So just exactly where does Dean really stand on Unions.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
"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."

Nothing but federal law. As I said before, having won an election by more than 50% of the vote, the union is obligated to represent all those in the bargaining unit. When you're in, you're all the way in, or you're out. Wouldn't matter, those in the minority would have to join, except in right to work states. Basic double whammy- lower revenues, combined with higher outlays to care for the non-payers...

I already linked an authoritative source, management friendly, at that. I did my homework, now it's your turn...


 

CADsortaGUY

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

Nothing but federal law. As I said before, having won an election by more than 50% of the vote, the union is obligated to represent all those in the bargaining unit. When you're in, you're all the way in, or you're out. Wouldn't matter, those in the minority would have to join, except in right to work states. Basic double whammy- lower revenues, combined with higher outlays to care for the non-payers...

I already linked an authoritative source, management friendly, at that. I did my homework, now it's your turn...
You don't seem to understand the concept of "exclusive". It basically means that it represents ALL employees whether they are union members or not. "member only" bargaining agreements mean that only union members are represented by the contract. It's really not that hard of a concept and there is NOTHING that forces unions to have "exclusive" bargaining agreements. The union chooses what type of bargaining agreement it has. A union in a RTW state can most definately change it's bargaining agreement to a member's only one so it doesn't have to represent the supposed "free-loaders".

If you had done your homework you'd already know this. Unions aren't forced to be "exclusive" ;)

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Mere assertions on your part, CAD, and quite repetitive and stubborn as well. If your POV is valid, then you should be able to link it up, like this-

Same as Before!

If there's nothing to stop unions from what you say, then there should be some sources available...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Mere assertions on your part, CAD, and quite repetitive and stubborn as well. If your POV is valid, then you should be able to link it up, like this-

Same as Before!

If there's nothing to stop unions from what you say, then there should be some sources available...
What is your link supposed to prove? That unions can exist? :p That they don't have the power in some states to force people to join? That because some unions create "exclusive" bargaining agreements - some workers gain "benefits" bargained for by the union? So? I already know these things, I'm not arguing them, but what I'm saying is that Unions are not FORCED to create "exclusive" bargaining agreements - they most certainly can have a "members-only" bargaining agreement. What do you want for a link? If you really knew as much about unions as you claim to - you'd already have admitted that I am correct in my assertion.
Now as to how you want me to prove that the law doesn't prohibit "member-only" unions - what do you want? I have plenty of sources that mention that the laws don't prohibit it(ofcourse you wouldn't believe these places because you'd consider them "anti-union") - do you want me to post every law on Labor so we can make sure there isn't one that says you can't have "member-only" bargaining agreements?:p
Nothing you have posted says that Unions can't form "non-exclusive" or "member-only" bargaining agreements and you won't find one that will. Heck even William Gould would freely admit that, and he was appointed by Clinton to Chair the National Labor Relations Board!:Q:p

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS links
Nope - no "force" here
Or how about this part - is there "forcing" of "exclusive" agreements?
<snip>
It is declared hereby to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection
</snip>

I'll be waiting.

CkG
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
from Jhhnn's link....

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.
aka FREE-LOADING!

aka Right-to-Mooch states.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Ferocious
from Jhhnn's link....

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.
aka FREE-LOADING!

aka Right-to-Mooch states.
aka "resulting from Unions having 'exclusive' Bargaining Agreements"

but yeah that opinion piece he posted is only correct because unions allow it to be so. If unions would have "member-only" agreements it wouldn't be an issue. :) I guess that's what happens when unions want monopoly control over all employees even though they don't all want the union.

CkG
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Yep, so they can drop the non-unionized workers into unemployment whenever they feel like it. Eh, it's the typical benefit of having a collusion, really. Everyone else suffers for the benefit of the few. Just look at those spoiled west coast longshoremen making HUGE salaries compared to the rest of the country just because they've monopolized the region.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
"I have plenty of sources that mention that the laws don't prohibit it(ofcourse you wouldn't believe these places because you'd consider them "anti-union") "

Have at it, the provided links certainly don't contradict anything I've said, or even bear directly on the issue as stated in the link I've provided. Here-

http://www.nrtw.org/b/rtw_faq.htm they state, and I quote-

"Exclusive representation" is the special coercive privilege, given by federal law, that empowers union officials to represent all employees in a company's bargaining unit. This "compulsory union representation" deprives employees, even in Right to Work states, of their right to bargain for themselves. Union officials demand this power, then use it as their excuse to force employees to pay dues for representation they do not want.

As I said, it's a function of federal law...

While this pro-RTW site claims it's that way by union demand, it also allows non-union members to free representation by unions in RTW states- freeloading, or whatever else you might care to call it...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"I have plenty of sources that mention that the laws don't prohibit it(ofcourse you wouldn't believe these places because you'd consider them "anti-union") "

Have at it, the provided links certainly don't contradict anything I've said, or even bear directly on the issue as stated in the link I've provided. Here-

http://www.nrtw.org/b/rtw_faq.htm they state, and I quote-

"Exclusive representation" is the special coercive privilege, given by federal law, that empowers union officials to represent all employees in a company's bargaining unit. This "compulsory union representation" deprives employees, even in Right to Work states, of their right to bargain for themselves. Union officials demand this power, then use it as their excuse to force employees to pay dues for representation they do not want.

As I said, it's a function of federal law...
Exactly, but what you forgot to understand was that is was ONLY talking about "exclusive representation" - "exclusive" is a privilege given to Unions - NOT FORCED! The union can decide to have "member-only"("non-exclusive) Bargaining agreements. Nothing you have posted contradicts that.
Just because they have the opportunity to be "exclusive" does not mean that they are forced to be. It is their(union) choice to represent those who don't want to be members because they(unions) choose to have "exclusive" agreements.

CkG

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
The Union is bound by federal law to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit whether that's in a RTW state or not. Federal law, very straightforward, no exceptions whether the union wants them or not.

How many links saying essentially the same thing will you require? Here's another-

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=4293

Or this statement from George Meany-

"When a union has exclusive recognition with a federal activity or agency, that union is required to represent all workers in that unit, whether or not those workers are members of the union. We do not contest this requirement. We support it for federal service, just as we support it in private industry labor-management relations."

from here- http://www.nrtwc.org/theproblem.php3

Federal law compels workers in certain ways, it also compels unions to represent all employees within a bargaining unit. Where the RTW folks say workers are "forced", unions are also "forced" by the law, too.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true...

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The Union is bound by federal law to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit whether that's in a RTW state or not. Federal law, very straightforward, no exceptions whether the union wants them or not.

How many links saying essentially the same thing will you require? Here's another-

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=4293

Or this statement from George Meany-

"When a union has exclusive recognition with a federal activity or agency, that union is required to represent all workers in that unit, whether or not those workers are members of the union. We do not contest this requirement. We support it for federal service, just as we support it in private industry labor-management relations."

from here- http://www.nrtwc.org/theproblem.php3

Federal law compels workers in certain ways, it also compels unions to represent all employees within a bargaining unit. Where the RTW folks say workers are "forced", unions are also "forced" by the law, too.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true...
No, you keep dodging or misunderstanding the issue. Everything you keep yapping about is talking about "exclusive" bargaining agreements. While the gov't allows for "exclusive" (monopoly) agreements it does not force unions to have them(exclusive agreements).

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
CAD, you're owned but you just won't admit it. I've given several clear links to the truth of the matter, that federal law demands union representation for non-union bargaining unit employees in RTW states. Youve offered up nothing close, but keep insisting you're right, with nothing backing you up except thin air.

I think I'll just go out back, see if I can talk some sense into a fencepost. I'm done with this thread.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
CAD, you're owned but you just won't admit it. I've given several clear links to the truth of the matter, that federal law demands union representation for non-union bargaining unit employees in RTW states. Youve offered up nothing close, but keep insisting you're right, with nothing backing you up except thin air.

I think I'll just go out back, see if I can talk some sense into a fencepost. I'm done with this thread.
No - you must truly have missed the entire point. What you are arguing is that under "exclusive" bargaining agreements - unions are forced to do things by law- but I'm not taking issue with that. What I'm saying is that Unions don't have to have "exclusive" bargaining agreements.:p There are other ways unions can structure their bargaining agreements....oh like, lets say - "member-only" agreements;) Get it yet?

I'm waiting for you to understand the argument first. Feel free to ask questions if you don't understand what I'm saying though.

CkG
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
CAD, I think I know what you are saying.

But the fact of the matter is when the smoke clears......non-represented, non-member, non-whatever employees have the right to the same wages and benefits as the union members have without paying and dues!

Of course a company could (by some strange agreement perhaps with the union) choose to pay non-union members less. Perhaps this is what you are getting at? That of course would be absurd.....as it would basically be like the company telling the non-members to join the union a.s.a.p.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Ferocious
CAD, I think I know what you are saying.

But the fact of the matter is when the smoke clears......non-represented, non-member, non-whatever employees have the right to the same wages and benefits as the union members have without paying and dues!

Of course a company could (by some strange agreement perhaps with the union) choose to pay non-union members less. Perhaps this is what you are getting at? That of course would be absurd.....as it would basically be like the company telling the non-members to join the union a.s.a.p.
Almost got it;) This concerns the unions and their bargaining structure. The union isn't forced to have "exclusive" bargaining agreements...but if they do then they must represent everyone even non-members. If a union doesn't have an "exclusive" bargaining agreement then they aren't forced to represent non-member workers. The workers would then be free to either a) start their own bargaining group, or b) represent themselves to management. So you see - unions choose to have "exclusive" agreements because they loose the "power in numbers" card and the "if we all walk out you are screwed" card if they don't. But again unions aren't forced to have "exclusive" agreements - they choose to because they fear they'd lose bargaining power.

"Of course a company could (by some strange agreement perhaps with the union) choose to pay non-union members less. Perhaps this is what you are getting at? That of course would be absurd.....as it would basically be like the company telling the non-members to join the union a.s.a.p."
So what do the unions have to worry about then?;) If they aren't afraid of workers who bargain for themselves getting paid more, then why do they cling to and choose "exclusive" bargaining agreements?;) But you first have to understand that unions aren't forced to be "exclusive" and that in your scenario the union would have a "member-only" type agreement.

Read Jhhnn's link It presents some good things about RTW but also doesn't really touch on what I am saying in this thread.

CkG
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
"So what do the unions have to worry about then? If they aren't afraid of workers who bargain for themselves getting paid more, then why do they cling to and choose "exclusive" bargaining agreements? But you first have to understand that unions aren't forced to be "exclusive" and that in your scenario the union would have a "member-only" type agreement."

What?

Exclusive bargaining agreements are illegal in RTW states....which is what I was talking about. In RTW states....a person can enjoy the benefits and wages of union membership without being a member and paying any dues.....hence crippling the union. Also the threat of a strike is quite diminished...and overall bargaining power of the union is weakened.

RTW laws are anti-union laws. Plain and simple. It's a FACT that union membership is much lower in RTW states then in non-RTW states.

Now whether unions are good or bad or whatever is another subject.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Exclusive bargaining agreements are illegal in RTW states....which is what I was talking about. In RTW states....a person can enjoy the benefits and wages of union membership without being a member and paying any dues.....hence crippling the union. Also the threat of a strike is quite diminished...and overall bargaining power of the union is weakened.

RTW laws are anti-union laws. Plain and simple. It's a FACT that union membership is much lower in RTW states then in non-RTW states.

Now whether unions are good or bad or whatever is another subject.
Sorry - I shouldn't have put that in there before you understand the premise - it only seemed to confuse you. Plus I guess you weren't as close to understanding my stance as I thought.

Anyway - in RTW states forcing people to join a union and/or pay dues is what is illegal;) "Exclusive" bargaining agreements are not illegal in RTW states. You really need to read more about this because your assertion was just flat out false.

Again from Jhhnn's link
<snip>
Most important is the fact that federal law grants unions "exclusive representation" privileges. This means that once a union is "recognized" (i.e., voted in by a majority of employees) it has the sole right to speak for the entire group of employees and negotiate on its behalf. Individual employee negotiations are prohibited. This is true even when individuals have neither voted for a union nor desire union representation. A right-to-work law does not affect this union privilege.
</snip>

Once you understand the bold parts we can try to understand the rest;) However this little snip didn't make one thing clear - that it was only talking about "exclusive" bargaining contracts when it started in with "This means....";)

I know this can be a hard subject to understand because there are misconceptions galore in regards to Unions and such, but believe me - I've looked to prove myself wrong - and couldn't. But again - people need to be able to understand the argument's premise before trying to prove my point wrong.

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY