So just exactly where does Dean really stand on Unions.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
It's called "National Security Strategy for the United States" and Abrams, Perle, Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld worked on it at PNAC who are now all high level officials in the present administration thus it a carbon copy of the 1998 memo. Could be all coinsidence or really a premptive "war on terror" whats going on..But I think theres something to the corporate angle when you look at the power they have in every bill going though and the corporate freedom we are granting in places we go into like Iraq.

It's talked about thoughout... but Pages 17 talk about it in bullit form. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

PS I know the reasons are all dressed up the republican idealogy, but I still have a problem dictating social and economic policy in foriegn countries which, if we're promoting democracy let them choose. And has an definate big corporate advantage apperance by making it hospitable for them to go there.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's called "National Security Strategy for the United States" and Abrams, Perle, Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld worked on it at PNAC who are now all high level officials in the present administration thus it a carbon copy of the 1998 memo. Could be all coinsidence or really a premptive "war on terror" whats going on..But I think theres something to the corporate angle when you look at the power they have in every bill going though and the corporate freedom we are granting in places we go into like Iraq.

It's talked about thoughout... but Pages 17 talk about it in bullit form. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

There is no document by that name on PNAC's web site. Maybe you're talking about the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" .doc? If you are then you are woefully misinformed because there's no mention of anything you talked about in that .doc. As to your second link, page 17, I suggest you read it again. Your previous post misrepresented it by a long shot, especially the "minimal social spending" part.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's called "National Security Strategy for the United States" and Abrams, Perle, Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld worked on it at PNAC who are now all high level officials in the present administration thus it a carbon copy of the 1998 memo. Could be all coinsidence or really a premptive "war on terror" whats going on..But I think theres something to the corporate angle when you look at the power they have in every bill going though and the corporate freedom we are granting in places we go into like Iraq.

It's talked about thoughout... but Pages 17 talk about it in bullit form. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

There is no document by that name on PNAC's web site. Maybe you're talking about the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" .doc? If you are then you are woefully misinformed because there's no mention of anything you talked about in that .doc. As to your second link, page 17, I suggest you read it again. Your previous post misrepresented it by a long shot, especially the "minimal social spending" part.
I don't think so dave...I tried to quote but it's a PDF...all I see is pro-business this low tax that...And yes I consider health and education a minimal level of of social spending. Which is all besides the point. What business do we have tell "promote" these countries how to run thier affairs (being pro-democracy and all it should be thier choice) and more importantly what's this got to do with national secuRity, if you understand National Security to be protection of the United States from foreign aggression as I do? Seems to be a blueprint for a playground for corporate america, as Iraq is now when we abolished all state owned industry and allowed 100% foreign ownership of businesses...etc.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
According to this piece, order 39 violates Hague Regulations of 1907 as well as the US Army's own code of war. No improprities here? Text
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's called "National Security Strategy for the United States" and Abrams, Perle, Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld worked on it at PNAC who are now all high level officials in the present administration thus it a carbon copy of the 1998 memo. Could be all coinsidence or really a premptive "war on terror" whats going on..But I think theres something to the corporate angle when you look at the power they have in every bill going though and the corporate freedom we are granting in places we go into like Iraq.

It's talked about thoughout... but Pages 17 talk about it in bullit form. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

