Wisconsin to be 25th RTW state!

[fskimospy]

Are you implying that society at large doesn't benefit from the existence of large corporations? If so that is demonstrably false as commercialization of the kinds of technologies that define the modern world require the consolidation of capital in the form of large corporations.

If you are just asking about regulations then that is exactly what anti-trust laws do. They prohibit voluntary economic activity between competitors for the protection of third parties (consumers). I'll go even further and say that we should expand anti-trust laws to restrict some kinds of monopsonies (buyer's monopolies).

The flaw in your logic is that you are ignoring the difference between prohibiting a voluntary transaction between two parties for their own supposed protection (e.g. minimum wage) with prohibition a transaction for the protection of a third party (e.g. anti-trust laws).

You're trying to add extra conditions to avoid the basic contradiction.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You're trying to add extra conditions to avoid the basic contradiction.

No, I'm just dismantling the straw man that you built to claim that there is a contradiction.

 

[DCal430]

@ DCal430

You said that you are willing to pay dues for representation, but not have a portion of your dues spent on political contribution.

Is that correct?

Yes, because that benefits me. I have no issue with mandatory agency fees. Just not political money that has nothing to do with us.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, because that benefits me. I have no issue with mandatory agency fees. Just not political money that has nothing to do with us.

So silly. Politics is just collective bargaining at a different level.

 

[senseamp]

Not exactly. It's the power of propaganda applied relentlessly for 35 years or so.

It's also denial about what Repubs greatest achievement, the Ownership Society, did to this Country. Only a complete flipflop from the Bush Admin & the FRB prevented another Great Depression. I'm glad it didn't happen, but we'd be in a better place politically if it had. By the time 1932 rolled around, America had figured out who fucked 'em & how because they had to or they'd have been fucked even harder. It was an epiphany.

Today's situation? Don't you know that Barney Frank caused the housing bubble?

The people in those states support making themselves cheap labor and coddling corporations instead. Whether they do it knowingly or out of stupidity, the outcome is the same.

 

[Double Trouble]

They are not allowing two private entities to associate in whatever way they see fit. It's unquestionably a violation of freedom of association.

Not any more than prostitution being illegal violates the two private parties from associating in whatever way they want. There are tons of laws governing unions and the employers' interaction with them (ie government interference). If the additional law that is added that gives workers more choice violates freedom of association, then surely all the other laws governing unions (from their creation to how the employer has to deal with them) certainly are much more grievous violations of freedom of association.

There's a reason why a lot of conservatives oppose right to work laws as fundamentally incompatible with conservative values.

I don't know any, but surely there are some. You can always find someone to represent pretty much any opinion out there. Last time I saw gallup polling data a few years ago, roughly 75% of the US supported right to work laws. If that's accurate, then a very tiny fraction of conservatives oppose RTW laws.

 

[Double Trouble]

Yeh, they're all about Power over the individual. You vs Megacorp rather than all the workers together vs Megacorp.

There's more "freedom" in the first scenario, obviously, but it's just the freedom to take it up the ass.

You appear to be starting from the (incorrect) perspective that all the "megacorps" out there are a monolithic whole. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In certain situations, the employee has no (or very little) bargaining power or leverage, so unions make sense. Those situations were much more common decades ago when a single employer was essentially the only option in a town and you had no choice but to work there. That simply isn't the case anymore.

Labor, especially highly skilled labor, is an asset for companies. They compete against each other for that labor. When I'm looking at negotiating my compensation, it's not me vs megacorp, it's me vs megacorp 1 vs megacorp 2 vs megacorp 3 vs small corp 4 and so on. If that weren't the case, wouldn't everyone be making minimum wage? How come 95% of the population makes more than minimum wage, even though only a small portion of them are unionized?

Low skill labor is much easier to replace, so the employee has much less leverage, and thus unions might make more sense.

 

[Double Trouble]

Black & white always, huh? He's just saying that there are usually enough short sighted bone heads in the world to fuck it up for the rest of us unless they're made to go along with the majority.

