• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Michigan - Unions will no longer run our state

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
As for the advocates of RTW: If they were consistent, they would be advocating freedom of choice at all work sites, including non-union sites.
Yeah, and who says they don't?

I support RTW, and I support employee and employer choice. I view the employer-employee relationship as an agreement. Exchange work/knowledge/etc for $. If either is unhappy with that arrangement they are free to change/negotiate.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,436
31
91
You can either run in the Race to the Bottom or get dragged to the bottom. It's probably better to head towards the bottom on your own two feet.
 

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
513
122
116
Yeah, and who says they don't?

I support RTW, and I support employee and employer choice. I view the employer-employee relationship as an agreement. Exchange work/knowledge/etc for $. If either is unhappy with that arrangement they are free to change/negotiate.
If you support the rights of workers to form a union and bargain collectively at every worksite, even when they comprise less than 50% of the bargaining unit, then you would be consistent in terms of this discussion.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
If you support the rights of workers to form a union and bargain collectively at every worksite, even when they comprise less than 50% of the bargaining unit, then you would be consistent in terms of this discussion.
There is nothing stopping people from joining a union when they represent less than 50%. The problem for them comes in about being recognized by the corporation. My current employer has an install crew for our OEM equipment. The lead is part of the Labor Union, but that's only because it causes us less problems in union plants where the people or other contractors are thugs. However, none of the other guys on the crew are union nor are any other workers in the company. So what were you saying about consistency???
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Hey Halik. Thanks for your thoughful post.

Specific to your point...not a lawyer but have some familiarity with the NLRA and labor. Concerning that 10000 word decision from 1935, do you care to summarize? It appears that management was driving the employees to chose the union management preferred, which under the Act is illegal.

As for the concept of Exclusive Bargaining Agent, it is a fundamental right granted to workers by the Act.

Without exclusivity, it would be easy for a company to circumvent and crush the union. Management would favor one group over another, or non-union over union, a simple divide and conquer strategy.

Asking union workers to give up that right is the same as asking them to give up collective bargaining.

The another option, however, is the type of labor law in Australia and Western Europe, iirc, where there is industry wide representation. In that framework, there is no restriction limiting union membership to those "working at a union plant". Anyone can join or not join, regardless of where they work. Its a different system of power sharing between workers and management, and it seems logical.

As for the advocates of RTW: If they were consistent, they would be advocating freedom of choice at all work sites, including non-union sites.
Three quick points. First, union workers in Michigan still have every right they had last year except the right to force others against their will to support the union. That is a "right" that by definition takes away someone else's freedom - hence, not a right at all, but a privilege of power over others granted by the State.

Second, in a perfect scenario a union delivers value not only to its members, but also to the employer. Given some semblance of that it's not at all easy for the employer to divide and conquer because disfavoring the union would be against the employer's own best interests.

Third, we already have the system you describe in some ways. In many good non-union electric companies, a third or more electricians are union members because they recognize that the union provides benefits in accordance with its dues. Off the top, the union apprenticeship program is THE best training you can get, combining book learning (complete the apprenticeship course and you'll have at least one two-year technical college degree) with on-the-job training from qualified master electricians who do the job every day. Union membership also gives the employees some power should management ask them to do something dangerous, to themselves or to others, or otherwise unethical. For instance, should management in a non-union shop ask a union electrician to perform a dangerous job without the proper safety equipment or assistance, he will refuse and if necessary, all the other union members will walk out with him. That also protects non-members, since a union member will similarly refuse to allow a non-member to take on unreasonable risks or do something unethical. And union membership pays benefits in other ways, such as setting wage rates (which must still be negotiated, but it provides a reasonable standard) and in continuing education.

