And, yes, the unions collectively wet themselves over it.
http://www.thetimesherald.com/interactive/article/20121206/NEWS05/312060030/State-Senate-passes-right-work-legislation-22-16?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|&nclick_check=1
It'll never happen. That state is a write-off. They will use the judicial to override the legislature. There is simply too much dependency in that state.
Here ya go. Passing right to work akin to Pearl Harbor.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/12/10/union-official-compares-gop-push-right-work-law-mich-attack-pearl-harb
Quote from: guido911 on December 10, 2012, 07:40:39 PM
Here ya go. Passing right to work akin to Pearl Harbor.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/12/10/union-official-compares-gop-push-right-work-law-mich-attack-pearl-harb
You know this Gov. changed his tune after the recent election.
Pearl Harbor was a symbol of America's integrity and determination. I think it's wrong to compare. After all, this low down Governor lied. He has no integrity. He's just like the jap's sneak attack.
We're talking about the original Union State here....
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 10, 2012, 08:45:16 PM
You know this Gov. changed his tune after the recent election.
Pearl Harbor was a symbol of America's integrity and determination. I think it's wrong to compare. After all, this low down Governor lied. He has no integrity. He's just like the jap's sneak attack.
We're talking about the original Union State here....
We don't use the term "jap." They prefer to be called the Japanese.
It seems he was doing exactly what he said he would do in the election. The people overwhelmingly supported him. The majority of folks in Michigan want jobs. The unions are willing to settle for fewer jobs and higher unemployment just to secure their base. Right to work opens all kinds of doors to workers and may avoid places like Detroit becoming a
Hooverville Obamaville. Either way, I still believe that the Unions will win through the judicial system.
The premise of their the argument put forth in the media is also incorrect. I was watching Morning Joe at the gym this morning and they kept bringing up "taking away collective bargaining rights." This has nothing to do with taking away collective bargaining. Just like in every other Right to Work state, unions still have the same bargaining rights, people simply have the choice as to whether to join a union, quit a union (if they are not performing), or join another union if there is a better option. The tactic of forced union membership is removed, and corporations have the right to hire non-union labor. It takes power away from Unions and gives it to workers. It has nothing to do with collective bargaining.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/429541_517888428229476_1109332679_n.jpg)
btw, every WWII vet I ever met called them Japs. I wouldn't use the term myself today, but I use it in honor of the greatest generation.
I'm surprised this wasn't brought to a vote for the general populous if they believe it's the right way for the state to go.
Quote from: Townsend on December 11, 2012, 10:50:01 AM
I'm surprised this wasn't brought to a vote for the general populous if they believe it's the right way for the state to go.
So don't you believe in a representative form of government? Does everything important need to go to a vote by the general populace?
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 11, 2012, 10:05:27 AM
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/429541_517888428229476_1109332679_n.jpg)
btw, every WWII vet I ever met called them Japs. I wouldn't use the term myself today, but I use it in honor of the greatest generation.
There were also a lot of other derogatory terms used in WWII that most members of the greatest generation no longer use. I don't believe you give the greatest generation any honor by using any of those terms.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 10:59:44 AM
So don't you believe in a representative form of government? Does everything important need to go to a vote by the general populace?
Didn't Oklahoma vote on it? Does that invalidate the point then?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 10:59:44 AM
So don't you believe in a representative form of government? Does everything important need to go to a vote by the general populace?
You forget, I live in Oklahoma.
I'm used to a form of representative government that represents other entities, not me.
Quote from: Hoss on December 11, 2012, 11:07:02 AM
Didn't Oklahoma vote on it? Does that invalidate the point then?
I believe you have posted enough examples of how you think Oklahoma does enough things wrong to invalidate your point above.
I have never been a member of a union, but I do support the concept of unions.
I believe that workers should be allowed as a group to hire someone on their behalf to speak with management. If enough of them feel this way, there is a obviously a problem and workers should have some rights. Think of it as though they are hiring an attorney on retainer to look after one of the most important things in their life, their job.
I am sickened by the behavior of some union members however. The carpenters union protests in front of the hospital, TU, the Mayo Hotel, are trying to intimidate jobs their way and are obnoxious. I see red every time the police union demands more pay and takes the city to court and when the fire department goes door to door in official looking shirts to campaign against any elected official who opposes their pay raises.
My favorite unneeded union is the Major League baseball players union. Each player already has an agent to get their client the maximum salary. I assume the union negotiates the minimum salary.
Quote from: Townsend on December 11, 2012, 11:14:12 AM
You forget, I live in Oklahoma.
I'm used to a form of representative government that represents other entities, not me.
I understand. I kind of feel the same way about the Federal Government.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 11, 2012, 11:24:49 AM
I have never been a member of a union, but I do support the concept of unions.
I believe that workers should be allowed as a group to hire someone on their behalf to speak with management. If enough of them feel this way, there is a obviously a problem and workers should have some rights....
My favorite unneeded union is the Major League baseball players union. Each player already has an agent to get their client the maximum salary. I assume the union negotiates the minimum salary.
A couple of points. The Michigan RTW law is part of an appropriation bill, and according to their laws, appropriation bills cannot go to a popular vote.
Back when I was a shop steward, a more experienced one told me that the union existed to protect the dumbest SOB who walked through the gate. And that was true...sort of. I found myself defending people whose actions were indefensible, primarily attendance problems. When the company accumulated enough absentee days against a worker, a worker who'd dug himself into a hole in the first place, the chances of keeping his job were about nil. They had ample opportunity to change their behavior, yet chose not to do so. You can't defend them. It's just going through the motions.
But there's the management end to consider also. Who hasn't worked for a supervisor who was incompetent, an alcoholic, played favorites, or capricious? I've had the my-way-or-the-highway types who are too common everywhere. In one instance, a supervisor pressured a tech to do something he knew was against federal regulations, but the supervisor wanted the part out the door. Understand this - I can be fined or jailed for violation of the FARs, so I take the job seriously. My co-worker was threatened with disciplinary action if he did not comply. I advised him to agree to do the job provided the supervisor gave him explicit written instructions. The supervisor immediately backed down because he knew his butt would be on the line.
So unionization works both ways. Yes, there are abuses by union members, and yes, there are abuses by management. If a company has a comprehensive employee policy and applies it fairly, there's no need for a union. I worked in a place like that and it actually worked out well. But the problem lies in our own human natures. There's always going to be someone who figures out how to game the system for his own benefit. It may be a lazy worker or it may be an ambitious, power-hungry manager. I think unions help to level the playing field, but in Michigan, the field is obviously tilting toward management. While that may bring them short term gains, it may also contain the seeds of their eventual downfall as workers and unions react.
I just looked up the 23 States that are Right to Work States. Looks like a bunch of them Goody two Shoe Republicans States. No wonder Michigan is p*ssed.
What about those other 'unions' like the state bar association, realtors associations, the AMA, the ADA, etc? It seems to me that if the state can forbid a traditional union from having a closed shop and mandatory dues, the same could be said of these other unions. If someone graduates from med school or law school, they should be able to simply go to work without being forced into one of these organizations.
Quote from: Ed W on December 11, 2012, 12:29:00 PM
What about those other 'unions' like the state bar association, realtors associations, the AMA, the ADA, etc? It seems to me that if the state can forbid a traditional union from having a closed shop and mandatory dues, the same could be said of these other unions. If someone graduates from med school or law school, they should be able to simply go to work without being forced into one of these organizations.
Doctors do not have to join the AMA, and it is not a provision of an employer or the state that a physician be a member. In fact, only about 30% of doctors are members of the club. As for law, states choose whether to have a unified or voluntary bar association to police and regulate the practice of law. Vermont, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kansas, and Colorado do not require that you be a member to practice law.
In all of the above cases, the various professional organizations are not involved in the salary/wage negotiations between the individual and his/her employeer/client. Additionally they do not inhibit or restrict the rights of individuals from entering the workforce.
The same point could be made for "buyers groups." I am a member of 3 different buyer's groups that negotiate prices for their members and screen venders for professional credentials. They do not restrict members from purchasing outside of the group though.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 11:24:12 AM
I believe you have posted enough examples of how you think Oklahoma does enough things wrong to invalidate your point above.
What? That Oklahoma voted on it? How is that invalid?
Quote from: Hoss on December 11, 2012, 01:15:56 PM
What? That Oklahoma voted on it? How is that invalid?
QuoteDidn't Oklahoma vote on it? Does that invalidate the point then?
You had a 50/50 chance and blew it.
Your previous contempt for the Oklahoma legislature invalidates your point that since Oklahoma voted on "it" that it
must be the
proper way to handle "Right to Work".
Nice spin attempt. Too bad you were low and turning final.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 03:51:54 PM
Your previous contempt for the Oklahoma legislature invalidates your point that since Oklahoma voted on "it" that it must be the proper way to handle "Right to Work".
I hold a large quantity of contempt for the Oklahoma legislature. I bet there are more of us than there are of people who don't. Even those voted in were most likely done with reluctance from many of their constituents.
"Well it's him/her or that rock with the googly eyes glued on. Guess I'll vote for him/her..."
Weeks later they regret not choosing ol' Googly.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 03:51:54 PM
You had a 50/50 chance and blew it.
Your previous contempt for the Oklahoma legislature invalidates your point that since Oklahoma voted on "it" that it must be the proper way to handle "Right to Work".
Nice spin attempt. Too bad you were low and turning final.
