are now irrefutably and glaringly evident: The middle class is shrinking not because more and more of them are climbing the ladder to prosperity. Rather, they're being hammered down into the ranks of the poor at an ever increasing rate.

Is that really what makes a nation great? Prosperity for the chosen few and destitution for everyone else?

It's where we're UNDENIABLY headed, even with our improving economy.

 

[DCal430]

The real solution is to get rid of private companies in most sectors. Utilities, healthcare, food, pharmaceuticals, energy (oil, gas, ...), and banking, are all sectors where private companies have no business. These are all sectors that should be nationalized, municipalized completely. Time for greed and profit to be removed from these areas of society.

 

[BoomerD]

That is nothing like taking from the employees pay check
Again money they pay taxes on, and giving it to union
What unions do is no different than raiding my bank account.

All you have to do is opt-out. That's a right guaranteed to EVERY union employee in California...even you state employees. Once you fill out that form every year, the union will no longer use one penny of your union dues for political purposes...

Unions are a good thing for America...when they're managed right and actually work FOR the employees who are in them. Not all are so well managed...nor actually work for their employee members...but MOST do. MOST give good value for the dues they collect.
Having worked construction in California for 25 years, I saw the "best non-union companies" in the region...they consistently paid their workers $10-$15/hr less than their unionized counterparts...and usually with either zero benefits, of minimal benefits.
I always considered that difference in wages and benefits to be "non-union dues," because that difference is what you "pay" for not having to pay union dues.
Myself, I'll gladly pay $100/mo in union dues to make an extra $400-$600 per week...or more..plus GREAT medical benefits.

Are unions a great fit for all jobs? Fuck no...but for "manual labor" work, they're the best option for the worker.

Why would anyone bitch about the union supporting politicians who vote for policies that benefit workers? Those few $$$ out of your dues that the union uses for political purposes is spent making your life better...whether you like it or not.

 

[sportage]

Right to work states have little to do with unions and a lot to do with employee fairness.
ie Say you work in CA, not a right to work state, and you earned say 1 weeks vacation, vacation every other employee got and enjoyed.

Then say you were 15 minutes late one day and you boss was in a pissy mood and took away your 1 weeks vacation just to irritate you.

In CA that would be illegal and going to the CA labor board would get you your vacation back.

Living in a right to work state, exactly like Wisconsin, your employer could do whatever they felt. Whatever whim came over them.
And the Wisconsin labor board? They'd tell you to get lost. Suck it up. Be a man.

Right to work is all employer and no employee beneficial.
I'd love to see the face of those all for right to work, then screwed by their employer and thus discovering there is absolutely nothing that employee can do about.

 

[fskimospy]

I always found it interesting that conservatives supported laws like this so much, considering that they are simply the government stepping in and limiting the kind of business deals that two private parties can make.

Why are you guys so against government interfering in the private sector except for when it involves unions?

 

[DCal430]

All you have to do is opt-out. That's a right guaranteed to EVERY union employee in California...even you state employees. Once you fill out that form every year, the union will no longer use one penny of your union dues for political purposes...

Unions are a good thing for America...when they're managed right and actually work FOR the employees who are in them. Not all are so well managed...nor actually work for their employee members...but MOST do. MOST give good value for the dues they collect.
Having worked construction in California for 25 years, I saw the "best non-union companies" in the region...they consistently paid their workers $10-$15/hr less than their unionized counterparts...and usually with either zero benefits, of minimal benefits.
I always considered that difference in wages and benefits to be "non-union dues," because that difference is what you "pay" for not having to pay union dues.
Myself, I'll gladly pay $100/mo in union dues to make an extra $400-$600 per week...or more..plus GREAT medical benefits.

Are unions a great fit for all jobs? Fuck no...but for "manual labor" work, they're the best option for the worker.

Why would anyone bitch about the union supporting politicians who vote for policies that benefit workers? Those few $$$ out of your dues that the union uses for political purposes is spent making your life better...whether you like it or not.

First, your union may have a form but SEIU does not, SEIU requires you to write a letter. There is a narrow window to opt out each year, and the union ignores any request outside the window. I wasn't informed of my right to opt out when I started, many people are not informed of this right. I tried to opt out when I found out, and the union refused to allow me to opt out. In some unions the window to opt out is only 2 weeks. SEIU was also caught ignoring opt-out letters, they have been caught multiple times doing this.

Health benefits for represented workers is terrible, excluded employees have far better health benefits, and benefits overall. I have seen far better health benefits in the private industry than we get. Worst is the health benefits for family. The health benefits for families is not affordable to people who are secretaries for the state (Office Assistant Class) and it worst for lower classes, these people are forced to go on welfare for their children.

 

[glenn1]

So now there's a change in the laws where employees aren't required to join an in situ union if they don't want to. Yet, they still would benefit from all of those years of bargaining and the resultant rewards and benefits these efforts yielded.

Too, and correct if me if I'm wrong, these RTW workers who choose not to join will still get any and all benefits that their unionized counterparts have/will receive without the risk of losing their jobs should their unionized counterparts risk losing theirs via bargaining for better wages and benefits should the success of the company they work for warrant it.

If a union is in place, workers who decline to join in a RTW state are still subject to paying the union for the costs of contract negotiations, any grievance processes, contract administration, and other costs directly associated with the benefits all the workers covered by the union enjoy. It's not like workers are allowed to be complete free-riders in RTW states.

 

[DCal430]

Again Federal workers who are all non-union outside of the postal service. Look at how they do, they have great benefits, and great salaries.

