The thread has devolved down close to the finger pointing and name calling stage as is the norm. The question is Right to Work vs. Forced Union and for that there can only be one answer and that is Right to Work. It's a big facet of what our country was founded on - freedom. Should an individual be forced to join any sort of organization to get the job they desire as a condition of their employment? The Masons? NOW? The KofC? The NRA?
People having a choice in their representation keeps the union focused on what their purpose is. It keeps them focused on representing the workers instead of becoming fat cats themselves. It makes them fully aware on a regular basis that the betterment of the workers they represent is what keeps them in business. A guaranteed stream of dues from workers with no say in the matter leads to complacency and corruption to name just a few of the vices I've seen.
I live and worked in a state that is not right to work. I worked a union job for 30 years. Thankfully after working prior for over 10 years in other jobs with no union. I saw first hand what union representation can do for workers. I saw lots of good and plenty of bad. As a tradesman I saw the closing of the gap in wages between myself as skilled and others as unskilled and I'll tell you it's demoralizing to have to put in 4 years of training and 3 years of college as a requirement for your job and then to see people putting parts in baskets getting paid within 5% of what you're making. People who in many cases are unable to even read. If you think I'm joking you need a big reality check.
It's demoralizing to have a work ethic, come into work every day you're expected to and do what's expected of you to see some of your fellow tradesmen missing days at a time, coming in hours late, being unable to be found, getting drunk and high on the job and in general breaking every rule there is on a regular consistent basis and nothing happens to them. There are no consequences for the type of behavior that would have long since gotten them fired at a non-union place of employment. It doesn't take long to realize that their portion of the work is being done by those who are willing to work. Day after day, week after week and year after year of this wears down the will of those willing to produce. It's a vicious cycle.
Oh yes, as Kanalua said, we also had the right to designate that we only pay the collective bargaining portion of dues. A simple form would take care of that. You'd literally get the shit beat out of you and most likely before that workday was over if you submitted that form. Anyone who thinks that's not true is mistaken. I got backed into a corner and threatened when I applied for a different trade after completing the training program for the one I was in. I had the right to do so, but that right was negated by the union. I was told that I didn't need to remove my application because they'd already done that for me. I was also warned of the consequences if I resubmitted it. There was mention of physical violence and my car catching on fire. Over time, the union and management, working together, can become a team - you bet. A mutual backscratching cartel with the worker pinned in the middle. Been there, done that.
I could go on and on and on.
If unions are firm believers in their worth and abilities, they should have no problems with right to work laws. Instead they want things skewed in their favor. Right to work should be the law of the land. Let them sink or swim on their own merits.
To be clear, I am thankful for the wages, benefits and yes, even working environment that the union was a big part in providing for me. I am also beyond being bitter for all the bullshit that myself and others had to put up with, some of which I've outlined here. I often felt I was working for two forms of management - company and union.
Unions needs checks and balances and right to work laws are essential for that.
Facebook
Twitter