Too bad most of your spin attempts drive the nosegear into the runway.
How about the bill keeping human fetuses from being used in food stuffs. Yeah, that's gonna ring true as a real beacon of intelligence.
Sharia Law ban that we passed? Yep, we for sure are gonna have to worry about that damned ole' Sharia Law.
Oklahoma...land where Fox News seems to be the source for documentaries for over half the population. Glad I'm not one of 'em.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 11, 2012, 07:04:01 AM
It seems he was doing exactly what he said he would do in the election. The people overwhelmingly supported him.
That scumbag Snyder campaigned on a promise not to
love mess with the labor laws, which caused a bunch of independents to vote for him. The Detroit Free Press endorsed him as a result, but are now saying, in a front page op-ed on Monday, that he betrayed their trust.
Quote from: Hoss on December 11, 2012, 06:06:30 PM
Too bad most of your spin attempts drive the nosegear into the runway.
I'm sorry to see that you are not feeling well. Try again when you are feeling better. :D
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 06:53:13 PM
I'm sorry to see that you are not feeling well. Try again when you are feeling better. :D
Pretty weak sauce you have there.
Quote from: Hoss on December 11, 2012, 07:03:55 PM
Pretty weak sauce you have there.
Really? Is that all you can come up with?
Back to being on subject and going back a few posts, please explain why with all the stupid things the Oklahoma legislature has done that you appear to think Michigan should have followed our example of letting the people vote for Right to Work. I actually agree that it may have been a legitimate thing to do but you prefaced its legitimacy with the actions of the Oklahoma legislature.
Townsend:
QuoteI'm surprised this wasn't brought to a vote for the general populous if they believe it's the right way for the state to go.
Me:
QuoteSo don't you believe in a representative form of government? Does everything important need to go to a vote by the general populace?
You:
QuoteDidn't Oklahoma vote on it? Does that invalidate the point then?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Really? Is that all you can come up with?
Back to being on subject and going back a few posts, please explain why with all the stupid things the Oklahoma legislature has done that you appear to think Michigan should have followed our example of letting the people vote for Right to Work. I actually agree that it may have been a legitimate thing to do but you prefaced its legitimacy with the actions of the Oklahoma legislature.
Townsend:
Me:
You:
You are obviously not going to be swayed. You're a little like a couple of my crazy uncles. You say stuff just to get attention. Or to get the last word. IMO of course.
However, you will, of course get the last word.
So, for once and for all, I'm right. You're wrong. Matter of opinion. I think the Oklahoma legislature sucks. I've pointed out why I think it's a laughing-stock. People point at our state and laugh at some of the crazy that comes out. I'm sure you don't care, but I have to explain the crazy to saner people who are my friends that don't live here. Problem is, I can't really.
And before some melon-head gets on here and tells me to 'GTFO'...don't. I've got just as much right to live here as someone who espouses more with the left than some of the mouth-breathers I see living here. Day in and day out. Just because I don't align with your politics doesn't mean I don't want better for my HOME.
I've had better and saner arguments with three year olds.
I never put up a opinion really one way or the other for RTW for either Oklahoma or MI. I've never been a part of a union in the 28 years I've been in the work force. My dad, however, was for almost all of his. That probably makes me a commie union lover. My observations were on the crazy that is Oklahoma gubmint.
I thought you'd lighten up a little after the elections. I guess not. I'll go back to ignoring you now. Have a nice life.
Makes it even better that I've found a script I can just plop certain users on ignore. Yay!
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Really? Is that all you can come up with?
Back to being on subject and going back a few posts, please explain why with all the stupid things the Oklahoma legislature has done that you appear to think Michigan should have followed our example of letting the people vote for Right to Work. I actually agree that it may have been a legitimate thing to do but you prefaced its legitimacy with the actions of the Oklahoma legislature.
Townsend:
Me:
You:
Actually, if you truly favor RTW there's an important reason to enact it the way Oklahoma did - as a constitutional amendment - rather than as a statute as was done in Michigan. Constitutional changes are much more difficult to reverse than statutory measures. They tend to lay the matter to rest. Former state senator Ted Fisher, who ran for office as a right to work supporter, told me he changed his mind about it when he discovered that RTW supporters did not want the matter settled as a constitutional amendment because they thought that enacting RTW as a statute would enable them to continue to raise money from the business community to keep the unions at bay. RTW as a statute is a continuing cash cow.
Quote from: cynical on December 11, 2012, 10:03:31 PM
Actually, if you truly favor RTW there's an important reason to enact it the way Oklahoma did - as a constitutional amendment - rather than as a statute as was done in Michigan. Constitutional changes are much more difficult to reverse than statutory measures. They tend to lay the matter to rest. Former state senator Ted Fisher, who ran for office as a right to work supporter, told me he changed his mind about it when he discovered that RTW supporters did not want the matter settled as a constitutional amendment because they thought that enacting RTW as a statute would enable them to continue to raise money from the business community to keep the unions at bay. RTW as a statute is a continuing cash cow.