 

[boomerang]

This is just the swinging of the pendulum, nothing more. It's actually a good thing for the unions themselves if they can get their heads screwed on straight and truly understand the value they can provide. Their priorities have become skewed over the years.

I was a UAW member for 30 years. I had great pay, great benefits and I'm enjoying a great retirement. That's just some of the pluses of being a union member. But there were huge negatives too. The head of the bargaining unit was the most powerful person in a UAW represented plant with much more power than a plant manager could ever hope to have. As such, the worker in the plant had two masters. Don't step on the toes of management and for sure don't step on the toes of the union. I've gone into some of this in detail over the years here, mostly to cries that I was spouting bullshit. Search if you feel like it, I'm not going into it again.

The problem with the union evolved over many decades. For the union to justify its existence it must provide. That means that every contract must include more. More pay, more benefits, more time off, more perks, more, more, more. Eventually the union makes the price of labor too high. The union within a union shop is the sole provider of labor. The company needs help, the union provides it and dictates the cost of that labor. In an escalating cycle, eventually union labor has too high a pricetag in a world economy.

That's the in your face problem with unions. The behind the scenes problem is the corruption that occurs within the hierarchy of the upper echelons of the union. It eventually filters down to the lower levels and the whole organization can't do anything without deep concerns about affecting their lifestyles and maintaining the status quo. They have ceased representing the worker, their biggest concern is representing themselves.

So, a smart union will get down to their core principles, their core beliefs and make a compelling argument for the service and representation they provide. They will attract dues paying members that see a value in what they provide and the pendulum will eventually swing back. As it stands now in a non right to work state, an individual that wants a job with xyz company must first join the union. In a right to work state, that individual can have that job and representation through a union is an option. It can do nothing but make the union better. It's a good thing, it just has to play out.

And LOL about existing union members opting out of PAC portions of their dues. When I belonged we all had that option. You'd get the shit beat out of you if you did it. Hell, after getting my journeyman's card in my trade I applied for an apprenticeship in another trade. I got muscled into a dark corner in the plant and got told by a couple of union thugs what the consequences would be if I resubmitted my application, they having already pulled mine. One of those thugs was my rep.

I have lots of stories.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Just because I'm not familiar with RTW states, do the workers that choose not to join the union get the same pay & benefits as the union members?

Only if a union formed as a closed shop. They are not obligated to represent, nor is the employer obligated to pay the same to non-members if the union structured itself differently. Unfortunately the unions go closed shop due to power/monopoly reasons. So the ACTUAL answer is "depends".
If a union doesn't want to have to represent all workers, it doesn't have to.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I always found it interesting that conservatives supported laws like this so much, considering that they are simply the government stepping in and limiting the kind of business deals that two private parties can make.

Why are you guys so against government interfering in the private sector except for when it involves unions?

"two private parties"? Are you really that stupid? A union is a 3rd party. Also this isn't limiting anything, it's providing MORE CHOICE and MORE FREEDOM for 2 private parties involved in the deal.

 

[Jaskalas]

Sounds like a massive Democrat revolt against giving people the freedom of choice.
"Go find another job"... yeah, just like minimum wage.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I always found it interesting that conservatives supported laws like this so much, considering that they are simply the government stepping in and limiting the kind of business deals that two private parties can make.

Why are you guys so against government interfering in the private sector except for when it involves unions?

Unions are a form of economic collusion, and everyone agrees that the government can place limits on economic collusion. Right to work laws are analogous to antitrust laws.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again Federal workers who are all non-union outside of the postal service. Look at how they do, they have great benefits, and great salaries.

That's a remnant of the New Deal, when govt had to compete w/ unionized private industry for employees.

Why do you think Repubs want to cut, cut, cut! decent paying gubmint jobs, anyway?

Less competition for private industry.

 

[soundforbjt]

Same argument applies for minimum wage, no one forces you to work for a company that pays so low.

That's why I posted that, repubs always use that argument in minimum wage threads.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unions are a form of economic collusion, and everyone agrees that the government can place limits on economic collusion. Right to work laws are analogous to antitrust laws.

Gawd. Corporate amalgamations are economic collusion. The ongoing shift of wealth & income to the top .01% shows us how well we've prevented collusion.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Gawd. Corporate amalgamations are economic collusion.

Yup, and we (rightly) regulate the formation and M&A of corporations.

 

[BoomerD]

First, your union may have a form but SEIU does not, SEIU requires you to write a letter. There is a narrow window to opt out each year, and the union ignores any request outside the window. I wasn't informed of my right to opt out when I started, many people are not informed of this right. I tried to opt out when I found out, and the union refused to allow me to opt out. In some unions the window to opt out is only 2 weeks. SEIU was also caught ignoring opt-out letters, they have been caught multiple times doing this.

Health benefits for represented workers is terrible, excluded employees have far better health benefits, and benefits overall. I have seen far better health benefits in the private industry than we get. Worst is the health benefits for family. The health benefits for families is not affordable to people who are secretaries for the state (Office Assistant Class) and it worst for lower classes, these people are forced to go on welfare for their children.

Then opt-out. As s state employee, you have the right to become an "agency employee." You'll no longer be a union member...but WILL have to pay the agency fees, since you will still enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining...wages, fringe benefits, etc...or do you think you should get all that without having to pay for it? Kind of like a form of welfare...freeloaders abound in the state worker pool.

Of course, if you do...and for whatever find yourself NEEDING union representation...it might not be quite as good as you would get as a union member...