There is no document by that name on PNAC's web site. Maybe you're talking about the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" .doc? If you are then you are woefully misinformed because there's no mention of anything you talked about in that .doc. As to your second link, page 17, I suggest you read it again. Your previous post misrepresented it by a long shot, especially the "minimal social spending" part.
I don't think so dave...I tried to quote but it's a PDF...all I see is pro-business this low tax that...And yes I consider health and education a minimal level of of social spending. Which is all besides the point. What business do we have tell "promote" these countries how to run thier affairs (being pro-democracy and all it should be thier choice) and more importantly what's this got to do with national secuRity, if you understand National Security to be protection of the United States from foreign aggression as I do? Seems to be a blueprint for a playground for corporate america, as Iraq is now when we abolished all state owned industry and allowed 100% foreign ownership of businesses...etc.
If that's all you see I might suggest a trip to the optometrist. The statement clearly is encouraging spending money on health and education. I see nothing in the document that suggests cutting that spending or restricting social spending to just those two things. As far as the national security question is concerned everyone with even a modicum of intelligence understands the relationship between economic security/prosperity and national security and that "direct" foreign aggression is not the only threat to national security. We have every right to "encourage" countries to have free, open, democratic societies that encourages business and industry to grow and prosper. It raises the standard of living for everyone. It fosters trade relationships between countries. That usually precludes open hostilities. One might even say that we have a moral obligation to do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging countries to create an atmosphere that is conducive to growing business/industry. The NSS clearly states that the way to do this is by legislatively encouraging private enterprise, minimizing the tax burden and spending money on health and education.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo

Corporations started around Lincolns time. He warned us calling them "new form of tyranny"... certainly a move away from equality and freedom of the individual this country was founded on and tward the freedom of corporation since then.
Not only is that wrong, it's just plain ignorant. I'm having trouble laughing, I'm so sickened.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Yep - still no coverage on Dean's Union statements:( Just stuff about his gaffe on his sealed files.

Oh, well - maybe someday someone will catch the story.

CkG
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
"In right to work states, union shops don't exist"

This is a false assumption on your part. Check out the Union Pacific Corp. They have a closed shop agreement with a bunch of unions and no state can prevent them from it because they for the most part have to obey state laws regarding Union membership.

Bleep
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bleep
"In right to work states, union shops don't exist"

This is a false assumption on your part. Check out the Union Pacific Corp. They have a closed shop agreement with a bunch of unions and no state can prevent them from it because they for the most part have to obey state laws regarding Union membership.

Bleep
Nice catch :)

Jhhnn - got an answer?

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
See the federal railway labor act of 1926 and others. Railroads are the exception to many rules, and federal rules supercede state statutes, where applicable.

Congress and the Prez could repeal 14b, for example, and the states would have to go along.

In the general case, what I said before is true, it's the basis of so-called right to work statutes...

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
See the federal railway labor act of 1926 and others. Railroads are the exception to many rules, and federal rules supercede state statutes, where applicable.

Congress and the Prez could repeal 14b, for example, and the states would have to go along.

In the general case, what I said before is true, it's the basis of so-called right to work statutes...
Good - It's nice to see you know something about Rail-labor act and possibly something about 14b. But the problem comes in when someone wants to take 14b away - which would take the rights of the states in the matter of Unions. IMO the states should be able to decide to give workers the opportunity to work without being forced to join a Union.

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
But the problem comes in when someone wants to take 14b away - which would take the rights of the states in the matter of Unions. IMO the states should be able to decide to give workers the opportunity to work without being forced to join a Union.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, even if "right to work" is a clever exploitation of human nature, greed, and the apparently growing tendency of some to mooch off of the blood, sweat, toil and tears of others while claiming righteousness. Personally, I'd be ashamed to work next to union people, knowing that their efforts are a large part of my own well-being, knowing that I'm cheating them and the system for peanuts/month, dishonoring myself and my family.

I suspect that Howard Dean would feel much the same. His position on 14b reflects that, and his stand on states rights. No, he's not pushing for its repeal, believing, as you do, that it's a states' rights issue. Nonetheless, he'd gladly sign the legislation to repeal it, if the representatives of those states brought him the legislation that would do so. It's one thing for the executive to change the rules as Dubya is currently doing regarding environmental regs and other things, entirely another to go along with the duly elected representatives of the states if they call for something you favor...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
But the problem comes in when someone wants to take 14b away - which would take the rights of the states in the matter of Unions. IMO the states should be able to decide to give workers the opportunity to work without being forced to join a Union.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, even if "right to work" is a clever exploitation of human nature, greed, and the apparently growing tendency of some to mooch off of the blood, sweat, toil and tears of others while claiming righteousness. Personally, I'd be ashamed to work next to union people, knowing that their efforts are a large part of my own well-being, knowing that I'm cheating them and the system for peanuts/month, dishonoring myself and my family.