Actually, the only thing I originally challenged Hoss about was his using the Oklahoma Legislature as an example of how to do something knowing that he loves it so much and only because of that.
Townsend's reply to the remark I addressed to him (Townsend) was a legitimate one. Of course anyone else is free to inject their thoughts into the thread too.
Quote from: Ed W on December 11, 2012, 12:29:00 PM
What about those other 'unions' like the state bar association, realtors associations, the AMA, the ADA, etc? It seems to me that if the state can forbid a traditional union from having a closed shop and mandatory dues, the same could be said of these other unions. If someone graduates from med school or law school, they should be able to simply go to work without being forced into one of these organizations.
Like I wrote many years back, could you imagine what would happen if doctors and lawyers formed unions. Think about your health care costs being increased whenever docs got disgruntled and wanted more. Or, what if they went on strike. I wonder how quickly we would see sympathy strikes pop up in support of those strikes. Probably none since doctors are not "labor".
As far as RTW, I thought its actual affect was persons got to choose whether to join a union or not. That's all. Sounds like democracy to me.
Quote from: Hoss on December 11, 2012, 06:06:30 PM
Glad I'm not one of 'em.
Funny, you are being led by them. And you will be for the foreseeable future. :D
Quote from: guido911 on December 12, 2012, 02:21:14 AM
Funny, you are being led by them. And you will be for the foreseeable future. :D
I'd suggest another word than "led".
It feels as though many things move forward in spite of instead of thanks to the Oklahoma legislature. That, of course, can be said of many government entities.
Quote from: Hoss on December 11, 2012, 09:44:19 PM
However, you will, of course get the last word.
Whatever makes you happy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 12, 2012, 11:05:09 AM
Whatever makes you happy.
Thanks for proving Hoss's point. ;D
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 12, 2012, 02:58:55 PM
Thanks for proving Hoss's point. ;D
I couldn't sleep thinking I had disappointed Hoss.
Plus.....
What a clever way to try to get the last word. Challenge me to not get the last word by saying I couldn't resist. ;D
Quote from: Townsend on December 12, 2012, 09:19:04 AM
I'd suggest another word than "led".
It feels as though many things move forward in spite of instead of thanks to the Oklahoma legislature. That, of course, can be said of many government entities.
True, but how many state legislatures are so often the butt of jokes of our backwards-ness? Maybe Tennessee.
Fark has an icon for Florida in the headline recaps. I'm surprised they don't have one for Oklahoma.
Quote from: guido911 on December 12, 2012, 02:16:06 AM
Like I wrote many years back, could you imagine what would happen if doctors and lawyers formed unions. Think about your health care costs being increased whenever docs got disgruntled and wanted more. Or, what if they went on strike. I wonder how quickly we would see sympathy strikes pop up in support of those strikes. Probably none since doctors are not "labor".
As far as RTW, I thought its actual affect was persons got to choose whether to join a union or not. That's all. Sounds like democracy to me.
I might have mentioned this before, but compulsory union membership has been illegal nationwide since passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. RTW has no effect at all on that issue. It's all about money.
Quote from: cynical on December 12, 2012, 06:58:52 PM
I might have mentioned this before, but compulsory union membership has been illegal nationwide since passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947.
That must have been something too many people didn't read even after Taft-Hartley was passed.
Quote from: cynical on December 12, 2012, 06:58:52 PM
I might have mentioned this before, but compulsory union membership has been illegal nationwide since passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. RTW has no effect at all on that issue. It's all about money.
Technically correct I guess, but in practice it's more like, "you're paying the same money for the union to represent you, so there's no reason NOT to join."
Unfortunately, RTW gives the right to work for a union shop in which that union is still required to negotiate on their behalf, while they don't have to pay anything for that service.
Taft-Hartley allowed states to pass RTW laws...
IMO, right-to-work is for people who want something for nothing... kinda like if I don't vote for the winning political party of the governor of Oklahoma or POTUS, I don't have to pay my taxes...
(http://iladistrict.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/graph1.jpg)
Now... back to our regularly scheduled anti-union propaganda from Guido and newsbusters... ::)
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 12, 2012, 07:43:31 PM
Unfortunately, RTW gives the right to work for a union shop in which that union is still required to negotiate on their behalf, while they don't have to pay anything for that service.
If you don't want to pay the dues or join the union in a union shop, you should have to negotiate your own deal or at least take the same deal as other non-union workers at the same place. It may be the same deal as the union deal which would understandably irritate the union folks. It may be a different deal which shouldn't bother the union folks.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 12, 2012, 07:43:31 PM
Unfortunately, RTW gives the right to work for a union shop in which that union is still required to negotiate on their behalf, while they don't have to pay anything for that service.
I'm wondering about a possible next step in the RTW movement. Imagine for a moment that an employer decides to pay his non-union workers 10% more than the union guys doing the same job. He could argue that the contract prevents him from paying those union workers more, decimating the union ranks as members abandon it for better pay. In a short time, the union all but ceases to exist, and the employer finds cause to fire the few remaining members. Shortly thereafter, everyone takes a 30% pay cut.
I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be a plausible way to destroy a union.
Quote from: Ed W on December 12, 2012, 08:31:32 PM
Imagine for a moment that an employer decides to pay his non-union workers 10% more than the union guys doing the same job.
What you propose is not impossible. I envision that for 10% more pay, the workers would have to be more flexible as a minimum. Perhaps that flexibility would be filling in to change the left main gear tire when a co-worker is on vacation even though the first worker's job description is to change right main gear tires. (Intentional exaggeration)
QuoteHe could argue that the contract prevents him from paying those union workers more, decimating the union ranks as members abandon it for better pay.
The contract probably
would prevent him from paying union workers more. It also prevents the employer from paying the union workers less than the contract if business drops off. The contract provides some job security not available to at-will workers. There may also be other benefits with the contract that the non-union workers didn't get. Things like representation in the case of a dispute with the employer are worth something. The total compensation package, including benefits only provided by the union and the contract, would have to be evaluated by each worker before his/her decision to leave the union for 10% or whatever.
QuoteIn a short time, the union all but ceases to exist, and the employer finds cause to fire the few remaining members.
I don't believe that would generally be possible during the duration of the contract. At contract renewal time, the union members would certainly have less clout than when they were a majority. When most of a work force
quits their job with the hope that no one will take it while negotiating a new contract goes on strike, it is more effective than if only a few do.
QuoteShortly thereafter, everyone takes a 30% pay cut.
Suddenly the union has value again. That employer would get a union work force back faster than he could say "pay cut". All the previous union workers would know how to take care of that quickly. Right to Work does not (as I understand it, at least in the private sector) deny the workers the right to have a union.
QuoteI hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be a plausible way to destroy a union.
When an employer treats the employees fairly, there is generally no need for a union. If there is a union, there should be no reason for hate and discontent between the workers and employer when the employer treats the workers fairly. Yes, it can happen. Unfortunately, it often does not. An employer that dumps on its employees deserves union troubles. How much is a subject all in its own.
Slight semantics disclaimer: I have been told by a friend in no uncertain terms and some really nasty language in an emotional outbreak (I had to leave before he gave himself a heart attack.) that workers who are union members are not union workers as they (generally) do not work for the union, they are represented by the union. While my friend is technically correct, I use the term "union worker" as most of us do to mean workers who are members of and represented by a union.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 12, 2012, 08:23:37 PM
If you don't want to pay the dues or join the union in a union shop, you should have to negotiate your own deal or at least take the same deal as other non-union workers at the same place. It may be the same deal as the union deal which would understandably irritate the union folks. It may be a different deal which shouldn't bother the union folks.
In Indiana, more than a decade prior to RTW being passed there, I took a job over the summer in Bloomington at Kroger and was given paperwork at time of employment to accept/decline union membership.
I was informed this would have no effect on the amount that was taken out of paychecks for union dues, however.
I am not a fan of unionizing supermarkets... or gas stations... or discount retailers...
However, if I could convince half the employees to vote out the union, it could be done... and if I could convince half the employees to vote IN a union, I'd likely be fired before it got that far... such is how the deck is stacked in many/most modern-day workplaces, and how the REAL world works when worker protections in place are minimal at best based on decades old laws that no longer take in consideration new realities...
http://www.unions.org/union-benefits/articles/how-to-start-a-union.html
If I HATED unions, I could work for a non-union supermarket, retail, etc...
I once believed unions were too strong (1980s)... now I find reality to be just the opposite...
I once believed that Michigan should have RTW and Oklahoma should not... I now believe "Right-to-work" to be a term of Orwellian dimensions.
And my young-Republican friends in college told me I was supposed to get more convervative as I aged... funny dat.
Quote from: Ed W on December 12, 2012, 08:31:32 PM
I'm wondering about a possible next step in the RTW movement. Imagine for a moment that an employer decides to pay his non-union workers 10% more than the union guys doing the same job. He could argue that the contract prevents him from paying those union workers more, decimating the union ranks as members abandon it for better pay. In a short time, the union all but ceases to exist, and the employer finds cause to fire the few remaining members. Shortly thereafter, everyone takes a 30% pay cut.
I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be a plausible way to destroy a union.
(http://brainsnorts.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cheech-and-chong-smoking-joint-in-car.jpg?w=450)
Quote from: Ed W on December 12, 2012, 08:31:32 PM
I'm wondering about a possible next step in the RTW movement. Imagine for a moment that an employer decides to pay his non-union workers 10% more than the union guys doing the same job. He could argue that the contract prevents him from paying those union workers more, decimating the union ranks as members abandon it for better pay. In a short time, the union all but ceases to exist, and the employer finds cause to fire the few remaining members. Shortly thereafter, everyone takes a 30% pay cut.
I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be a plausible way to destroy a union.
Under current labor law this scenario is unlikely to impossible. Except for the pro sports and entertainment industries in which unions negotiate minimums but permit individuals to negotiate over scale rates, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer or a union to discriminate among members of a collective bargaining unit based in their union membership or lack of union membership. Wages of members if the bargaining unit are set by collective bargaining. The employer is not free to offer non-union bargaining unit members extra money to reward them for being non-union, or for any other reason for that matter. And the union is not free to withhold the benefits of union representation from non-union members of bargaining units. This is the gist of RTW: a non-union worker has all if the rights of union representation (except political rights such as contract ratification, negotiating committee service, etc.) while not having to pay a dime for it. Red's idea of unions representing union members while the non-members fend for themselves is resisted most strenuously by the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that regularly pays for legal counsel to sue unions for alleged breaches of the unions' duty of fair representation. As I said before, the issue is not the right of workers to be free from unions, it is depriving unions of revenues while requiring them under threats of megabucks lawsuits to spend members' dues representing non-members. This agenda is exceptionally cynical and the media discussion, focused as it is on the false issue of compulsory union membership, is either exceptionally incompetent or exceptionally dishonest. It is a pure power play, and one the unions an workers in general have lost. I read today that private sector union membership has dropped to below 8% of all private sector employees. Meanwhile, unions continue to be vilified as the cause of all of our economic trouble. It doesn't add up and can't be made to add up.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 12, 2012, 10:58:40 PM
I am not a fan of unionizing supermarkets... or gas stations... or discount retailers...
Just curious (not being a smarta$$), why?
Quote from: cynical on December 12, 2012, 11:21:27 PM
Under current labor law this scenario is unlikely to impossible. Except for the pro sports and entertainment industries in which unions negotiate minimums but permit individuals to negotiate over scale rates, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer or a union to discriminate among members of a collective bargaining unit based in their union membership or lack of union membership. Wages of members if the bargaining unit are set by collective bargaining. The employer is not free to offer non-union bargaining unit members extra money to reward them for being non-union, or for any other reason for that matter. And the union is not free to withhold the benefits of union representation from non-union members of bargaining units. This is the gist of RTW: a non-union worker has all if the rights of union representation (except political rights such as contract ratification, negotiating committee service, etc.) while not having to pay a dime for it. Red's idea of unions representing union members while the non-members fend for themselves is resisted most strenuously by the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that regularly pays for legal counsel to sue unions for alleged breaches of the unions' duty of fair representation. As I said before, the issue is not the right of workers to be free from unions, it is depriving unions of revenues while requiring them under threats of megabucks lawsuits to spend members' dues representing non-members. This agenda is exceptionally cynical and the media discussion, focused as it is on the false issue of compulsory union membership, is either exceptionally incompetent or exceptionally dishonest. It is a pure power play, and one the unions an workers in general have lost. I read today that private sector union membership has dropped to below 8% of all private sector employees. Meanwhile, unions continue to be vilified as the cause of all of our economic trouble. It doesn't add up and can't be made to add up.
Were there some major definition changes in the last 50 or so years like maybe the definition of bargaining unit? I remember my dad saying his employer was able to pay non-union workers differently than union workers a long time ago. The difference may have also involved "bargaining unit" and/or workers from the same employer but a different region brought in temporarily. Dad passed away several years ago so it will be difficult to ask him (and get an answer).
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 12, 2012, 10:58:40 PM
In Indiana, more than a decade prior to RTW being passed there, I took a job over the summer in Bloomington at Kroger and was given paperwork at time of employment to accept/decline union membership.
I was informed this would have no effect on the amount that was taken out of paychecks for union dues, however.
I am not a fan of unionizing supermarkets... or gas stations... or discount retailers...
However, if I could convince half the employees to vote out the union, it could be done... and if I could convince half the employees to vote IN a union, I'd likely be fired before it got that far... such is how the deck is stacked in many/most modern-day workplaces, and how the REAL world works when worker protections in place are minimal at best based on decades old laws that no longer take in consideration new realities...
http://www.unions.org/union-benefits/articles/how-to-start-a-union.html
If I HATED unions, I could work for a non-union supermarket, retail, etc...
I once believed unions were too strong (1980s)... now I find reality to be just the opposite...
I once believed that Michigan should have RTW and Oklahoma should not... I now believe "Right-to-work" to be a term of Orwellian dimensions.
And my young-Republican friends in college told me I was supposed to get more convervative as I aged... funny dat.
Do you remember when the union meat cutters walked out on Safeway back in the 1980's here? Anyone know if there are unions left in Oklahoma grocers?
Safeway had a clever way of diminishing union influence back in the 80's. Once cashiers hit the $10 an hour mark, (before digitized pos stations) they simply closed the stores, fired the employees and sold the stores to a new group of owners who offered the jobs back to the employees at minimum wage. The union then had to start from scratch to re-organize. Of course the new owners consisted of management from the old operation. It worked so well it has been copied for a long time now.
Right to work laws are like "death panels", "death taxes" and "job creators". They are pooh packaged and labeled as candy.
The most common Okie union related phrase I hear is "Well, Unions used to serve a need and were helpful. Now they just aren't necessary". No explanation why or supporting logic. This from workers who are paid much less than non RTW states for the same jobs. Unions have lost the PR battle in the south and now are vulnerable from the same "Sauerkraut" mentality in other states.
A caveat. I joined a union on my current job even though I have a BBA. I know what unscrupulous management can and will do (I spent some time in that brotherhood). The union is now my only defense against their behaviors.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 13, 2012, 09:04:02 AM
Do you remember when the union meat cutters walked out on Safeway back in the 1980's here? Anyone know if there are unions left in Oklahoma grocers?
My Mother had worked at Safeway for many years and her boyfriend at the time was a Safeway meat cutter. I remember that strike very well. I hadn't thought about that in years. When Homeland bought out all the Safeways here. She stayed on maybe a year but her wage was cut twice and her benefits were a lot less also. She eventually was forced into a early retirement by the new corporate managment.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 12, 2012, 09:40:29 PM
When an employer treats the employees fairly, there is generally no need for a union. If there is a union, there should be no reason for hate and discontent between the workers and employer when the employer treats the workers fairly. Yes, it can happen. Unfortunately, it often does not. An employer that dumps on its employees deserves union troubles. How much is a subject all in its own.
I've worked for small business owners who treated their employees fairly and paid an adequate wage. I've also worked for a few who cheated employees out of wages, cheated on their taxes, and were unscrupulous toward their customers. Had those businesses grown larger, I'd expect the management culture to remain the same.
As I wrote previously - perhaps in another thread - I've worked for a corporation that had a comprehensive employee policy that was written to cover most situations. While the company adhered to it, there were few problems. Eventually, however, as layoffs cut deeper and deeper into the workforce, they threw out the policy and let favoritism and nepotism hold sway. "You can't lay off so-and-so. He's the production manager's son-in-law!" Morale crumbled as the remaining workers realized that there were no longer any rules. Management took the same approach with the professional help, mainly engineers and IT folks, with all of them leaving as a result. They brought in some kids right out of school, hiring them cheaply, and found that they were simply not up to the tasks. The company folded.
I'm not trying to imply that their failure was entirely based on the way they treated the employees, but it was undoubtedly a factor.
Then there's the company I work for at present. They 'negotiated' with the unions for about 5 years, sending people to the meetings who had no authority to advance any deals. They repudiated positions they'd agreed to previously. In short, they did not negotiate in good faith while preparing to enter bankruptcy proceedings. None of the union groups trust them. They took the cost savings from the 2003 'negotiations' and handed them out to upper management as bonuses. And they're in line for another round of bonuses if they can avoid a merger before emerging from bankruptcy.
So yes, Red, when a company treats employees as a valuable part of their business, there's little need for a union. On the other hand, when a company regards their employees as just a number, a cost, or no more than a piece of machinery, unions serve to protect their jobs and working conditions. It's an article of faith among some that Unions Are Evil just as it's a similar belief that Corporations Are Greedy. It's not entirely true nor is it entirely false, either.
If all companies were to treat employees as a valued part of the business, offering wages and benefits commensurate with their ability and skill, we'd have a far more stable labor environment. But that's merely a way of re-stating "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." It's a utopian view of human nature, but it's a failure as an economic system.
Quote from: Ed W on December 13, 2012, 10:48:32 AM
I've worked for small business owners who treated their employees fairly and paid an adequate wage. I've also worked for a few who cheated employees out of wages, cheated on their taxes, and were unscrupulous toward their customers.
I have been more fortunate than you. I have been treated fairly (as far as I know) but haven't always liked the outcome. I don't count wages of part time jobs while in college for fairness with regards to a "living wage". Even there, I did OK for summer job pay until I got not-hired for a 3rd summer due to affirmative action. "Real" job salaries have been fair.
QuoteThey brought in some kids right out of school, hiring them cheaply, and found that they were simply not up to the tasks.
One of my uncles got RIFed when in his mid 50s shortly after the company he worked for was sold to a large corporation. It eventually took 3 young guys to replace him.
QuoteThen there's the company I work for at present. ... They took the cost savings from the 2003 'negotiations' and handed them out to upper management as bonuses. And they're in line for another round of bonuses if they can avoid a merger before emerging from bankruptcy.
Some of my friends work for your employer. Some of my friends are former employees of your employer. I see information from both sides of the union "issue" at your employer but it is at best 2nd hand since I have not worked there. I think there is blame to go around on both sides. Having said that though, there is no excuse for the bonuses given to executives after the big wage and benefit concessions given by the unions in 2003.
QuoteIf all companies were to treat employees as a valued part of the business, offering wages and benefits commensurate with their ability and skill, we'd have a far more stable labor environment.
Add contribution to the company and I'll agree. Someone with skill and ability who does not (or cannot due to being underemployed) contribute accordingly needs to get paid according to their contribution. I'm sure everyone can think of some specific exceptions but as a generality I believe in pay for contribution.
QuoteBut that's merely a way of re-stating "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
We part ways here. That's why I added contribution to the comment above. A guy with a wife and 6 kids who sweeps the floor may need more income than a single guy checking the stress on a wing attach fastener but I believe the stress analysis is worth a higher compensation package.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2012, 11:49:24 AM
I'm sure everyone can think of some specific exceptions but as a generality I believe in pay for contribution.
We part ways here. That's why I added contribution to the comment above. A guy with a wife and 6 kids who sweeps the floor may need more income than a single guy checking the stress on a wing attach fastener but I believe the stress analysis is worth a higher compensation package.
I could have been more clear. My thinking is that an employee must be contributing to the business through his labor and his ideas, otherwise he shouldn't be there at all. Sadly, I've known people who were 'suitcases' - being carried by their coworkers rather than pulling their own weight, and that's been true in both union and non-union environments. Given the rigorous safety aspects of my job, I'd rather not work next to someone doing the least necessary to get by.
Quote from: Ed W on December 13, 2012, 12:35:23 PM
I could have been more clear. My thinking is that an employee must be contributing to the business through his labor and his ideas, otherwise he shouldn't be there at all. Sadly, I've known people who were 'suitcases' - being carried by their coworkers rather than pulling their own weight, and that's been true in both union and non-union environments. Given the rigorous safety aspects of my job, I'd rather not work next to someone doing the least necessary to get by.
Agreed.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2012, 12:19:44 AM
Just curious (not being a smarta$$), why?
Because I think organized labor should be limited to skilled trades or physical labor.
I mean, the skill of moving a bar code over a scanner, and knowing the difference between PLU #s for lettuce variations doesn't merit forming a union, IMHO.
At least, as long as there is a minimum wage that keeps employers from playing games with the pool of unskilled labor...
Once again, these days, my perspective has changed... Wal-mart workers now have to sell everything from tires, tv's, cell phones and computers to produce, condiments, meat/poultry, sudafed and vacuum cleaners... geez.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 13, 2012, 12:39:25 AM
Were there some major definition changes in the last 50 or so years like maybe the definition of bargaining unit? I remember my dad saying his employer was able to pay non-union workers differently than union workers a long time ago. The difference may have also involved "bargaining unit" and/or workers from the same employer but a different region brought in temporarily. Dad passed away several years ago so it will be difficult to ask him (and get an answer).
There has been no major change in the definition of "bargaining unit" since Taft-Hartley. Unit clarifications are conducted by the NLRB on petition. The NLRB's determination is based on the "community of interest" of the workers on a case by case basis. It would be inconceivable for workers on the same assembly line for example, to not be included in the same bargaining unit, but employers such as Hostess will frequently have multiple bargaining units and multiple union contracts. In that sense, the company could have a contract covering one bargaining unit while another potential bargaining unit has declined to authorize a union to represent them.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 13, 2012, 01:22:38 PM
Because I think organized labor should be limited to skilled trades or physical labor.
I mean, the skill of moving a bar code over a scanner, and knowing the difference between PLU #s for lettuce variations doesn't merit forming a union, IMHO.
At least, as long as there is a minimum wage that keeps employers from playing games with the pool of unskilled labor...
Once again, these days, my perspective has changed... Wal-mart workers now have to sell everything from tires, tv's, cell phones and computers to produce, condiments, meat/poultry, sudafed and vacuum cleaners... geez.
Thank you.
Quote from: cynical on December 13, 2012, 04:29:16 PM
In that sense, the company could have a contract covering one bargaining unit while another potential bargaining unit has declined to authorize a union to represent them.
That may well have been the situation.