Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: MotionMan
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: Ferocious
I find it almost elitist for people to judge whether or not workers should form a union or not. Let them vote and decide. Simple really.
If workers want a union, then they should be allowed to have one. If they want to remove a union, then they can vote to remove it.
No nation on earth has ever had a sizable and prosperous middle class without the ability of a free people to act collectively to better themselves.
A union may or may not be good. Either way let the people freely decide for themselves.
Your idea ignores the fact that many times the places of employment are closed shops, where you have no choice about joining.
My GF has a choice. They take 1% of her earnings if she joins, .9% if she doesn't. Sweet, huh?
Once again, when an employee benefits from that union negotiation, and has the benefit of union representation in things like grievances or disciplinary actions, why should they not pay for those services? Why should an employee who does not belong to the union get paid union wages or get benefits that were negotiated and bargained for by the union?
Should the worker who doesn't want to belong to the union be paid minimum wage and given no benefits, since he/she doesn't pay for them?
Once again, that raises the question of whether unions are for "the workers" or "the working class" or only for those who agree to join the union and pay dues.
MotionMan
OK, you say you're a lawyer...(not disputing that BTW) If someone comes in and wants the benefit of your services, do you charge them or are all your cases done "pro-bono"? If you do some pro-bono work, why should the next guy have to pay your fees? It's about the same thing. Why should one group pay for the services, and the next ones get them for free?
Originally posted by: MotionMan
I am not saying I am a lawyer - I am a lawyer
In any event, that is actually a really poor analogy, but just for the sake of argument, here goes:
All states of the U.S.A. (except Louisiana, BTW) use precedent to determine how to interpret laws and to rule on cases. So, say I represent a client regarding a particular issue and one side loses at the trial court level. Then one side appeals that decision and there is again a loser at that level. Then there is another appeal even further and the final decision is then published.
Now every single person (and their attorney) can use that published decision in their subsequent cases. That despite the fact that my client paid all those attorneys fees and I spent months, if not years, working on to get for my client. In fact, you could even download the actual briefs that I and the opposing counsel wrote and take quotes right out of them for your briefs.
So, as described above, those who did not pay for the law to be created to their benefit can still use it for their benefit.
Does that answer your question?
MotionMan
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: MotionMan
I am not saying I am a lawyer - I am a lawyer
In any event, that is actually a really poor analogy, but just for the sake of argument, here goes:
All states of the U.S.A. (except Louisiana, BTW) use precedent to determine how to interpret laws and to rule on cases. So, say I represent a client regarding a particular issue and one side loses at the trial court level. Then one side appeals that decision and there is again a loser at that level. Then there is another appeal even further and the final decision is then published.
Now every single person (and their attorney) can use that published decision in their subsequent cases. That despite the fact that my client paid all those attorneys fees and I spent months, if not years, working on to get for my client. In fact, you could even download the actual briefs that I and the opposing counsel wrote and take quotes right out of them for your briefs.
So, as described above, those who did not pay for the law to be created to their benefit can still use it for their benefit.
Does that answer your question?
MotionMan
Like I said, I wasn't disputing whether you are a lawyer or not...
Using your analogy, union wages help to pump up the wages of non-union companies too. They have to compete with the union companies for people, and if they don't pay somewhat decently, everyone will either gravitate to the union companies, (the better non-union hands usually do anyway) or find a different line of work that is easier on the body yet pays similarly.
The union doesn't get to charge those people dues, even though they directly benefit from the union's work. The same could be said for safety standards and other intangible benefits the unions have brought to the trades.
I freely admit that the construction unions are a much different situation than grocery stores, public employees, etc., since our work is somewhat itinerant, (there have been years when I worked for 8-10 different employers) and having a union is the only way to maintain fringe benefits and have a steady source of jobs to go to.
Originally posted by: BoomerD
They represent the workers, not the company. IF the employees want to be in a union, they have that right, and that should never be changed.
Sounds like you're trying to drum up more work for lawyers...
As the costs of living go up, everyone's wages need to go up, or else you lose ground. Odds are, your fees go up on an annual basis ( or at least periodically) None of the admittedly small group of lawyers I know still work for the same money they did 5 years ago. (Those who work on contingencies may not have seen their percentages go up, but in most cases, the overall value goes up as jury awards increase...
Originally posted by: BoomerD
If unions were eliminated today, wages would plummet. Benefits would drop. Working conditions would get as bad as the companies could get away with. We'd quickly revert to the sweat-shops of old.
These companies only pay good wages because they have to...not out of the goodness of their hearts.
I had a few friends who worked for a unionized locomotive plant in Boise, Idaho when the Right-to-Work (for less) law went into effect there many years ago. On the first day the law took effect, EVERY worker in the plant was fired, and attached to their final check was an application for employment. They were offered to re-apply for their jobs, with a reduction in pay ranging from 1/3 to 1/2. Many had no other option in the area, so they took the cut in pay. Working conditions also got worse, because there was no longer a shop steward or business agent on site making sure safety measures were followed. Employee benefits went from among the best in Boise, to mediocre, with high monthly premums, and poor insurance.