I suspect that Howard Dean would feel much the same. His position on 14b reflects that, and his stand on states rights. No, he's not pushing for its repeal, believing, as you do, that it's a states' rights issue. Nonetheless, he'd gladly sign the legislation to repeal it, if the representatives of those states brought him the legislation that would do so. It's one thing for the executive to change the rules as Dubya is currently doing regarding environmental regs and other things, entirely another to go along with the duly elected representatives of the states if they call for something you favor...
So what you are trying to say is that Bush is just doing things willy-nilly and that somehow Dean would simply be going "along with the duly elected representatives of the states"? :p Sure...:p

So since he claims he won't "push" it....it's OK? If it just happens to land on his desk...it's OK? So everyone is supposed to believe him even though he stated: "I hate right-to-work laws." and also thinks "it?s OK to be forced to join a union." Sure....:p
But wait...he's all for "State's rights" so that makes it all believable right? So he'll promise that as long as 1 state still wants to retain the rights re-affirmed by 14b - he won't sign it?...but what if it just happens to fly in the window and come to rest on his desk? :p

But anyway, enough for now on Dean as it's obvious to all but Dean apologists that he is talking out of both ends of his body, so lets get on to the actual Union bit. I have a few questions for you.
You say "Right to work" laws are an "exploitation of human nature, greed, and...tendancy to mooch" - why? Aren't people entitled to work where ever they want provided they meet the qualifications designated by the employer and are legally hired by the company?

You say that people should be ashamed(or atlest you would be) to work next to a union guy because they(union guy) exert some sort of effort that affects my well-being. - why? How? Does being in a union mean you for some reason work harder? or work for the benefit of other employees?

You suggest that people who don't join a union are "cheating them and the system" and are "dishonoring" themselves and their families. - why? How? Well if I dishonor myself and my family by taking personal responsibility for my job performance and skills then I guess you are right.:p Heck - I thought getting paid for a hard days work was honorable and respectable...but I guess that's only the case if you are a union member, right?

Wow - I can't wait to go to work on Monday and see about starting a Controls System Designer Union. Maybe then I can feel good about my work and won't be mooching off of all the hard working electricians who wire things the way I design/draw them.

CkG

ps - yes there was a heavy dose of sarcasm - but there are legit questions also.;)
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
It's becoming clear, CAD, that you'll only hear what you want to hear and that you may have read too much Ayn Rand.

14b was enacted into law by the same mechanism that would have to be used to repeal it- such a repeal would have to survive the machinations of both the house and senate to arrive on any president's desk. Meaning that such would require a least 60 votes in the senate to achieve cloture, and similar in the house. These people are the duly elected representatives of the states, and can abrogate states' rights to the federal govt if a majority chooses to do so. Even if a sitting president were to push it, chances of passage in today's climate are nil, and you know it. Basic strawman argument. Dean said he wouldn't push it, but didn't say why, and that's partially because it would be an exercise in futility. Political reality rears its ugly head, gulps down the proposition the way the dragon ate the short prince at the climax of Shrek. Chomp.

As for the rest of it, my reference was to holding the same job as union folks while not paying for the privilege of that position. Where did we get paid holidays, 40 hour work week, overtime pay, sick leave, paid vacations, pensions, safety standards, health care, and a few of the other features of the modern working environment? It wasn't from the beneficience of our employers or their political allies, that's for sure, or from just showing up to do a good job. It was from folks joining together in Unions, pooling their resources, getting some political clout, going on strike, shedding some blood, sweat and tears. It has been those efforts that raised the standards for everybody, white and blue collar alike.

And you think that greedy self-serving freeloaders should be able to walk right in and reap the benefits of generations of effort at no cost to themselves while undermining those efforts with lack of financial support? Or that you're not undermining your own position when doing so? Think again.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Yeah, monpolistic collusions and trusts are so good at raising the standards of those they exploit (vis., everyone else).
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's becoming clear, CAD, that you'll only hear what you want to hear and that you may have read too much Ayn Rand.