So apparently anyone who doesn't share your desire for a union is a "short sighted bonehead" who must be forcibly made to go along with the rest. If that's your starting point, there's no much room for discussion.

Shortly thereafter, you said if a Union would do certain things for you then you wouldn't need to be forced, but that you wouldn't join anyway.

That doesn't make sense anywhere on the planet.

It makes complete sense. If they added more positive than negative, I would join a union. Since they don't, I would not.

 

[Double Trouble]

So silly. Politics is just collective bargaining at a different level.

No, that's completely false. If I'm part of a union, I want them to represent my interests in the workplace. Beyond that specific area, any money spent on politics is an investment in the interests of the union (and union leadership), not the union members.

 

[Double Trouble]

So, how long have you been working in this Eeeevil union shop & why don't you go someplace else where there's no Union to whine about?

So should we chuck all labor laws out the window based on the logic "why don't you go work someplace else if you don't like it?". If you follow that line of thinking, there wouldn't be any unions at all nor would there be need for them.

 

[Double Trouble]

The people in those states support making themselves cheap labor and coddling corporations instead. Whether they do it knowingly or out of stupidity, the outcome is the same.

I don't support making myself "cheap labor" nor will right to work laws impact whether I'm cheap labor or not. The fact is a significant majority of workers are not part of a union, RTW state or not.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, that's completely false. If I'm part of a union, I want them to represent my interests in the workplace. Beyond that specific area, any money spent on politics is an investment in the interests of the union (and union leadership), not the union members.

Willful blindness in this & you other recent posts. If Unions aren't successful in the political realm, they won't be in the workplace, either. Witness this thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

So should we chuck all labor laws out the window based on the logic "why don't you go work someplace else if you don't like it?". If you follow that line of thinking, there wouldn't be any unions at all nor would there be need for them.

I merely suggest that perhaps the person I addressed might want to reconsider his whole POV about Unions because he must also believe that his is beneficial to him or he'd have moved on.

 

[Double Trouble]

Willful blindness in this & you other recent posts. If Unions aren't successful in the political realm, they won't be in the workplace, either. Witness this thread.

Just because something is good for a union, or unions in general, or union leadership does not mean it's good for me personally, nor does it mean it is more important to me than other considerations. I might absolutely be opposed to someone because they are a corrupt crook and be wrong on pretty much everything, yet the union leaders might love them because they support unions. I don't want my money to go to support politicians unless it's by my choice to support candidates I approve of.

Incidentally, I feel the same way about the stupid PAC's many corporations are pushing. They can only give so much themselves, so they want employees to join in the PAC. No way do I want to give my money to a PAC that will support politicians based on what's good for the company, because that doesn't always line up my personal interest.

 

[Double Trouble]

I merely suggest that perhaps the person I addressed might want to reconsider his whole POV about Unions because he must also believe that his is beneficial to him or he'd have moved on.

There are many other considerations beyond unions and union dues that go into where someone works.

 

[Jhhnn]

So apparently anyone who doesn't share your desire for a union is a "short sighted bonehead" who must be forcibly made to go along with the rest. If that's your starting point, there's no much room for discussion.



It makes complete sense. If they added more positive than negative, I would join a union. Since they don't, I would not.

Heh. So what you offer is "If, then, but not really, because I didn't mean it in the first place."

 

[shady28]

This is what's wrong with unions. On the face of it, I think unions are a good idea. But they were given too much power, and of course they abused it.

They were supposed to make sure working conditions were safe, companies took care of injured workers, and that they were paid a decent wage with decent benefits. Many of them are something entirely different today.


Lots more here :

http://capitalresearch.org/2012/01/the-union-difference-a-primer-on-what-unions-do-to-the-economy/



"When a union “organizes” a company it obtains a monopoly over its jobs. The law authorizes a single union to act as the “exclusive bargaining representative” for employees in dealing with their employer. Businesses cannot directly hire workers. Instead they must first come to an agreement with the union over how many workers to hire and what to pay them. The monopoly gives the union the power to raise the wages of the company’s employees.