If a union provides benefit only to its members at the expense of their employer, it's a net drain on society as it artificially raises wages and kills our ability to compete while merely moving money from one pocket to another. Operated correctly, a union provides benefits to both employer and employee, allowing employees to earn more and have a batter and safer workplace while allowing the employer to deliver a better product, getting real benefits from his increased costs. Legislating away the union's need to provide any benefits to either employer and employee by making sure the union gets its money no matter the quality of its services leaves the union little incentive to anything for either party.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
:rolleyes:

The freedom is from a 3rd party getting between a worker and their employer. If a person wants that 3rd party then fine, very few have a problem with that. It's when people loose the choice of employment at the employer of their choice without 3rd party interference that it becomes a problem.
Even without RTW laws, there is NOTHING enabling a "3rd party to get between a worker and their employer" without the consent of either the worker or the employer. Mandatory union membership/dues, as I understand it, is negotiated between the employer and the union and required by the employer of the employee. It's hard to view the union as some unrelated 3rd party butting into things.

But if you're concerned about ANY 3rd party involvement, shouldn't RTW laws also prohibit employers requiring any sort of certification, professional association membership or even college degree? After all, each of those involves the employer requiring some 3rd party participation on the party of the employee in order to get hired. So much lost freedom!

Oh, and a person does have the freedom to try to negotiate start times and other things you mention. They may not get them due to how the company operates but they do have the freedom to ask. Employment is an agreement between a worker and the employer. Restricting freedoms by forcing the insertion of a 3rd party is not choice, it's legalized theft which RTW helps eliminate.
You have the freedom to negotiate certain aspects of employment but, as I said already, you can't conditionally agree to them. Nor do you have the freedom to choose EVERY aspect of your employment. And you certainly don't have the freedom to choose in what manner you'd like to be employed...EXCEPT by choosing what employer you'd like to work for.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Three quick points. First, union workers in Michigan still have every right they had last year except the right to force others against their will to support the union. That is a "right" that by definition takes away someone else's freedom - hence, not a right at all, but a privilege of power over others granted by the State.

Second, in a perfect scenario a union delivers value not only to its members, but also to the employer. Given some semblance of that it's not at all easy for the employer to divide and conquer because disfavoring the union would be against the employer's own best interests.

Third, we already have the system you describe in some ways. In many good non-union electric companies, a third or more electricians are union members because they recognize that the union provides benefits in accordance with its dues. Off the top, the union apprenticeship program is THE best training you can get, combining book learning (complete the apprenticeship course and you'll have at least one two-year technical college degree) with on-the-job training from qualified master electricians who do the job every day. Union membership also gives the employees some power should management ask them to do something dangerous, to themselves or to others, or otherwise unethical. For instance, should management in a non-union shop ask a union electrician to perform a dangerous job without the proper safety equipment or assistance, he will refuse and if necessary, all the other union members will walk out with him. That also protects non-members, since a union member will similarly refuse to allow a non-member to take on unreasonable risks or do something unethical. And union membership pays benefits in other ways, such as setting wage rates (which must still be negotiated, but it provides a reasonable standard) and in continuing education.

If a union provides benefit only to its members at the expense of their employer, it's a net drain on society as it artificially raises wages and kills our ability to compete while merely moving money from one pocket to another. Operated correctly, a union provides benefits to both employer and employee, allowing employees to earn more and have a batter and safer workplace while allowing the employer to deliver a better product, getting real benefits from his increased costs. Legislating away the union's need to provide any benefits to either employer and employee by making sure the union gets its money no matter the quality of its services leaves the union little incentive to anything for either party.
I'd buy that, except there doesn't seem to be any laws supporting the idea that the EMPLOYER has to provide value to both the employee and the employer/investors.

Unions are organized labor in the exact same way that corporations are organized capital. Each has a specific goal and obligation, and NEITHER has the goal of benefiting society as a whole. The assumption is that everyone working for their own gain works for the best for all of us is the foundation of capitalism. I see absolutely no reason to limit that idea of greater good through selfishness to capital alone.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Even without RTW laws, there is NOTHING enabling a "3rd party to get between a worker and their employer" without the consent of either the worker or the employer. Mandatory union membership/dues, as I understand it, is negotiated between the employer and the union and required by the employer of the employee. It's hard to view the union as some unrelated 3rd party butting into things.

