Right to Work Vs. Forced Union

[Patranus]

Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Which do you support?

 

[drebo]

Unionization is an outdated, archaic, and presently unneeded burden on businesses.

At one time, unions did something useful. Currently, the level of media coverage and exposure we have makes it so that the things unions were designed to prevent are no longer possible for businesses to do.

 

[Steeplerot]

Capitalism is by nature exploitative thus unions will never be outdated as long as the profit motive and human labor coexist.

right-to-be-wageslave (and be grateful about it!) law. lol!

 

[drebo]

Capitalism is by nature exploitative thus unions will never be outdated as long as the profit motive and human labor coexist.

right-to-be-wageslave (and be grateful about it!) law. lol!

Capitalism is not by nature exploitative.

Some business owners got away with exploiting certain classes of people because they could. That is no longer the case, due to increased media exposure.

The argument about wages is laughable and untrue. The laws of supply and demand run contrary to your diatribe.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'd be ok with it if those who choose not to be in the Union aren't guaranteed the same wages and benefits as Union members. Now if the company wants to pay them the same that's up to the company but the non Union Workers shouldn't benefit from the Union being there.

 

[Red Dawn]

Capitalism is not by nature exploitative.

Some business owners got away with exploiting certain classes of people because they could. That is no longer the case, due to increased media exposure.

The argument about wages is laughable and untrue. The laws of supply and demand run contrary to your diatribe.

You've obviously never worked in the building trades.

 

[Steeplerot]

Capitalism is not by nature exploitative.

If all the little little libertarian boys and girls believe -even rainbow powered unicorns come alive! yay!

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Capitalism is not by nature exploitative.

Some business owners got away with exploiting certain classes of people because they could. That is no longer the case, due to increased media exposure.

The argument about wages is laughable and untrue. The laws of supply and demand run contrary to your diatribe.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!
Damn, I think beer came out my nose. You've really got to get out of the basement more.
Capitalism by human nature is the definition of exploitation.
All corporations and most businesses exploit women, single men and anyone else they can find regardless of media exposure.
Supply and demand, like statistics, applies only to the entire population. It is inaccurate and misleading when applied to individual companies.
Thanks for making me smile though.

 

[MovingTarget]

Of course unions are a burden to businesses...it keeps them from treating their workers as little more than cattle. "Right-to-work" is really a misnomer. In these states, unionization is effectively stamped out in many areas, thus removing any leverage that most workers have. The employer-employee relationship is not mutual (despite what libertarians and corporatists say), and is often very one-sided in these states.

 

[sactoking]

I've lived and worked in both kinds of states. When I was young and working jobs where collective bargaining would be useful it was a complete waste. Often entry-level workers would be required to pay union dues (several hundred dollars a month) and still get minimum wage. Later on in life as I worked more advanced jobs I noticed that in closed-shop states it would become virtually impossible to advance for any reason other than seniority. I've had too many bad experiences with a union taking thousands of dollars a year in dues only to have the labor contracts finalized 3-5 years late and with woefully inadequate concessions.

In my time in RtW states the entry-level jobs still get minimum wage but don't have to pay exorbitant union dues. Advanced jobs are actually available to top performers and not just those who have been there the longest. If you choose to join a union you typically have no additional rights or priviledges. The biggest benefit is the legal assistance, should you need it. It becomes a factor of choice: "Is this monthly fee worth it to me for the legal advice and other sundry services?"

Forced unionization really strikes me as similar to tithing at church; you're buying access to something (heaven/promotions) that you should be able to earn on your own (live a good life/be good at your job).

 

[Red Dawn]

I've lived and worked in both kinds of states. When I was young and working jobs where collective bargaining would be useful it was a complete waste. Often entry-level workers would be required to pay union dues (several hundred dollars a month) and still get minimum wage.

Who'd you work for, Soprano and Sons Waste Management?

 

[bamacre]

I was offered union membership when I sacked groceries at age 16. I told them "no," as it was another $5 taken out of my paycheck. They didn't seem happy about me saying "no," but that was the last I heard of it. Sounded like a sucker's deal to me.

 

[Brainonska511]

I was offered union membership when I sacked groceries at age 16. I told them "no," as it was another $5 taken out of my paycheck. They didn't seem happy about me saying "no," but that was the last I heard of it. Sounded like a sucker's deal to me.

I joined the union when I was a bagger/cashier in HS. It was great - for $5/week, I got paid time and a half on Sundays, 4 hours of bonus pay for working on a holiday, plus 1.5 pay on holidays that I worked. It was totally worth it, even if it only gave me 1.5 pay on Sundays - paid for itself in under 2 hours of work.

 

[Steeplerot]

If people think their Union is pointless (or what they think a Union is) make your own. Like anything else Democratic it takes good people who work for change. Not all that a Union is about is screwing management. I have seen them work together plenty (this is actually the norm).

A Union is a tool like anything else. Help make it better as a worker or get off the proverbial pot.

The whole system seriously needs reform, but then so does the US Government -another Democratic system supposedly run by us. Should we just toss both babies along with the bathwater?

I am sure some anarchists here think so.

 

[Patranus]

If people think their Union is pointless (or what they think a Union is) make your own. Like anything else Democratic it takes good people who work for change. Not all that a Union is about is screwing management. I have seen them work together plenty (this is actually the norm).

A Union is a tool like anything else. Help make it better as a worker or get off the proverbial pot.

The whole system seriously needs reform, but then so does the US Government -another Democratic system supposedly run by us. Should we just toss both babies along with the bathwater?

I am sure some anarchists here think so.

I think the main issue is being forced to accept a union if you are a business owner or being forced into joining a union if you want to work.

 

[Steeplerot]

The main issue is yes, we know you guys hate Unions and wish to scavenge what meat is left of the working class's bones in some vague hope of enriching yourselves also by backing up the corporations with bs obfuscations such as "Right to Work" or being "forced".

Can I get a hookup on wal-mart gift cards for you making these threads btw?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I'd be ok with it if those who choose not to be in the Union aren't guaranteed the same wages and benefits as Union members. Now if the company wants to pay them the same that's up to the company but the non Union Workers shouldn't benefit from the Union being there.

What? Anyone who works the same job should be guaranteed the same pay and benefits, no question. Unions are there to keep workers from being put into unworkable conditions with little pay and benefits. Employers aren't allowed to do that anymore, and if they do, it's a part of the job and is accepted upon employment.

Unions have some legitimate role in the private sector, where workers are protected by their own against those who may seek to exploit them. In the public sector, however, they are being employed by the government which has already enacted numerous laws that make being a government employee comparable to being in a union anyway. In addition, public sector workers are public servants - they do not have the right to strike because they are being paid by the taxpayer rather than a private employer.

The main issue is yes, we know you guys hate Unions and wish to scavenge what meat is left of the working class's bones in some vague hope of enriching yourselves also by backing up the corporations with bs obfuscations such as "Right to Work" or being "forced".

You really do sound like a communist. The working class in America is protected by the unions against incompetence and economic fluctuations, a privilege which no other class (besides politicians) enjoys.

 

[matt0611]

I am pro-union as long as they are private sector and not forced and have no special protection under a law.

I think it makes sense for workers to a have a common person to be in charge of dealing with the employer to negotiate for wages, working conditions, and benefits etc

I am not for any special government protection to them and if unions make deals that put the company on the path to fiscal disaster the company should have to declare bankruptcy and renegotiate deals with the unions.

I support the right-to-work states.

 

[Steeplerot]

You really do sound like a communist. The working class in America is protected by the unions against incompetence and economic fluctuations, a privilege which no other class (besides politicians) enjoys.

I think you are misreading what people are saying here, and uh...how does myself defending worker organization have me disagree with your statement?

One big Union baby!

 

[hal2kilo]

Capitalism is not by nature exploitative.

Some business owners got away with exploiting certain classes of people because they could. That is no longer the case, due to increased media exposure.

The argument about wages is laughable and untrue. The laws of supply and demand run contrary to your diatribe.

Yea, kind of like there's no racism in this country anymore.

 

[Red Dawn]

What? Anyone who works the same job should be guaranteed the same pay and benefits, no question. Unions are there to keep workers from being put into unworkable conditions with little pay and benefits. Employers aren't allowed to do that anymore, and if they do, it's a part of the job and is accepted upon employment.

Unions have some legitimate role in the private sector, where workers are protected by their own against those who may seek to exploit them. In the public sector, however, they are being employed by the government which has already enacted numerous laws that make being a government employee comparable to being in a union anyway. In addition, public sector workers are public servants - they do not have the right to strike because they are being paid by the taxpayer rather than a private employer.

Why should they be guaranteed the same pay and benefits? You get what your employers offers you or you work elsewhere. You see that's the advantage of being in the Union, because of the agreement the Union signs with the employer members are guaranteed certain wages and benefits that the Union and the Employer agreed upon. The non Union member is on his own working that out, there's no reason why the should benefit from what the Union does. Hell if the non Union member is able to do better then that's fine.

 

[Red Dawn]

I think the main issue is being forced to accept a union if you are a business owner or being forced into joining a union if you want to work.

The business owner can run a non union shop if he wants. If he wants to use Union Labor then he has to deal with their terms.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Why should they be guaranteed the same pay and benefits? You get what your employers offers you or you work elsewhere. You see that's the advantage of being in the Union, because of the agreement the Union signs with the employer members are guaranteed certain wages and benefits that the Union and the Employer agreed upon. The non Union member is on his own working that out, there's no reason why the should benefit from what the Union does. Hell if the non Union member is able to do better then that's fine.

You're missing something here, though. Why are those people deserving of this extra pay? Usually unions represent unskilled workers, but they tend to work things out and strain the system in such a way that they are paid as highly as highly skilled workers. Why should this be the case? It represents a violation of the laws of supply and demand, which is exactly what a monopoly does.

A union is a monopoly on labor. It raises the prices (ie, wages) as high as contractors are willing to pay, which is not how the economy is supposed to work. This drives up prices for EVERYONE to a point where the only winners are the fat cats in the unions who get 30 minute breaks every hour on top of their doubled salaries.

Workers are guaranteed a minimum wage, and those with sufficient experience and training are more sought after, and thus paid higher. That's how the labor market works. Unions break that, such that the entry-level worker is forced to pay dues to subsidize the inflated salaries of other, more long-term workers who may not actually possess more highly-valued skills.

Forced union dues (which are what we're talking about here, not whether unions are good or bad) are essentially a forced tax from a private entity. That should be illegal.

 

[Moonbeam]

If labor is too expensive nobody can hire. If labor is too cheap nobody can eat. If nobody can hire business will fail and all will suffer. If workers can't eat all will suffer.

 

[Red Dawn]

You're missing something here, though. Why are those people deserving of this extra pay? Usually unions represent unskilled workers, but they tend to work things out and strain the system in such a way that they are paid as highly as highly skilled workers. Why should this be the case? It represents a violation of the laws of supply and demand, which is exactly what a monopoly does.

A union is a monopoly on labor. It raises the prices (ie, wages) as high as contractors are willing to pay, which is not how the economy is supposed to work. This drives up prices for EVERYONE to a point where the only winners are the fat cats in the unions who get 30 minute breaks every hour on top of their doubled salaries.

Workers are guaranteed a minimum wage, and those with sufficient experience and training are more sought after, and thus paid higher. That's how the labor market works. Unions break that, such that the entry-level worker is forced to pay dues to subsidize the inflated salaries of other, more long-term workers who may not actually possess more highly-valued skills.

Forced union dues (which are what we're talking about here, not whether unions are good or bad) are essentially a forced tax from a private entity. That should be illegal.

On the contrary Bucky, they are paying a fee for representation and thusly they should reap the benefits from that representation where as the Non Union Employee doesn't pay for any representation so he shouldn't reap any benefits from it what so ever.

We are talking about a Right to Work state where both Union and Non Union work side by side.