Originally posted by: BoomerD
If unions were eliminated today, wages would plummet. Benefits would drop. Working conditions would get as bad as the companies could get away with. We'd quickly revert to the sweat-shops of old.
These companies only pay good wages because they have to...not out of the goodness of their hearts.
I had a few friends who worked for a unionized locomotive plant in Boise, Idaho when the Right-to-Work (for less) law went into effect there many years ago. On the first day the law took effect, EVERY worker in the plant was fired, and attached to their final check was an application for employment. They were offered to re-apply for their jobs, with a reduction in pay ranging from 1/3 to 1/2. Many had no other option in the area, so they took the cut in pay. Working conditions also got worse, because there was no longer a shop steward or business agent on site making sure safety measures were followed. Employee benefits went from among the best in Boise, to mediocre, with high monthly premums, and poor insurance.
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are in construction, a competent tradesman and not a General Contractor you'd have to be a fool not to belong to a Union.
Tell that to my guys who are better paid, have the opportunity to work many more hours, get year end bonuses (tied to their safety records) and are never sent home for lack of work.
Our union competitors on the other hand can ONLY get jobs that require union labor. They simply can not compete with us on public bids. There is a reason that the union contractors (that I compete against) are always 20-30% higher in cost when we bid against them. We pay our men more and benefits are about the same so its not that.
This isn't just a single competitor either. It is a total of three of them. They do mostly government work and every once in a while an Architect will throw them a bone but in my opinion its only because the architect stands to make more money.
If your company pays more in wages and benefits that would be extremely unusual. You talk like your Union competitors cant get any work, how do they stay in business? The only market I have seen Union not be able to get a foothold is small retail.
Our company is routinely hired by Fortune 100 companies because we can deliver, something our non-Union competitors have failed to do in the past.
Occasionally we will hire non Union companies to sub on our GC jobs when we target a job agressively. Their employees dont make squat, lack experience, and more importantly fail to man the project.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well from my experience your company is the exception not the norm. How do you come in so much cheaper if you pay more , offer the same benefits and keep your employees on when there is no work, make less of a profit?Originally posted by: Darwin333
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are in construction, a competent tradesman and not a General Contractor you'd have to be a fool not to belong to a Union.
Tell that to my guys who are better paid, have the opportunity to work many more hours, get year end bonuses (tied to their safety records) and are never sent home for lack of work.
Our union competitors on the other hand can ONLY get jobs that require union labor. They simply can not compete with us on public bids. There is a reason that the union contractors (that I compete against) are always 20-30% higher in cost when we bid against them. We pay our men more and benefits are about the same so its not that.
This isn't just a single competitor either. It is a total of three of them. They do mostly government work and every once in a while an Architect will throw them a bone but in my opinion its only because the architect stands to make more money.
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Wait a minute. I thought the goal of unions was to get workers fair and just pay, conditions, benefits, etc... If all unions are doing is getting people what they rightfully deserve, which is what most argue, then why shouldn't ALL workers benefit from the same "fair pay and conditions"?
Or do you believe that fair treatment should only be given to those who pay for it?
The goal of a union is to get ITS people fair wages, better benefits, and better and safer working conditions. Why shouls someone who is not in the union reap the benefits that the union negotiated for? If someone wants to be non-union in a union shop, shouldn't they have to negotiate their own wages and benefits? Should the union reps have to represent them in grievance hearings, or disciplinary hearings? If they aren't paying for it, why should they get it? Does your paperboy deliver the paper for free? Do you get your groceries for free? Does your doctor work for free?
The responsibility of a union is to defend its membership -- every time, all the time, if for no other reasons than to send a dissenting vote to management that its membership always will be protected by a strong union and to alert the commissioner that his powers always will be checked by an advocate for the players.
Originally posted by: MotionMan
Here is an article about the author's condemnation of the NFLPA's handling of the Michael Vick matter.
Interesting read regarding the purpose of unions.
The responsibility of a union is to defend its membership -- every time, all the time, if for no other reasons than to send a dissenting vote to management that its membership always will be protected by a strong union and to alert the commissioner that his powers always will be checked by an advocate for the players.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/...yant_howard&id=2986420
Comments welcome.
MotionMan
Originally posted by: MotionMan
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: bctbct
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: MotionMan
I am a lawyer and have handled various employment matters.
There was a time for unions and because of them, we have a great deal of employee protection laws. However, the time for unions as a presence in the workplace has passed. Unions should be converted from employer-specific organizations to state and national lobbies to help maintain the current laws and to proposed and support new ones.
MotionMan</blockquote>
Dude no offense but almost everyone hates lawyers more than they hate Unions. I think its time we regulated your employment industry.
</blockquote>
I hate most lawyers, too. I just take solace in the fact that I know that I am just not one of those kind of lawyers.
MotionMan