But if you're concerned about ANY 3rd party involvement, shouldn't RTW laws also prohibit employers requiring any sort of certification, professional association membership or even college degree? After all, each of those involves the employer requiring some 3rd party participation on the party of the employee in order to get hired. So much lost freedom!



You have the freedom to negotiate certain aspects of employment but, as I said already, you can't conditionally agree to them. Nor do you have the freedom to choose EVERY aspect of your employment. And you certainly don't have the freedom to choose in what manner you'd like to be employed...EXCEPT by choosing what employer you'd like to work for.
lol! It's not a 3rd party? It's not the employer requiring it either, it's the Union because of how they established themselves which forces people to join without CHOICE. Sheesh - are you for real?

Uh really? Requiring a degree is not a 3rd party getting between you and an employer as it may be a barrier to be hired but it isn't between you two during employment. You don't answer to a degree instead of your employer like you do with a Union. Oh wait, you are being obtuse on purpose... or maybe you really are just that stupid...

And you are incorrect. You can choose to negotiate the manner of your employment if you so choose. It doesn't mean you'll get everything you want but there is nothing stopping you from asking/negotiating for it. People do it all the time. Hell, I don't have a BS degree yet I've been employed by 2 places now that hire only college grads as Engineers... yet here I am(point being barriers are only there for people with no ambition). Negotiation, advancement, production will allow you to knock down the barriers. Sadly though too many people are like you who expect things to be handled for them(and handed to them)... Meh keep your head in the sand(or up the union ass)
 
Last edited:

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
513
122
116
There is nothing stopping people from joining a union when they represent less than 50%. The problem for them comes in about being recognized by the corporation....
Therein lies the problem.

Without a legal framework that allows all workers the right to collectively bargain, regardless of the majority/minority status of the union in their workplace, your so called "free choice" is entirely one-sided construct that undermines collective bargaining.

You don't believe in collect bargaining, right?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Therein lies the problem.

Without a legal framework that allows all workers the right to collectively bargain, regardless of the majority/minority status of the union in their workplace, your so called "free choice" is entirely one-sided construct that undermines collective bargaining.

You don't believe in collect bargaining, right?
I believe that if a union wants to be able to collectively bargain it must establish enough collectiveness to be cost/time effective. If a union shows enough to benefit to employees, it should have no problem meeting that threshold.

However, freedom of each employee is paramount so they should be free to choose for themselves whether they want to be under a union's umbrella or not. Without that choice there isn't freedom.
 

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
513
122
116
I believe that if a union wants to be able to collectively bargain it must establish enough collectiveness to be cost/time effective. If a union shows enough to benefit to employees, it should have no problem meeting that threshold.

However, freedom of each employee is paramount so they should be free to choose for themselves whether they want to be under a union's umbrella or not. Without that choice there isn't freedom.
Kudos to you. That's a very apolitical thing to say. I'll buy you a beer the next time you are in Seattle.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,364
14,616
136
lol! It's not a 3rd party? It's not the employer requiring it either, it's the Union because of how they established themselves which forces people to join without CHOICE. Sheesh - are you for real?

Uh really? Requiring a degree is not a 3rd party getting between you and an employer as it may be a barrier to be hired but it isn't between you two during employment. You don't answer to a degree instead of your employer like you do with a Union. Oh wait, you are being obtuse on purpose... or maybe you really are just that stupid...

And you are incorrect. You can choose to negotiate the manner of your employment if you so choose. It doesn't mean you'll get everything you want but there is nothing stopping you from asking/negotiating for it. People do it all the time. Hell, I don't have a BS degree yet I've been employed by 2 places now that hire only college grads as Engineers... yet here I am(point being barriers are only there for people with no ambition). Negotiation, advancement, production will allow you to knock down the barriers. Sadly though too many people are like you who expect things to be handled for them(and handed to them)... Meh keep your head in the sand(or up the union ass)
That's the standard right wing chant- if anybody can do it, then everybody can do it, completely on their own. It's the usual John Galt horseshit, given that it's all about you, anyway. So long as you're getting yours, then the system that provides that is obviously doing well by everybody else, too.

As Union clout has declined the fortunes of median families have gone right along with it. As corporate profits have gone to new heights, wages as a % of the economy have fallen to record lows.

Which obviously means that what people need is more Freedom! to deny what's happening to the middle class at a higher level, at a level we can't possibly address with personal negotiating, at all. Our problems are systemic, and they're not due to Unions, at all. If they were, they'd have been worse when Unions were stronger.

It's all too easy for highly skilled & lucky people to shill the way you usually do, oblivious to the very negative changes in the economy wrought by widespread beliefs such as your own. We don't need for working people to make less in aggregate, but rather more, and that won't happen when the middle class competes rather than cooperates with each other. It's a race to the bottom & a tragedy of the commons rolled into one.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,493
3,876
136
Three quick points. First, union workers in Michigan still have every right they had last year except the right to force others against their will to support the union. That is a "right" that by definition takes away someone else's freedom - hence, not a right at all, but a privilege of power over others granted by the State.

Second, in a perfect scenario a union delivers value not only to its members, but also to the employer. Given some semblance of that it's not at all easy for the employer to divide and conquer because disfavoring the union would be against the employer's own best interests.

Third, we already have the system you describe in some ways. In many good non-union electric companies, a third or more electricians are union members because they recognize that the union provides benefits in accordance with its dues. Off the top, the union apprenticeship program is THE best training you can get, combining book learning (complete the apprenticeship course and you'll have at least one two-year technical college degree) with on-the-job training from qualified master electricians who do the job every day. Union membership also gives the employees some power should management ask them to do something dangerous, to themselves or to others, or otherwise unethical. For instance, should management in a non-union shop ask a union electrician to perform a dangerous job without the proper safety equipment or assistance, he will refuse and if necessary, all the other union members will walk out with him. That also protects non-members, since a union member will similarly refuse to allow a non-member to take on unreasonable risks or do something unethical. And union membership pays benefits in other ways, such as setting wage rates (which must still be negotiated, but it provides a reasonable standard) and in continuing education.

If a union provides benefit only to its members at the expense of their employer, it's a net drain on society as it artificially raises wages and kills our ability to compete while merely moving money from one pocket to another. Operated correctly, a union provides benefits to both employer and employee, allowing employees to earn more and have a batter and safer workplace while allowing the employer to deliver a better product, getting real benefits from his increased costs. Legislating away the union's need to provide any benefits to either employer and employee by making sure the union gets its money no matter the quality of its services leaves the union little incentive to anything for either party.
Excellent post, werepossum. :thumbsup:
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,050
3
0
Who is forcing them? If they don't like it or agree with the dues what's stopping them from hitting the road?
That seems very backwards and illogical.
Why should I have to pay a third party a portion of my salary? I can negotiate my own terms of employment tyvm.

Let's say I do go to another employer and they decide to unionize there as well. So I would be forced to join or constantly be looking for new employment at no fault/desire of my own?
That's absurd.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,050
3
0
But if you're concerned about ANY 3rd party involvement, shouldn't RTW laws also prohibit employers requiring any sort of certification, professional association membership or even college degree? After all, each of those involves the employer requiring some 3rd party participation on the party of the employee in order to get hired. So much lost freedom!
.
Not sure if srs.
You mean I have to prove I can do my job before I get the job?
Nah, I'll just expect my employer to trust I know how to code because I said so during the interview.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
As for the advocates of RTW: If they were consistent, they would be advocating freedom of choice at all work sites, including non-union sites.
What makes you think RTW advocates don't advocate freedom of choice at all work sites? I'm all for freedom of choice, regardless of where you work. You should not have to join a union, and you should be able to if you want to.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
That seems very backwards and illogical.
Why should I have to pay a third party a portion of my salary? I can negotiate my own terms of employment tyvm.

