Do you think "Right to Work" laws hurt unions? (1 Viewer)

[NatMorton]

That's a ridiculous suggestion. No professionally managed company would pay employees in the same workplace, doing the same job, different pay and benefits.

That’s simply not true. You often pay the higher performing employee more. I certainly do.

 

[NatMorton]

Scabs are often brought in during strikes and paid higher wages than union and non-union members at the facility where a strike is occurring.

It’s not anti-worker to oppose scabs. They’re hired guns who are often paid a premium - and have no allegiance to anyone but their own self-interest.

It’s literally anti-worker.

 

[NatMorton]

The better option for the COMPANY is always non-union labor.

It’s cheaper.

The better option for the labor is almost always a union.

Businesses don’t like unions because they have to share more of their profit margins with employees. And god forbid executives and stock holders can’t get that yacht or 6-7 figure bonus.

I don’t agree with you, but for the sake of discussion let’s say you’re correct, and it’s always better for the company to hire non-union labor.

Given that, why should a company ever hire union labor?

 

[NatMorton]

Treat your workers well & fairly.

I do.

It's the Capitalist pricks who attract Unionism.

What’s wrong with capitalism?

 

[NatMorton]

A libertarian should recognize that there is inequality in the workplace caused by the actions of employers (often in unspoken collaboration with other businesses).

There are also inequalities in the workplace caused by the actions of employees.

What’s your point?

 

[nvflash]

That’s simply not true. You often pay the higher performing employee more. I certainly do.

Do your employees get that in writing?

We just want to understand the rules, nothing is fair when you don't have to stick to it, that just makes it arbitrary and hard for workers to understand what you need and expect from them so that everyone can succeed.

 

[Allan]

That’s simply not true. You often pay the higher performing employee more. I certainly do.

I said professionally managed.

 

[aociswundumho]

The better option for the COMPANY is always non-union labor.

It’s cheaper.

Labor is a cost, and we want to reduce costs, not increase them. That's why "labor-saving" devices and machines make society better off. That's why getting rid of the worker entirely via automation or robotics makes society richer and better off.

 

[BirdinHand]

It’s literally anti-worker.

Being a scab is anti-worker in the grand scheme.

It is self-interests above the good of the many.

I was raised that you never cross a picket line and you never be a scab.

But I’ve been raised in a family/culture that fought for workers and fought against mine bosses that treated humans like shit - going back generations. So my perspective comes from a family tradition of that mindset.

And I married into a family that also has a strong union history. My husband was 4th generation in the local carpenter’s union before going into business for himself.

I don’t agree with you, but for the sake of discussion let’s say you’re correct, and it’s always better for the company to hire non-union labor.

Given that, why should a company ever hire union labor?

Companies don’t often choose to be unionized. Workers form unions and then companies are forced to obey union contracts.

 

[BirdinHand]

Labor is a cost, and we want to reduce costs, not increase them. That's why "labor-saving" devices and machines make society better off. That's why getting rid of the worker entirely via automation or robotics makes society richer and better off.

Capitalists see labor merely as a cost.

Human centered perspectives see humans as worthy of being treated well, paid solid wages and having a decent quality of life.

Strict capitalism winds up with very few incredibly wealthy and the masses living in abject poverty to be tossed to the side when their bodies are no longer valuable and able to produce labor.

The entire course of human history has shown us such.

 

[NatMorton]

Do your employees get that in writing?

In a sense, yes. They get a written performance review and a performance rating on a scale applied to all employees. The size of annual raises and of bonus payouts are driven by those ratings. I review all the ratings assigned by the managers who report to me and our HR teams reviews them again as well the one's I write. There's also a kind of appeals process an employee can follow if they believe they've been rated unfairly.

All concerned understand it's an environment where we pay for performance, not for union membership.

We just want to understand the rules, nothing is fair when you don't have to stick to it, that just makes it arbitrary and hard for workers to understand what you need and expect from them so that everyone can succeed.

We make the process as open and as fair as we can while still respecting worker confidentiality.

 

[mrjurrs]

Right to work laws hurt all workers.

 

[NatMorton]

I said professionally managed.

Paying everyone the same regardless of performance is not a sign of a shop being professionally managed. It's either the sign of a government-style bureaucracy or of a business that's heading for failure.

You've claimed to have managed organizations before. Seriously, you gave the same raise and bonus payouts to your star performers as you did for everyone else?

 

[BirdinHand]

In a sense, yes. They get a written performance review and a performance rating on a scale applied to all employees.

Bullshit. Favorites and HIPOs are identified immediately upon being hired. And their performance reviews, compensation levels, bonuses, etc are reflective of such.

The size of annual raises and of bonus payouts are driven by those ratings. I review all the ratings assigned by the managers who report to me and our HR teams reviews them again as well the one's I write. There's also a kind of appeals process an employee can follow if they believe they've been rated unfairly.

And if you are truly a part of that process, you know damn well that certain employees are on accelerated HIPO paths - others are viewed as “B” team members and receive very different considerations.

Irrespective of their individual performance.

All concerned understand it's an environment where we pay for performance, not for union membership.

Again, bullshit. Companies pay what they NEED to in order to retain what they view as “key” personnel and then everyone else gets an equal share of what is left over in what the company designates as a “bonus pool”

We make the process as open and as fair as we can while still respecting worker confidentiality.

Bullshit.

 

[aociswundumho]

Workers form unions and then companies are forced to obey union contracts.

Yes, and other companies see this and move to right to work states or even out of the country.

 

[BirdinHand]

Paying everyone the same regardless of performance is not a sign of a shop being professionally managed. It's either the sign of a government-style bureaucracy or of a business that's heading for failure.

You've claimed to have managed organizations before. Seriously, you gave the same raise and bonus payouts to your star performers as you did for everyone else?

Thank you for confirming the exact thing I just wrote in my prior post.

That key personnel - and those viewed as key personnel irrespective of their actual performance - get higher compensation than others.

Even if the “key person” is a “key person” simply because they are liked by management, etc.

 

[BirdinHand]

Yes, and other companies see this and move to right to work states or even out of the country.

Yeah, capitalists usually don’t care about people - only profits.

The fundamental flaw in the system if you are a person and/or place value on people being treated decently.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Unions are nothing but labor cartels which attempt to monopolize the supply of labor for a firm or even an entire industry. By artificially restricting the supply of labor, the price of labor goes up, which means employer buy less of it due to that pesky law of demand.

While the members of the cartels benefit, they are an overall net loss for society.

Union membership in the United States peaked in the 1950s and 1960s. Are you saying we had mass unemployment then?

 

[NatMorton]

Being a scab is anti-worker in the grand scheme.

It is self-interests above the good of the many.

I was raised that you never cross a picket line and you never be a scab.

For the life of me I will never understand this deep seated "us vs them" mentality so many -- though by no means all -- union folk demonstrate. It's as if you're conditioned to consider yourselves as somehow inferior and your only hope is the tribe. It's remarkably primitive thinking.

But I’ve been raised in a family/culture that fought for workers and fought against mine bosses that treated humans like shit - going back generations. So my perspective comes from a family tradition of that mindset.

And I married into a family that also has a strong union history. My husband was 4th generation in the local carpenter’s union before going into business for himself.

Companies don’t often choose to be unionized. Workers form unions and then companies are forced to obey union contracts.

There's nothing wrong with unions or with wanting the benefits (and costs) union membership offers. There's equally nothing wrong with wanting to work as an individual with its benefits and trade-offs. That you call the latter "scabs" simply comes off as as sign of fear.

 

[Allan]

You've claimed to have managed organizations before. Seriously, you gave the same raise and bonus payouts to your star performers as you did for everyone else?

Doing the same job in the same workplace - yes. Didn't matter if they were unionized or not.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

As anyone can clearly see I am a proud dues paying member of Teamsters local 89 here in Louisville,KY, but I do not agree with my union's political positions or stand on "Right to Work" laws.

I think right to work forces unions to actually offer benefits to being in the union rather than just collecting dues and doing only the minimum to help it's working members.

What do you think, does right to work hurt union members, or is it a check on corruption of unions?

Well it obviously hurts unions, or at least the people who pass these laws believe they hurt unions otherwise they wouldn’t pass them.

It is true though that some unions need to be hurt, I am in a union shop now and the only reason I stay is because the health plan is so good and my wife isn’t working.

The union doesn’t attempt to limit hours so I’m working mad overtime and the union is so wedded to seniority based privileges that in my previous non union employers I could always take off the week from Christmas to new years but now I can’t because no seniority

 

[ALiberalModerate]

How does a union vote suddenly make it the union’s job? They’re not the one paying the salary. The employer is.

As for your notion of “scabs,” that’s tribal nonsense. Non-union workers don’t enjoy the same benefits as union workers. The employer is not obligated to pay them the same or provide the same benefits. They certainly don’t enjoy the same job protection that union members do.

Non-union workers earn their money based on the value of skills they offer and not as a consequence of being part of a labor cartel. To begrudge them the right to work on their own is to be anti-worker.

Union shops compete for jobs against non-union shops in states without right to work laws. For example, where I live, there are union construction outfits and non-union ones. A plumber or a carpenter can choose to be a member of a union and work at a union shop or choose to not be a member of a union and work at a non-union shop. A non-union shop competes for contracts by offering cheaper work and a union shop competes for contracts by offering better quality work.

 

[cpwill]

As anyone can clearly see I am a proud dues paying member of Teamsters local 89 here in Louisville,KY, but I do not agree with my union's political positions or stand on "Right to Work" laws.

I think right to work forces unions to actually offer benefits to being in the union rather than just collecting dues and doing only the minimum to help it's working members.

I concur with this position, but, it seems not to be an Poption in your poll?

 

[NatMorton]

Bullshit. Favorites and HIPOs are identified immediately upon being hired. And their performance reviews, compensation levels, bonuses, etc are reflective of such.

Sorry, that's just an ignorant statement. That's just not how it works.

And if you are truly a part of that process, you know damn well that certain employees are on accelerated HIPO paths - others are viewed as “B” team members and receive very different considerations.

Of course they are, and it's part of my job to identify who those high potential employees are. It takes many years to grow a next generation of leaders, and it would be foolish not to make an effort to identify those who show that kind of potential and movtivate them to stay.

Irrespective of their individual performance.

To not judge potential based on past performance would be a very foolish thing to do. How do you think employees are recognized as high potential?

Again, bullshit. Companies pay what they NEED to in order to retain what they view as “key” personnel and then everyone else gets an equal share of what is left over in what the company designates as a “bonus pool”

I never said anything else. Managing your home finances, do you pay more than you need to for the things you need? If you don't, why should a business?

 

[NatMorton]

That key personnel - and those viewed as key personnel irrespective of their actual performance -

No, that's the opposite of what I said. I said pay for performance.