For decades the Detroit auto industry offered a model for demonstrating the power of a union cartel in action. By the early 1940s the United Auto Workers (UAW) union had organized the Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. The companies could not hire employees except on terms specified by the union.

Under the leadership of UAW President Walter Reuther, the UAW insisted on very generous compensation at each company. Reuther engaged in “pattern bargaining”—targeting one of the Big Three during contract negotiations for terms of a new (and usually generous) contract.

If the automaker would not pay, the union would strike, shutting down operations, sending business to the other two companies, and costing the targeted firm billions. So the target company routinely conceded to union demands. Reuther forced the other two automakers to accept contracts with similar terms. This strategy allowed the UAW to raise labor costs across the Big Three without putting any of the automakers out of business.

This arrangement worked incredibly well for UAW members. Until the automakers were forced into bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 their labor costs (wages and benefits) exceeded $70 an hour. UAW members enjoyed seven weeks of paid vacation and they could retire to generous pension benefits after 30 years on the job, irrespective of age. They earned more than many Ph.D. scientists."

 

[senseamp]

I don't support making myself "cheap labor" nor will right to work laws impact whether I'm cheap labor or not. The fact is a significant majority of workers are not part of a union, RTW state or not.

Weakening unions makes labor cheaper. That's the big rationale for Republican "reforms."

 

[Gardener]

Yes, because that benefits me. I have no issue with mandatory agency fees. Just not political money that has nothing to do with us.

Gotcha. Those agency fees pay for contract negotiations, representation, and grievance procedures, so good on you.

As for the PACs...money buys access, and elects politicians. Do you work in the public sector, or in healthcare?

 

[Jhhnn]

Weakening unions makes labor cheaper. That's the big rationale for Republican "reforms."

And that's obviously good for the middle class because it'll all trickle down, right?

You'll have the freedumb! to choose from a variety of low paying jobs, too. And they'll have the right to shitcan your ass any time they feel like it.

 

[Zorkorist]

Weakening unions makes labor cheaper. That's the big rationale for Republican "reforms."

The only thing Labor does when it fights for higher wages, is make things more expensive, for everyone.

Labor needs to rededicate itself to making Government leaner, and less expensive.

The same result is achieved.

More money in their pockets. And along the way, there is less regulation, less incarceration, less burden of debt placed on their children. etc.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Government is the nemesis of labor. Steals all their money.

-John

 

[DCal430]

Gotcha. Those agency fees pay for contract negotiations, representation, and grievance procedures, so good on you.

As for the PACs...money buys access, and elects politicians. Do you work in the public sector, or in healthcare?

Public sector, but unions have very little need in the public sector. We are in the public sector are afforded broad protection beyond the union thanks to the 14th amendment. While in the private sector an employee can be let go without cause, in the public sector this is never true. This isn't because of unions, this is because of the constitution.

 

[Gardener]

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?

Yes, they do. All workers within a bargaining unit are represented by the union, its contract, its grievance procedure, the union negotiated wage and benefit scale, everything a dues paying union member gets.

Cad's response is in error.

 

[Gardener]

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.

The union is legally obligated to represent all members in the bargaining unit, even those who refuse to pay dues in RTW states. There is no other legal structure for a union to operate under within the authority of the National Labor Relations Act.

Section 9A of the National Labor Relations Act:

Sec. 9 [§ 159.] (a) [Exclusive representatives; employees' adjustment of grievances directly with employer] Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided, That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective- bargaining contract or agreement then in effect: Provided further, That the bargaining representative has been given opportunity to be present at such adjustment.

/quote

There is no SCOTUS decision that has revised this law, including the recent Harris v. Quinn where the issue was supposedly touched on by the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, but the court did not address it in its decision.

(Hey CAD, we had a similar discussion 2 years ago.)