Freeing Workers from Union Bosses

[cpwill]

Actually believing in the benefits of competition make it easier for one to occasionally maintain optimism about the future. Bad policies and structures will eventually die out.

...There’s a shrewd new challenge to the power of organized labor: the Employee Rights Act. It would take labor law in a new direction. Unlike right-to-work statutes, which help businesses escape unionization, the ERA would protect union workers from high-handedness and abuses of power by their union leaders...

Though it has dazzlingly high poll numbers, the measure is unlikely to be enacted any time soon. Unless Republicans capture the White House and the Senate in the November election while keeping control of the House, it’s a sure loser. Even if Republicans gain full control in Washington, passage is not guaranteed...

What the ERA would do is entirely sensible. The most striking of its seven reforms would force unions to face a “recertification” election every three years, allowing workers to decide if they want to stick with their current union. Hatch says that “less than 10 percent” of union members today have ever voted on whether to have or keep a union. Another part of the measure would prevent union leaders from “intimidating or coercing employees from exercising their rights, including the right to decertify the union.”

That’s strong medicine. The rest of the ERA would guarantee secret ballot elections, give members the right to refuse to back their union’s political operations, require at least 40 days to hear both sides before voting to certify or decertify a union, require a secret ballot vote before a strike, and make it a crime for unions to use violence or threats to coerce members...

Berman hired the Opinion Re-search Corporation to survey union and nonunion households to gauge the ERA’s popularity. Only the secret ballot requirement drew less than 80 percent support. It was backed by 78 percent of both union and nonunion households.

Here’s the most surprising result: Eighty-four percent of nonunion and 83 percent of union households favor an election every three years to recertify or jettison the union. And 85 percent of nonunion and 88 percent of union households back the need for a majority of members to approve a strike...

 

[oliveryty]

Agreed. Without a democratic decision-making and election system, a union could be a sinister gang.....

 

[American]

It does seem intuitive that if one can vote in the elections of government that they should also have the right to vote in the elections of their unions.

 

[maquiscat]

We need to have a passage added that would make it illegal for any union, public sector or otherwise, to require that non-members pay union dues or any other type of fee.

I am a 100% supporter of the secret ballot portion. It should never be known who votes to either form, keep or disband a union. This works really on both sides. While retribution can't be visited upon for voting not to form a union, likewise it can't be visited upon for voting to form a union.

Of all posted I would say the re-certification would be the least to have my support. As long as member can opt out of the union en masse with out losing their jobs, I don't necessarily see the need for it. With that there also need to be legislation that allows workers to form a separate union if they don't like the current union, but still want a union.

 

[KevinKohler]

Most unions, at least in CT, are what we call "closed shop" unions. Meaning, for instance, that if you want to work, for, say Sikorsky Helicopter, you HAVE to join the union...or not work there.

 

[maquiscat]

Most unions, at least in CT, are what we call "closed shop" unions. Meaning, for instance, that if you want to work, for, say Sikorsky Helicopter, you HAVE to join the union...or not work there.

Which personally I think needs to be illegal. How dare anyone tell me that I need to join a union whose views do not match mine in order to work someplace.

 

[cpwill]

I don't think it should be criminalized - that would interfere with the freedom of employers and employees to come to an agreement betwixt themselves. I just think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and workplaces should have the right to ban union negotiation as well.

 

[KevinKohler]

My biggest issue with unions in general is the additional power they are afforded by the state, once they are "recognized". Why should I need to fill out government forms to be an "official" union? Shouldn't a collective of workers be sufficient? No, because going on strike, according to the state, is not a fireable offense. In other words, can someone for striking, in an "official" union means paying unemployment, or, worse, getting fined...maybe even jail time. To me, the only, ONLY power a union should have should come from the collective itself. Meaning, if the workers decide they are not making enough money...they strike. Fine. The employer now has a choice...fire them all, and replace them...and pay NO unemployment, etc, because, let's face it, no call no shows is a pretty good reason to fire someone...OR, negotiate with them about whatever grievance. The employer is going to pick the cheaper of the two options. Either hiring and training new help is going to cost more than giving in to the wage demands, or it's not. If it doesn't, to me, that's the market saying, "I guess those demands were a bit unreasonable after all..."

 

[American]

Most unions, at least in CT, are what we call "closed shop" unions. Meaning, for instance, that if you want to work, for, say Sikorsky Helicopter, you HAVE to join the union...or not work there.

How dare they be a defense contractor taking tax dollars and force people to join them. Seems like something is wrong with this.

 

[KevinKohler]

How dare they be a defense contractor taking tax dollars and force people to join them. Seems like something is wrong with this.

It only applies to the "lower" end jobs...which are STILL 60K a year jobs...the managers and upper tier are not union. Obviously. Something IS wrong with it. Think about it...the place employs 15K people...12K of which are union workers...it more or less forces sikorsky to adhere to their demands...not that sikorsky cares...they sell military equipment...and uncle sam rights blank checks. He has NO problem with paying 20 mill per aircraft, or more. Ever wonder WHY that crap costs so much? For the most part, the technology in those things is on par with and sometimes, BEHIND civilian automobiles. No. You're paying....er, Uncle SAM is paying for the unchecked raises over the years...because...where else are they going to buy a black hawk whirly bird? Ahh....IP rights. No, no monopoly here....just keep moving, don't look at the man behind the curtain...