Let's say I do go to another employer and they decide to unionize there as well. So I would be forced to join or constantly be looking for new employment at no fault/desire of my own?
That's absurd.
You are never "Forced" to join the Union that's a Rightwing myth, you just won't get the benefits of being in the Union.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-membership/#axzz2F2GxeTFP

Rightwing lies about Unions

http://youth.ofl.ca/index.php/myths/
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
You are never "Forced" to join the Union that's a Rightwing myth, you just won't get the benefits of being in the Union.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-membership/#axzz2F2GxeTFP
Your own link confirms that this is not a "myth" at all. Sure, you are not forced to be a "member in good standing", but you are forced to pay dues. The amount in dues you pay can be smaller, but you're forced to pay dues to a crappy third party organization whether you want to or not.

Further, because unions don't want to risk all their members realizing that they're getting fleeced, they go to great lengths to obfuscate the actual rights of the workers, so workers who want to assert their rights have to go to a lot of trouble to do so. Also as per your own link.

Your link actually (surely unintentionally) provides great support for the RTW case.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,050
3
0

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
So you are ok with a private entity being able to force you to pay for a service that you neither asked for nor desired by someone other than your employer just so you can work for said employer?



Would you be ok with an employer forcibly taking 5% of their employees wages to use as political donations to the candidates of the employers choosing? How about just for charitable donations?







If their business model requires people being forced to pay for services they didn't request or desire, yes and rightfully so in my opinion.







Bah, that was rather short for P&N.
Actually, the specific disagreement was the requirement for the union to represent non-paying non-members. That means the union model is now based on hoping individual employees will go against their own best interests by voluntarily paying for a 'free' service.

It creates a misalignment of individual and collective best interests.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
I'd buy that, except there doesn't seem to be any laws supporting the idea that the EMPLOYER has to provide value to both the employee and the employer/investors.

Unions are organized labor in the exact same way that corporations are organized capital. Each has a specific goal and obligation, and NEITHER has the goal of benefiting society as a whole. The assumption is that everyone working for their own gain works for the best for all of us is the foundation of capitalism. I see absolutely no reason to limit that idea of greater good through selfishness to capital alone.
Actually there are many such laws. We have minimum wage laws, laws against paying employees in company script good only in company stores, laws protecting stockholders from management squandering their money, in spite of the fact that the relationship between employer and employee and between corporate employer and stockholders are inherently based on the employer providing value to both. If the employer is not providing sufficient value to the employee, the employee may elect to quit or, where the employee feels the employer has violated one of these very, very many laws, bring a civil suit or file a criminal complaint. If the employer is not providing sufficient value to the investors, the investors sell the stock, thereby ending the relationship; they may bring a civil suit or file a criminal complaint against management. These things happen every month if not every day.

The difference with Right To Work laws is that they end a non-consensual agreement imposed between employee and union, where due to a law the employee must enter into an agreement with the union in order to enter into an agreement with the employer. They do not end the individual's right to freely enter into an agreement with the union to give himself more power than his own abilities would provide. (Nor should they, since the employer almost always has more power in that relationship, having the ability to move his business, bring in workers, or subcontract the work.) Right To Work laws ONLY end the union's ability to force employees into that contract - or to be more accurate, end the union's ability to force employees into fulfilling the financial requirements of that contract, as the employee is free to not join the union but must pay dues regardless of what value (if any) the union provides him.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Hell, I don't have a BS degree yet I've been employed by 2 places now that hire only college grads as Engineers... yet here I am(point being barriers are only there for people with no ambition). Negotiation, advancement, production will allow you to knock down the barriers. Sadly though too many people are like you who expect things to be handled for them(and handed to them)... Meh keep your head in the sand(or up the union ass)
Awww, you are the coffee bitch and they let you think you're a real engineer, how precious.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Actually, the specific disagreement was the requirement for the union to represent non-paying non-members. That means the union model is now based on hoping individual employees will go against their own best interests by voluntarily paying for a 'free' service.

It creates a misalignment of individual and collective best interests.
Please see my earlier post: that's simply not the case. The unions choose to create this problem by demanding exclusive representation rights. Hence they have to represent everyone whether they join the union or not. They (the union) have the option of not having exclusive representation and not having to deal with any freeloaders.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY