Do Liberals Focus Too Much On Minimum Wage?

[Moot]

you're a bit off here... RTW statues do not stipulate that non-union workers will still have the same benefits as union workers..... that aspect is covered by long existing federal law that unions fought for when seeking exclusive bargaining rights.

maybe it's time for labor unions to ponder whether exclusive bargaining rights, as currently defined by statute, are still beneficial to them.. or if they need to be tweaked to reflect the modern economy.
it would certainly help with the free rider "problem"... and it won't be an affront to anyone's rights or obligations in the workplace..

Or maybe workers can get the federal government to pass a law for everything that unions used to negotiate with employers for? Because without unions that does seem to be the trend and path going forward.

 

[Thrilla]

It is your strawman. You are simply defining "imbalance" to mean "government intervention that favors businesses over laborers."

That is imbalanced by definition so you are being patently dishonest.

Government intervention does not form exclusivity rights. That seems to be your fundamental lack of understanding here. I brought up free markets in terms of balance. You seem to favor government intervention that upsets that balance for no discernible reason, whatsoever.

RTW statues have exactly nothing to do with the firms/businesses/corporations... they address only the relationship between the workers and the union.... so i'm not sure why you are even bringing up employers... they are irrelevant.

and yes, government intervention very much created exclusivity rights... exclusive bargain rights were fought for by unions, and the government gave them exactly what they wanted... in trade, the government mandated the unions must represent everyone at that firm.
it is this very deal that now creates a free rider "problem"... unions , by their own efforts, are held to negotiate for all workers, but they now can't force all workers to join (in some places), and they whine..... it's deliciously ironic, if ya ask me.

I'm very much a fan of labor... i'm very much cognitive that the relationship of labor and management is a symbiotic relationship that does not need to be one of battling "sides" where advantage or imbalance is necessary....although every labor union in the country will disagree with me, there is no need for a combative relationship to exist between management and labor.
part of the reason why unions are almost extinct in the private sector is because multitudes of firms have developed relationships that prevent the need for unions, and the government has taken over the role once played by unions ( such as passing laws about workplace safety, etc)...

there are no laws stopping any workers from unionizing, inversely, there are laws to protect their right to unionize anytime they want, for whatever reason they want....without interference from the employer.
the imbalance you repeatedly argue exists( favoring business over labor), in fact, does not exists.....unions and their members legally have the upper hand when it comes to employers/firms/ businesses/.... you're simply citing union propaganda and ignoring legal fact.'
furthermore, you're opposition of RTW laws pits you against workers.... you are simply taking hte side of the union against the workers themselves... .so lets not pretend you are fighting for labor here... you are simply fighting for unions, not labor.




other countries are very successful in this relationship.. .the US is a complete and utter failure when it comes to fomenting or promoting a healthy labor/management relationship... labor unions play a great part in that failure, as does government.
my own firm is extraordinary good at this relationship ( it's quite easy , actually)... lots of firms are very good .... but there is not a single unionized firm that is good at this relationship, exactly because unions require this combative environment to exist in America...they perpetuate the problems that they pretend they are the solution to.

 

[Absentglare]

RTW statues have exactly nothing to do with the firms/businesses/corporations... they address only the relationship between the workers and the union.... so i'm not sure why you are even bringing up employers... they are irrelevant.

and yes, government intervention very much created exclusivity rights... exclusive bargain rights were fought for by unions, and the government gave them exactly what they wanted... in trade, the government mandated the unions must represent everyone at that firm.
it is this very deal that now creates a free rider "problem"... unions , by their own efforts, are held to negotiate for all workers, but they now can't force all workers to join (in some places), and they whine..... it's deliciously ironic, if ya ask me.

I'm very much a fan of labor... i'm very much cognitive that the relationship of labor and management is a symbiotic relationship that does not need to be one of battling "sides" where advantage or imbalance is necessary....although every labor union in the country will disagree with me, there is no need for a combative relationship to exist between management and labor.
part of the reason why unions are almost extinct in the private sector is because multitudes of firms have developed relationships that prevent the need for unions, and the government has taken over the role once played by unions ( such as passing laws about workplace safety, etc)...

there are no laws stopping any workers from unionizing, inversely, there are laws to protect their right to unionize anytime they want, for whatever reason they want....without interference from the employer.
the imbalance you repeatedly argue exists( favoring business over labor), in fact, does not exists.....unions and their members legally have the upper hand when it comes to employers/firms/ businesses/.... you're simply citing union propaganda and ignoring legal fact.'
furthermore, you're opposition of RTW laws pits you against workers.... you are simply taking hte side of the union against the workers themselves... .so lets not pretend you are fighting for labor here... you are simply fighting for unions, not labor.




other countries are very successful in this relationship.. .the US is a complete and utter failure when it comes to fomenting or promoting a healthy labor/management relationship... labor unions play a great part in that failure, as does government.
my own firm is extraordinary good at this relationship ( it's quite easy , actually)... lots of firms are very good .... but there is not a single unionized firm that is good at this relationship, exactly because unions require this combative environment to exist in America...they perpetuate the problems that they pretend they are the solution to.

RTW laws restrict the agreements that employees can make with their employers.

The stupidity of your assertion lies in the fact that exclusivity also benefitted businesses, as they need only negotiate once. It was a compromise under the assumption that union membership was compulsory where applicable. RTW laws undermine that relationship.

 

[Thrilla]

Or maybe workers can get the federal government to pass a law for everything that unions used to negotiate with employers for? Because without unions that does seem to be the trend and path going forward.

yeah, well, that's pretty much already happened....it's part of the reason why unions are almost extinct in the private sector.

 

[SocialD]

RTW laws restrict the agreements that employees can make with their employers.

The stupidity of your assertion lies in the fact that exclusivity also benefitted businesses, as they need only negotiate once. It was a compromise under the assumption that union membership was compulsory where applicable. RTW laws undermine that relationship.

Still though, what if a person doesn't want to be in a union? Ive been in a union ( in a right to work state ) and some people did not want to be in the union. I had my apprehension about it myself as the union also pushed us to donate to the PAC with the implication that if we didn't we might not get good union representation. Still I was in that union for 4 years while I had that job. it had its positives and negatives. I think unions have a place. But I definitely am against it being compulsory.

 

[Thrilla]

RTW laws restrict the agreements that employees can make with their employers.

no , not really, they only bar contractual agreements that would stipulate employment is contingent upon union membership.

The stupidity of your assertion lies in the fact that exclusivity also benefitted businesses, as they need only negotiate once. It was a compromise under the assumption that union membership was compulsory where applicable. RTW laws undermine that relationship.

it (exclusive bargaining rights) might benefit business in the manner you bring up, sure thing... but it was fought for and won by unions, not business, not government..... it might be a convenience for a business, but its far more than that for a union.
using that line of argument, I can easily argue RTW statures, coupled with negating exclusivity rights can benefit unions... in that they will only be required to negotiate for their members.. which would be convenient for them.
employers might be inconvenienced, but we don't see them fighting to keep the status quo now do we?

additionally, RTW law are meant to address the notion of compulsory union membership as a condition of employment...such compulsion is highly improper.

 

[Centrehalf]

When government regulation comes in to cripple unions, imbalance predictably results.

What exactly do you mean by imbalance? I've read the rest of the thread already but I've not seen you describe what you mean by this.

 

[Thrilla]

Still though, what if a person doesn't want to be in a union? Ive been in a union ( in a right to work state ) and some people did not want to be in the union. I had my apprehension about it myself as the union also pushed us to donate to the PAC with the implication that if we didn't we might not get good union representation. Still I was in that union for 4 years while I had that job. it had its positives and negatives. I think unions have a place. But I definitely am against it being compulsory.

exactly... no one is saying people shouldn't or can't join a union if they want to... they surely have that right.... the entire issue surrounds being forced to join as a condition of employment.

there are ancillary issues that need ot be addressed, such as the free-rider problem... but they aren't hard to address equitably.
if unions are required represent non-union members, non- union members should probably pony up some money for that.... unions shouldn't be charging them an amount equal to membership due ( as they do now, which is utter corrupt bull****), but non-members should still have to pay for what the unions do for them.
either that, remove the requirement for the union to represent non-members altogether...

European labor unions are rather successful, and they cover great portion of workers ... but exclusive bargaining rights are not common....
in the US, they are mandatory.

 

[Absentglare]

Still though, what if a person doesn't want to be in a union? Ive been in a union ( in a right to work state ) and some people did not want to be in the union. I had my apprehension about it myself as the union also pushed us to donate to the PAC with the implication that if we didn't we might not get good union representation. Still I was in that union for 4 years while I had that job. it had its positives and negatives. I think unions have a place. But I definitely am against it being compulsory.

Okay then in right to work states, the union shouldn't be forced to negotiate on behalf of non-union members.

You can't have it both ways. France doesn't have exclusive representation laws. You don't need those, they were put there for the benefit of the employers !!

 

[Absentglare]

no , not really, they only bar contractual agreements that would stipulate employment is contingent upon union membership.

it (exclusive bargaining rights) might benefit business in the manner you bring up, sure thing... but it was fought for and won by unions, not business, not government..... it might be a convenience for a business, but its far more than that for a union.
using that line of argument, I can easily argue RTW statures, coupled with negating exclusivity rights can benefit unions... in that they will only be required to negotiate for their members.. which would be convenient for them.
employers might be inconvenienced, but we don't see them fighting to keep the status quo now do we?

additionally, RTW law are meant to address the notion of compulsory union membership as a condition of employment...such compulsion is highly improper.

There shouldn't be any RTW laws as long as we have exclusive representation rights granted to unions, period. Doing so is an obvious handout to businesses

 

[Thrilla]

Okay then in right to work states, the union shouldn't be forced to negotiate on behalf of non-union members.

You can't have it both ways. France doesn't have exclusive representation laws. You don't need those, they were put there for the benefit of the employers !!

provide proof of the bolded claim....

 

[SocialD]

Okay then in right to work states, the union shouldn't be forced to negotiate on behalf of non-union members.

You can't have it both ways. France doesn't have exclusive representation laws. You don't need those, they were put there for the benefit of the employers !!

I agree with that. I do recall one guy who was not a union member and had an issue with the company. the union rep said ok how about this. we will represent you and if we get this issue cleared up satisfactorily you join the union.
He agreed to that and they did so he joined. But yes I don't think they should be forced to represent non members.

 

[Absentglare]

What exactly do you mean by imbalance? I've read the rest of the thread already but I've not seen you describe what you mean by this.

Unions are forced to represent non-union employees but cannot negotiate union membership with employers.

 

[Thrilla]

There shouldn't be any RTW laws as long as we have exclusive representation rights granted to unions, period. Doing so is an obvious handout to businesses

I'm fine with negating exclusive bargaining rights.... but i'd like you to prove your claims, keeping in mind that the AFL championed the concept of exclusive representation/bargaining rights. ( surely you'll have proof the AFL was fighting for the interests of business)

 

[KevinKohler]

Or, labor unions have become weak because the government has stepped in to fill the role that unions used to provide.

And they do it without dues, or "closed shops".

 

[Centrehalf]

Unions are forced to represent non-union employees but cannot negotiate union membership with employers.

To be accurate unions still negotiate on behalf of their members as they always did. Now in some states non-members can come along for the ride if they want. I still don't see the imbalance, in some states the closed shop is gone but unions can still organize a workplace against the employers wishes. Seems to me like there are pros and cons for everyone.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm fine with negating exclusive bargaining rights.... but i'd like you to prove your claims, keeping in mind that the AFL championed the concept of exclusive representation/bargaining rights. ( surely you'll have proof the AFL was fighting for the interests of business)

Small employers would not be able to compete with large employers as well in such a model. Large employers may not be effected, or it may even help them. The multiplicity of unions, grievances, and negotiations is a significant burden on small business. It is not necessarily a burden on large business, but there is little for large business to gain in divided unions.

Further, it seems obvious that exclusive representation, when combined with RTW laws, is a very pro-business position.

 

[Absentglare]

To be accurate unions still negotiate on behalf of their members as they always did. Now in some states non-members can come along for the ride if they want. I still don't see the imbalance, in some states the closed shop is gone but unions can still organize a workplace against the employers wishes. Seems to me like there are pros and cons for everyone.

Lol...?

Unions legally cannot collect dues but are legally forced to represent employees that do not pay dues.

And you don't see how that's imbalanced ?

 

[Centrehalf]

Lol...?

Unions legally cannot collect dues but are legally forced to represent employees that do not pay dues.

And you don't see how that's imbalanced ?

Unions can force their way into a workplace against the owner's wishes and you think that's alright? It seems to me we now have a give and take situation we didn't have before. For someone who has accused others of not knowing what they're talking about you don't seem to bring much to the discussion, all you've got is the same talking point.

I think RTW is going to, in the long run, help some unions.

 

[TheIceman]

I'm a liberal, basically, and I'm against raising the minimum wage.

If business had been honest, there would never have been unions or a minimum wage. Big business brought this on themselves by being dishonest, greedy, and corrupt.

A sad but true fact.

 

[Absentglare]

Unions can force their way into a workplace against the owner's wishes and you think that's alright? It seems to me we now have a give and take situation we didn't have before. For someone who has accused others of not knowing what they're talking about you don't seem to bring much to the discussion, all you've got is the same talking point.

I think RTW is going to, in the long run, help some unions.

RTW alone is an abysmal failure of public policy.

You can't tell me the people who wrote that law were unaware of the free rider problem- more likely, they were counting on it.

And why ? So they can make more money for themselves without having to work any harder for it. I don't know why anyone would sincerely back such a policy for anything other than greed or ignorance.

 

[Centrehalf]

RTW alone is an abysmal failure of public policy.

You can't tell me the people who wrote that law were unaware of the free rider problem- more likely, they were counting on it.

And why ? So they can make more money for themselves without having to work any harder for it. I don't know why anyone would sincerely back such a policy for anything other than greed or ignorance.

Think about what you just said. The employers make more money because of free riders?

 

[Absentglare]

Think about what you just said. The employers make more money because of free riders?

The employers make more money for themselves because they have more leverage than unions do.

By making union membership a lose-lose proposition for employees, they cut union power dramatically.

 

[Centrehalf]

The employers make more money for themselves because they have more leverage than unions do.

By making union membership a lose-lose proposition for employees, they cut union power dramatically.

You're arguing that employers make more money because non-union members are treated the same as union members. You're making the wrong argument.

 

[Absentglare]

You're arguing that employers make more money because non-union members are treated the same as union members. You're making the wrong argument.

No, i specifically explained that employers gain more leverage by eroding the power of unions.