- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 13,029
- Reaction score
- 6,995
- Location
- Near Atlanta Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Except the individual really has no bargaining power unless the employer demand for his skill set is greater than the supply of other applicants.
When was the last time this has existed for the bulk of workers? Typically in a major World War, and even then only because so many men were in military service. Sometimes if your nation is the sole economic winner (like the U.S.A. in the 20 years immediately after WWII).
How much time (and debt) do you have to invest in an education (vocational or professional) to make yourself truly competitive in the job market? Someone an employer NEEDS rather than someone they have some minor use for as most workers deal with lately?
Unions have a lot of problems, typically because of the cronyism in the leadership ranks. But without them, most workers end up dealing with situations like Wal-Mart.
Enforced mediocrity is the mantra for a lot of unions.....
don't you dare do more than you are required to do, never speak ill of fellow members no matter how incompetent they are....
pay your dues and don't question the wanna-be mob bosses.
You can already go that path if you want.
Sure they do. But.....
Historically government employees weren't paid as well as private sector employees but typically had job security and retirement benefits that many in the private sector didn't have as compensation for a smaller paycheck. That's no longer the case. Public employees are typically paid as well as those in the private sector while retaining their pension benefits and job security. If anything in the private sector pensions and security have gotten worse. In short government employees are typically very well compensated relative to the private sector these days.
I understand what you're saying about pension funds but you cannot deny that full retirement after 20 years with pensions based on the last 5 years of service salary with overtime - typical for NYC uniformed union employees (cops, fire and sanitation) - are overly generous and far outstrip what the private sector gets. My brother the retired cop started working 2 years after me and has been retired now 10 years, collecting a generous NYC pension and working a second career. He makes more now than he did as a cop.
Me? I'm still working and probably won't be able to retire for at least another decade.
You can't tell me that generous pensions like that don't exacerbate the municipal pension fund problems.
Is that what you think unions really do? Fight the good fight against those evil Kochs? [...] Of all sectors of the economy, the most unionized are local government, then public education, then protective services (e.g. police and fire), then state government, then federal government, then utilities.
Don't get me wrong. Unions have problems and can create problems. I don't like the fact the leaders act like the Soviet Comintern, or that seniority takes priority over quality, and they fight as hard to keep a crappy employee as a good one. I'm still willing to live with them to prevent Wal-Mart from becoming the new world order.
Right. That must be why 90+% of the American workforce is non-unionThe only that that gives the average worker power is to unite with other workers. By themselves, they are at a serious and extreme disadvantage in putting themselves against a large company.
A union is their only hope.
Agreed, and States are going broke paying off their debt for union support, and screwing the future taxpayers. I have no issue with unions in general, but some are gold plated, beyond reason.Sure they do. But.....
Historically government employees weren't paid as well as private sector employees but typically had job security and retirement benefits that many in the private sector didn't have as compensation for a smaller paycheck. That's no longer the case. Public employees are typically paid as well as those in the private sector while retaining their pension benefits and job security. If anything in the private sector pensions and security have gotten worse. In short government employees are typically very well compensated relative to the private sector these days.
I understand what you're saying about pension funds but you cannot deny that full retirement after 20 years with pensions based on the last 5 years of service salary with overtime - typical for NYC uniformed union employees (cops, fire and sanitation) - are overly generous and far outstrip what the private sector gets. My brother the retired cop started working 2 years after me and has been retired now 10 years, collecting a generous NYC pension and working a second career. He makes more now than he did as a cop.
Me? I'm still working and probably won't be able to retire for at least another decade.
You can't tell me that generous pensions like that don't exacerbate the municipal pension fund problems.
Right. That must be why 90+% of the American workforce is non-union
That in no way shape or form refutes my statement.
This reminds me of a day I helped out my service department by delivering a load of computers to a fortune 500 company plant. The people that worked there refused to let me unload the truck because it was too close to lunch hour and they didn't think they could complete it before lunch hour. So I unloaded the truck myself and had the lazy idiot sign the receipt a full 10 minutes before lunch hour. That was the day that I truly turned anti union. Employees should be interested in the well being of their employer. The union at this plant was clearly interested in something else.
don't want to work in a union shop, don't apply there, simple as.....if you want the wages and benefits, and protections that the union has negotiated, pay up....don't want your dues going to pay for political activities? there are laws that allow you to opt out of that portion....nothing is free...you don't get to go into a fitness facility, and enjoy the equipment, or programs they offer, without being a member...you don't get your groceries, or gas for your vehicle for free...bottom line, you should not get the benefits the union has negotiated, or the pay, or the representation, without paying your dues.And this one is going to hurt big time
Both Roberts and Kennedy appeared unsympathetic to the California Teachers Association's argument that non-members would become "free-riders" if not required to pay the fees to fund collective bargaining activities because they would benefit from collective bargaining without having to pay for it.
Kennedy said that non-members currently are "compelled riders" if they disagree with the union's stances on various issues. Roberts said the issue of "free-riders" was "insignificant."
The 10 teachers that filed the lawsuit in 2013 are asking the justices to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court ruling in the case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that allowed public sector unions to collect fees from workers who do not want representation as long as the money is not spent on political activities.
Conservative US top court justices skeptical over union fees
Conservative US top court justices skeptical over union fees - AOL
the 1977 rule was bad from go....
this will allow those who want to forego joining a union the complete right NOT to pay any fees....
about damn time
The only noteworthy and relevant thing that you point out is the timing.
Why, might we ask the logical question, did unionization suddenly change itself around 1980? Captain Adverse gives part of the answer, although it's pretty incomplete. Here's the rest of the story. Long story short, bad legislation was made earlier, corporations and businesses used lawyers to figure out how to abuse the law and have nearly destroyed unions in America.
Busting up unions was one of the most important aspects of the post-70's class warfare. It meant you now have extremely insecure workers (And indeed, Alan Greenspan gleefully discussed this in the 90's as being part of the success of his economic program).
don't want to work in a union shop, don't apply there, simple as.....if you want the wages and benefits, and protections that the union has negotiated,
nothing is free...
None of this is relevant to your claim that unions are necessary to fight "the Kochs and their ilk." That's not what they're busy doing. They're busy organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers.
Public service unions are not "organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers."
They are organizing against the caprices of bought-and-paid-for politicians, and their transient policies enforced by their transient political appointees.
Or did you forget that every public service worker is ALSO a taxpayer???
Your animosity amazes me. Just how have you been hurt by public service unions?
None of this is relevant to your claim that unions are necessary to fight "the Kochs and their ilk." That's not what they're busy doing. They're busy organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers.
Insofar as the Koch's and the rest of their ilk are the same people who are fighting the labor movement, I consider that highly relevant. The only thing that removing public unions will do is decrease the quality of living of an addition group of Americans.
The idea --the incredibly naive idea-- that it's the public unions that are bankrupting America is so laughably absurd upon even a cursory glance of the US budget, I don't feel the need even discuss the rest of your assertions.
if it is a union shop, under federal law, the union must represent all those that work in the unit, whether they pay dues or not...this is wrong....if my union brothers and sisters are supposed to represent you, you can pay your dues....again, it is real simple, if you have a problem working in a unionized shop, find other employment in a shop that is not unionized, plenty of them out there....simple as.....They don't. Some workers don't want anything from a union. They just want the freedom to sell their labor without being coerced into joining a cartel and sending them money.
Not buying something is free. Some workers want to be able to sell their labor to buyers without being coerced to pay a third party they want nothing to do with. People don't want to buy a union's services or representation, hence they don't want those things from a union, but not wanting to be in or pay a union shouldn't deny them work opportunities.
That's who pays the bills, and that's who they're arguing aren't paying enough. The public is the employer in the public sector.
Bull. They are the ones doing the buying-and-paying-for. "In a sense, we elect our own boss." - Victor Gotbaum
I have seen this bull**** stupid comment more times than I can count from union ilk. A public employee that squeezes more out of the taxpayers gets all the benefit of that and a tiny fraction of the cost. So just pay public employees a million bucks a year, because after all, they are taxpayers too! Give me a ****ing break. Honestly.
I haven't been hurt personally by all sorts of things that are bad for society. Nonetheless I oppose things that are bad for society. Cartels and monopolies of all forms are bad for society. There is no justification for public sector unionism, especially when it so dramatically exceeds unionism in the private sector. FDR was right about public sector unions.
if it is a union shop, under federal law, the union must represent all those that work in the unit, whether they pay dues or not...this is wrong....if my union brothers and sisters are supposed to represent you, you can pay your dues....again, it is real simple, if you have a problem working in a unionized shop, find other employment in a shop that is not unionized, plenty of them out there....simple as.....
Just pass a labor law standardizing and streamlining the things unions deceptively say they're assuring for public employees. Public employees can be fairly compensated and experience adequate working conditions without the public having to be subject to collective bargaining tactics.
Just because a current practice needs to be eliminated doesn't mean that it, by itself, is "bankrupting" the entire country. Regulations of many kinds are important. Antitrust regulations are important. [...] I think intellectual property reform is needed for the same reason. Does that mean I think patent and copyright laws are "bankrupting America?" Why resort to such melodramatic language?
if it is a union shop, under federal law, the union must represent all those that work in the unit, whether they pay dues or not...this is wrong...
if my union brothers and sisters are supposed to represent you, you can pay your dues....again, it is real simple, if you have a problem working in a unionized shop, find other employment in a shop that is not unionized, plenty of them out there....simple as.....
what I said stands....we are talking about a workplace....if that workplace is unionized, and my union brothers and sisters are expected to represent you, and you are going to get the same benefits , the same pay, you can at least pay the portion of your dues that cover the collective bargaining process...wanna opt out of the portion that is used in politics? fine....Do you hold that equally true of society at large? That taxpayers alone deserve representation and access to public services? Your silly argument falls apart when your dopey all must pay equal dues (taxes?) or get the **** out is applied across the board.
Oh, I see. Your claim that they are using union money on behalf of their membership to support union-friendly politicians is "bad."
Of course the Koch's and their ilk using their money to support corporate friendly politicians, that's "good" politics. :roll:
The reason why unionism has faltered in the private sector has been explained to you over and over.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?