 

[poweRob]

Which personally I think needs to be illegal. How dare anyone tell me that I need to join a union whose views do not match mine in order to work someplace.

No one is telling you to join a union. This isn't the USSR, you can choose not to work there.

 

[stsburns]

I really don't see the difference between "Unions" and "Large Corporations." I mean Unions just take money these days.

 

[cpwill]

No one is telling you to join a union. This isn't the USSR, you can choose not to work there.

and your reaction to the flip side of this would be....?

 

[randel]

Actually believing in the benefits of competition make it easier for one to occasionally maintain optimism about the future. Bad policies and structures will eventually die out.

more union busting garbage...if someone has a problem with their union, there are already provisions in place in the various union constitutions regarding decertification, all this 're-certify' crap is nothing more than to add another burden to the unions, making them spend time and money. if someone doesnt want to work in a union shop, as has been explained, numerous times, no one is being forced too... there are non union jobs out there for them, they are not 'stuck' in a union shop....also, how about some laws preventing business owners and their mangement lackeys from 'intimidating and coercing their employees from excercising their rights, including the right to unionize'?

all this is is an attempt to strip unions of their bargaining power, to put them at the mercy of the businesses they are supposed to be negotiating with......for all the hardcore conservatives that say the unions are 'dying', y'all still seem terrified of them...lol

 

[Tigger]

Which personally I think needs to be illegal. How dare anyone tell me that I need to join a union whose views do not match mine in order to work someplace.

Why? The Company has already agreed that the job/work is UNION work. To then allow the Company to hire non-UNION employees to do the work pretty much makes the Unionization worthless.

I probably see this from a unique perspective. I've worked for my current employer for almost 11 years (as of the end of the week). I have done this same job as a Contractor (5 years), then as a Management Employee (3 years) and now as a Union Employee (3 years). So I've seen pretty much all of the different ways that you can, how a LARGE business treats employees of different types. I will say this first off; if we hadn't Unionized in 2009, I would not be working here anymore. My job would have been shipped out to Syracuse, NY and I would have been laid off. Even if it hadn't happened then, it definitely would have happened in the PURGE that occured last year (Company laid off 1200 of 6100 non-Union employees) to ensure they could make their profit margin. My time in the Union has been the ONLY time with this company where I could say with any certainty what my job responsibilities are and not have them changed on a weekly basis. Why would I EVER vote to allow this company to bring in a non-Union employee to do the same work I do? Especially when we won't even allow our Supervisors to do our work.

 

[Gary]

Actually believing in the benefits of competition make it easier for one to occasionally maintain optimism about the future. Bad policies and structures will eventually die out.

Freeing Workers from Union Bosses

Can't you just use garlic and mirrors or that stuff they use for Bigfoot?

 

[misterman]

Agreed. Without a democratic decision-making and election system, a union could be a sinister gang.....

Unions have democratic decision-making and election systems.

 

[misterman]

Which personally I think needs to be illegal. How dare anyone tell me that I need to join a union whose views do not match mine in order to work someplace.

Actually, I think it is illegal. You can be required to pay a fee to the union for its services though. Freeloaders who get the benefits of a union job shouldn't get them for free.

 

[Tigger]

Actually, I think it is illegal. You can be required to pay a fee to the union for its services though. Freeloaders who get the benefits of a union job shouldn't get them for free.

Depends on the State and the Company. The Union I'm part of REQUIRES membership (not just dues) in order to be awarded a Union position. It's in our contract.

 

[misterman]

Depends on the State and the Company. The Union I'm part of REQUIRES membership (not just dues) in order to be awarded a Union position. It's in our contract.

I looked it up again.

Apparently, it's illegal to require people to be a union member to get hired, but not to require them to join after being hired (I don't see much difference, but whatever). I think, and I'm not sure about this, that in a so-called right to work state, typically you can opt out of joining the union, but you can still be required to pay a fee.

 

[Tigger]

Apparently, it's illegal to require people to be a union member to get hired, but not to require them to join after being hired (I don't see much difference, but whatever). I think, and I'm not sure about this, that in a so-called right to work state, typically you can opt out of joining the union, but you can still be required to pay a fee.

Yes. They can hire anyone they want, but the way most Union contracts are written (at least the one's I'm familiar with) there is a requirement to be a Union Member in order to do certain jobs. Effectively it requires Union membership in order to be hired to do those jobs.

 

[iliveonramen]

Actually, I think it is illegal. You can be required to pay a fee to the union for its services though. Freeloaders who get the benefits of a union job shouldn't get them for free.

Yeah...I agree....a union shop is proven to have better working conditions and better pay for workers. If you don't want to partake in the work required to maintain a union...then you don't get the benefits.

 

[iliveonramen]

Conservatives just like the provision that requires any contribution to receive a waiver from the workers to be used for political purposes.

 

[kenvin]

Anti union just wants the U.S. workers to end up like China where children can be forced to work 15 hour days for pennies until they die.

 

[misterman]

Conservatives just like the provision that requires any contribution to receive a waiver from the workers to be used for political purposes.

That only applies if you don't join but pay a fee.

If you join a union, you have a say in what the union does through the democratic process so you shouldn't be able to just opt out of part of you dues simply because you don't like the decision.