14b was enacted into law by the same mechanism that would have to be used to repeal it- such a repeal would have to survive the machinations of both the house and senate to arrive on any president's desk. Meaning that such would require a least 60 votes in the senate to achieve cloture, and similar in the house. These people are the duly elected representatives of the states, and can abrogate states' rights to the federal govt if a majority chooses to do so. Even if a sitting president were to push it, chances of passage in today's climate are nil, and you know it. Basic strawman argument. Dean said he wouldn't push it, but didn't say why, and that's partially because it would be an exercise in futility. Political reality rears its ugly head, gulps down the proposition the way the dragon ate the short prince at the climax of Shrek. Chomp.

As for the rest of it, my reference was to holding the same job as union folks while not paying for the privilege of that position. Where did we get paid holidays, 40 hour work week, overtime pay, sick leave, paid vacations, pensions, safety standards, health care, and a few of the other features of the modern working environment? It wasn't from the beneficience of our employers or their political allies, that's for sure, or from just showing up to do a good job. It was from folks joining together in Unions, pooling their resources, getting some political clout, going on strike, shedding some blood, sweat and tears. It has been those efforts that raised the standards for everybody, white and blue collar alike.

And you think that greedy self-serving freeloaders should be able to walk right in and reap the benefits of generations of effort at no cost to themselves while undermining those efforts with lack of financial support? Or that you're not undermining your own position when doing so? Think again.
:p No - I know what angle you are trying - I'm just trying to make you cement your argument.
It doesn't matter that he claims he won't "push it" - what matters is his stance on the issue as it provides insight to his view on Labor. Likewise - the probability of it passing doesn't matter either since, like I said, his statements show his views on Labor, choice, and state's rights. He is obviously for not giving workers the choice just as he isn't for supporting the State's the right to choose.

Huh? You really think that today's unions do all that for their workers? Sure Unions had a place when the labor force was being abused by corporations and before there were worker safety laws and such enacted by the govt. But in today's world Unions do little more than extort money from their workers for some perceived "security" and also blackmail corporations with the threat of a strike. Now again- Unions may have had a place and purpose at one time - but those days are long gone.

"holding the same job as union folks while not paying for the privilege of that position." WHAT!? People need to pay for the privilege of having a job/position? WTF planet do you live on? I'm quite sure that someone who GETS HIRED already EARNED the "privilege" of having that job/position.

"greedy self-serving freeloaders"? WTF? Did these people not legally gain employment? Are they not working hard for their wages? Are they not working to provide for their families? Do you really think that the only reason people are employed is because of Unions? Why do you say they are undermining their own job?

Also you forgot to address these questions:
You say "Right to work" laws are an "exploitation of human nature, greed, and...tendancy to mooch" - why?

You say that people should be ashamed(or atleast you would be) to work next to a union guy because they(union guy) exert some sort of effort that affects my well-being. - why?

You suggest that people who don't join a union are "cheating them and the system" and are "dishonoring" themselves and their families. - why? How?

Now while I'm pretty sure what your stance is - I still want to hear it from you. Answering the above questions will allow me to verify your argument, because so far you haven't provided anything to back up your little rants about "moochers" or "free-loaders". Basically - show us all why people should be forced to join a union if there is a union in the workplace and how their lives and jobs would be so much better if they did.

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
" Yeah, monpolistic collusions and trusts are so good at raising the standards of those they exploit (vis., everyone else)."

Uhh, 'scuse me, but that will require some elaboration to make any sense at all. Put down the pipe, wait a few hours, try again...

EDIT-

Your questions have already been answered, CAD, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

As for th old saw about unions being unnecessary, having served their function I'll argue that's not true at all. One of the newest Unions is growing right here in Denver, a union of Janitors. Of course, they're not being exploited any more, according to your argument, must be a figment of their imaginations...

Reminds me of the way the British govt dealt with the ira in years past- "Give us your guns, then we can talk." When the guns were given up, all they wanted to talk about was hanging their silly asses, which they did... Unions will become more important than ever, given the push downslope of american working people by the trend to equalization thru globalization. Giving up now would be like handing our guns to the redcoats.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
" Yeah, monpolistic collusions and trusts are so good at raising the standards of those they exploit (vis., everyone else)."

Uhh, 'scuse me, but that will require some elaboration to make any sense at all. Put down the pipe, wait a few hours, try again...
As opposed to - "holding the same job as union folks while not paying for the privilege of that position."

Yeah - who's smoking what?

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
On second thought, I'm laying it out one last time. Whether in a right to work state or not, jobs covered by a collective bargaining have a contract, negotiated by the union, paid for by the dues of the members. Those dues pay for all kinds of things, from union officers' wages to lawyers for arbitration hearings to lobbyists for the union cause and even (gasp!) contributions to political candidates.

In a true union shop, all the covered employees pay the same dues and get the same benefits, benefits not freely offered by their employer, but rather won at the bargaining table or thru a strike.

In a right to work state, that burden is not shared equally. Even though non-union employees have the same wages and benefits, and the union is required to represent them in any disciplinary setting, those employees pay nothing. If the union members strike for whatever reason, the non-union workers keep right on working, getting their paychecks all along. When the strike is settled, they reap the same benefits as the union members. They get something for nothing- indeed, they're rewarded for undercutting the union efforts by working thru a strike, and exploiting union resources at no cost to themselves.

There's also a certain amount of tradition involved. Just as Americans have fought and died to preserve this country from outside tyranny, so have union members done the same on an internal level, and remain fundamentally committed to their ideals... Just because the bosses would rather forget the lessons of Ludlow and other such massacres, or the memory of Joe Hill and others who gave their all for the movement doesn't mean that the rest of us should do so...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
On second thought, I'm laying it out one last time. Whether in a right to work state or not, jobs covered by a collective bargaining have a contract, negotiated by the union, paid for by the dues of the members. Those dues pay for all kinds of things, from union officers' wages to lawyers for arbitration hearings to lobbyists for the union cause and even (gasp!) contributions to political candidates.

In a true union shop, all the covered employees pay the same dues and get the same benefits, benefits not freely offered by their employer, but rather won at the bargaining table or thru a strike.

In a right to work state, that burden is not shared equally. Even though non-union employees have the same wages and benefits, and the union is required to represent them in any disciplinary setting, those employees pay nothing. If the union members strike for whatever reason, the non-union workers keep right on working, getting their paychecks all along. When the strike is settled, they reap the same benefits as the union members. They get something for nothing- indeed, they're rewarded for undercutting the union efforts by working thru a strike, and exploiting union resources at no cost to themselves.

There's also a certain amount of tradition involved. Just as Americans have fought and died to preserve this country from outside tyranny, so have union members done the same on an internal level, and remain fundamentally committed to their ideals... Just because the bosses would rather forget the lessons of Ludlow and other such massacres, or the memory of Joe Hill and others who gave their all for the movement doesn't mean that the rest of us should do so...
Tradition means nothing in here - haven't you been reading all the threads?:p But yes - I addressed the "history" of it - but their time has passed. Now the gov't has alot more controls in place to "protect" workers.

First off your premise about "benefits not freely offered by their employer, but rather won at the bargaining table or thru a strike." is wrong because there are plenty of places that are non-union that offer the same "benefits" that your Union supposedly "won at the bargaining table":p But keep believing what they feed you - it's good for you .... remember?:p

Anyway now to the central matter - you say that Unions are forced to represent them and give them everything that a union member "gets" - but that is not true. No Union in a right-to-work state is FORCED to represent non-members. No matter how much they whine it is the Union's choice to have an "exclusive" bargaining contract. Nothing in the law prevents Unions from not having exclusive bargaining contracts, and infact if you really wanted to get down and dirty - the US and Canada are the only two countries(to my knowledge) that have the choice for "exclusive" bargaining powers - I wonder what Europe thinks of our Union system:p

To me - it is a person's right to choose if they want to join a union or not. I will NEVER join a union by choice - I don't need someone to supposedly "protect" me from the big bad evil company - My work performance and ethic is all I need. If the company tries to take a sh!t on me then they will loose me as an employee and a different company will gain when they hire me. But again - that is just my attitude on how employment works - it's obvious some people don't share the desire to take control of their own job situation.

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
CAD-

Anyway now to the central matter - you say that Unions are forced to represent them and give them everything that a union member "gets" - but that is not true. No Union in a right-to-work state is FORCED to represent non-members. No matter how much they whine it is the Union's choice to have an "exclusive" bargaining contract. Nothing in the law prevents Unions from not having exclusive bargaining contracts, and infact if you really wanted to get down and dirty - the US and Canada are the only two countries(to my knowledge) that have the choice for "exclusive" bargaining powers - I wonder what Europe thinks of our Union system:p
You've missed a few of the finer points of right to work legislation-

In other words, in Utah and 20 other states, employees have the right to be part of the collective bargaining unit, to be represented by a union for contract negotiations and labor relations, to receive union wages and full rights under the collective bargaining agreement, but do not have to join the union or pay for its services. For a list of those states, go here.
link

The Europeans view American Unions as the wussies of the movement, particularly the French. The whole country will go out on a sympathy strike, block the roads, raise hell all over the place.... that's when they're in a good mood....
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
CAD-

Anyway now to the central matter - you say that Unions are forced to represent them and give them everything that a union member "gets" - but that is not true. No Union in a right-to-work state is FORCED to represent non-members. No matter how much they whine it is the Union's choice to have an "exclusive" bargaining contract. Nothing in the law prevents Unions from not having exclusive bargaining contracts, and infact if you really wanted to get down and dirty - the US and Canada are the only two countries(to my knowledge) that have the choice for "exclusive" bargaining powers - I wonder what Europe thinks of our Union system:p
You've missed a few of the finer points of right to work legislation-

In other words, in Utah and 20 other states, employees have the right to be part of the collective bargaining unit, to be represented by a union for contract negotiations and labor relations, to receive union wages and full rights under the collective bargaining agreement, but do not have to join the union or pay for its services. For a list of those states, go here.
link

The Europeans view American Unions as the wussies of the movement, particularly the French. The whole country will go out on a sympathy strike, block the roads, raise hell all over the place.... that's when they're in a good mood....
No - I didn't miss anything - I am quite aware of how this all works.;) However in some states if a worker isn't in the union they still have to pay "fair-share" dues which means they pay for the so-called "security" the union provides but not the political funding and such that the union does. IIRC only 5 states have legislation on "fair share" - Cali, Wisconsin, Delaware,Illinois, and Pennsylvania. But I also believe a union or two recently got hit because they "misreported" figures -oops:p.

Another thing you keep ignoring is that Unions aren't forced to have an "exclusive" bargaining contract. So it seems that the unions themselves are the ones who are allowing these people to have a so-called "free ride". The unions have nobody to blame but themselves.

CkG

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
"Another thing you keep ignoring is that Unions aren't forced to have an "exclusive" bargaining contract."

Wrong again. Whenever more than 50% of employees in a bargaining unit vote for union representation, that union is obligated to represent all the employees in that bargaining unit. In right to work states, those opposed to union membership for whatever reasons are free to ride in on the coattails of their union coworkers.

Reference the Taft-Hartley act for particulars...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Another thing you keep ignoring is that Unions aren't forced to have an "exclusive" bargaining contract."

Wrong again. Whenever more than 50% of employees in a bargaining unit vote for union representation, that union is obligated to represent all the employees in that bargaining unit. In right to work states, those opposed to union membership for whatever reasons are free to ride in on the coattails of their union coworkers.

Reference the Taft-Hartley act for particulars...
Actually I am right. There is nothing that forces a Union to have an "exclusive" bargaining agreement. There is nothing stopping them from having it a "members only" bargaining agreement.

But the reason they don't set up "member only" bargaining agreements is because they would lose the monopoly control over employees and it would lose "leverage" to use against the management. But in the end it is the no one but the union's fault for these so-called "free-loaders".

CkG

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY