In Historic NLRB Ruling, Temps Win the Right To Join Unions

[TheDemSocialist]

A new ruling will enable temporary and permanent employees to come together to negotiate with their bosses in mixed bargaining units.The National Labor Relations Board on Monday overturned a Bush-era standard that said a union could only organize a bargaining unit of jointly employed and regular employees if both employers consented—even if those employees worked together closely. "Jointly employed" includes temps who are hired through staffing agencies.
The new decision allows jointly employed temps to bargain collectively in the same unit with the solely employed workers they work alongside, ruling that bosses need not consent so long as workers share a “community of interest.”
In a 3-1 decision, the Board overturned a 12-year-old ruling in Oakwood Care Center, where the Board said that a group of temporary workers could not unionize with permanent employees without the approval of their employer and the appropriate staffing agency.

Read more @: In Historic NLRB Ruling, Temps Win the Right To Join Unions

:applaud:applaudA huge win for temp workers and their rights to freely organize!

 

[joG]

Read more @: In Historic NLRB Ruling, Temps Win the Right To Join Unions

:applaud:applaudA huge win for temp workers and their rights to freely organize! [/FONT][/COLOR]

Fine. Free association is good. Historic? Not really. Timely? Absolutely.

 

[jamesrage]

Read more @: In Historic NLRB Ruling, Temps Win the Right To Join Unions

:applaud:applaudA huge win for temp workers and their rights to freely organize! [/FONT][/COLOR]

What do you mean by the right to join a union? Do you mean if they want to they can join a union and if they don't want to then they don't have to and still be able to be temp for that company, because I support that. Or do you mean they have to join a union and or pay union dues as a condition of their job?Which I don't support.Because right implies it is a optional, not obligatory. Because of die hard union supporters support closes shops meaning they don't actually support free organizing.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

This is a good thing. I support this for the same reason that I support the right-to-work concept. People should be able to freely organize or not organize as they please, and an employer or union boss should have absolutely zero say as to who joins or doesn't join what or why.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

What do you mean by the right to join a union? Do you mean if they want to they can join a union and if they don't want to then they don't have to and still be able to be temp for that company, because I support that. Or do you mean they have to join a union and or pay union dues as a condition of their job?Which I don't support.Because right implies it is a optional, not obligatory. Because of die hard union supporters support closes shops meaning they don't actually support free organizing.

This ruling simply says temp workers have the right to organize and join a union. The "forced to join a union" (which is an erroneous statement) part of your arguments applies to if the state is a right to work state or not. Also under federal labor law no-one can forced to join a union.

 

[jamesrage]

This ruling simply says temp workers have the right to organize and join a union. The "forced to join a union" (which is an erroneous statement) part of your arguments applies to if the state is a right to work state or not.

In states where closed shops are allowed if you wish to be part of a certian profession then you have to join a a union or at least pay union dues.So this is not a erroneous statement. In right to work states closed shops are banned.So if you want to be a teacher,Police office and there is a teachers union or police union then you can still be a police officer or teacher and not have to join a union, unless you want to join that union.

Also under federal labor law no-one can forced to join a union.

Die hard union supporters claim that no one is forced to join a union since you don't have to apply for that job.

 

[JasperL]

This is a good thing. I support this for the same reason that I support the right-to-work concept. People should be able to freely organize or not organize as they please, and an employer or union boss should have absolutely zero say as to who joins or doesn't join what or why.

The problem is unions, at least most jurisdictions, are required by law to bargain for both members and non-members. If that's required then joining or not should not in fact be optional. The equivalent would be making taxes optional, but requiring the city to provide services equally to taxpayers and those who elect not to pay taxes. and then justifying it as a freedom thing. No, it's a "you need to pay for services" thing, and a "no, you can't freeload off the efforts of others" thing.

 

[Chillfolks]

The problem is unions, at least most jurisdictions, are required by law to bargain for both members and non-members. If that's required then joining or not should not in fact be optional. The equivalent would be making taxes optional, but requiring the city to provide services equally to taxpayers and those who elect not to pay taxes. and then justifying it as a freedom thing. No, it's a "you need to pay for services" thing, and a "no, you can't freeload off the efforts of others" thing.

I agree unions are the problem. The rest of your post I don't agree with as much.


No one should be forced to join an organization they fell doesn't benefit them as a condition of employmet.


As for freeloading. At my job the laziest and least productive workers are union members. The union doesn't try to make them more productive, they defend them. They talk a good game but in the end hurt rather then help hard workers then defend the worst. At lest that has been my experience.

 

[haymarket]

Read more @: In Historic NLRB Ruling, Temps Win the Right To Join Unions

:applaud:applaudA huge win for temp workers and their rights to freely organize! [/FONT][/COLOR]

Most excellent!!!! There is good news tonight as Gabriel Heatter used to say.

 

[DA60]

Small unions - of company/corporation ONLY size - I agree with and am all for (providing they put practically ZERO pressure on their employees to join).

Major unions I despise (like the Teamsters or and UAW).

They are bloated whales that suck dues from the workers and give them painfully little in return.

Major unions have probably, indirectly destroyed more jobs then they have saved...MANY more.

 

[JasperL]

I agree unions are the problem. The rest of your post I don't agree with as much.

No one should be forced to join an organization they fell doesn't benefit them as a condition of employmet.

Doesn't matter how they "feel" - the union IS REQUIRED BY LAW to represent them. If the employees don't like the union, hold a vote, get it decertified. Same option you have with taxes. Don't like how high they are, too bad. Use the democratic process to get them reduced or find another place to live or work.

And they don't have to join the union - they are however, except in 'right to work' states, required to contribute to the cost of the representation the union MUST PROVIDE to them.

As for freeloading. At my job the laziest and least productive workers are union members. The union doesn't try to make them more productive, they defend them. They talk a good game but in the end hurt rather then help hard workers then defend the worst. At lest that has been my experience.

OK, but that doesn't address the point that unions have a legal obligation to represent ALL covered workers, members and non-members.

As an aside, this argument always amazes me from conservatives. Whenever pay or benefits come up the point is nearly always immediately made that employees choose to work there under those conditions and are free to work anywhere else they can get a better deal. But this logic doesn't apply to union representation. If an employee agrees to work in a place represented by a union, they should be 'free' to opt out of that part of the condition of their employment they agreed to when hired, and not pay their dues, but STILL enjoy all the benefits of working in a union shop and a union required by law to represent them. It's a bizarre double standard.

 

[JasperL]

In states where closed shops are allowed if you wish to be part of a certian profession then you have to join a a union or at least pay union dues.So this is not a erroneous statement. In right to work states closed shops are banned.So if you want to be a teacher,Police office and there is a teachers union or police union then you can still be a police officer or teacher and not have to join a union, unless you want to join that union.

Right, but if there is a union, that union is still required to represent the freeloaders, whether they want to or not.

Die hard union supporters claim that no one is forced to join a union since you don't have to apply for that job.

That's true. Why is it any different than the argument, "Free market types claim no one is forced to work for minimum wage since they don't have to apply and accept that job" What changes when you substitute "join a union" for 'working for minimum wage'?

 

[Chillfolks]

The laws need to be changed.

Unions should not be required to represent non members. And non members should not be forced to pay dues.

It will never happen because their would be too much money lost in politics.

 

[Born Free]

Doesn't matter how they "feel" - the union IS REQUIRED BY LAW to represent them. If the employees don't like the union, hold a vote, get it decertified. Same option you have with taxes. Don't like how high they are, too bad. Use the democratic process to get them reduced or find another place to live or work.

And they don't have to join the union - they are however, except in 'right to work' states, required to contribute to the cost of the representation the union MUST PROVIDE to them.



OK, but that doesn't address the point that unions have a legal obligation to represent ALL covered workers, members and non-members.

As an aside, this argument always amazes me from conservatives. Whenever pay or benefits come up the point is nearly always immediately made that employees choose to work there under those conditions and are free to work anywhere else they can get a better deal. But this logic doesn't apply to union representation. If an employee agrees to work in a place represented by a union, they should be 'free' to opt out of that part of the condition of their employment they agreed to when hired, and not pay their dues, but STILL enjoy all the benefits of working in a union shop and a union required by law to represent them. It's a bizarre double standard.

Simple answer, if the unions don't like it they can pull out. That is their option. However if they don't like the law they can try and change it and or abide by the law and shut up. People should have an option, some unions are great but many are their own worst enemy. The teachers union is one of them, they have destroyed our public schools, and that is exactly why I support a voucher system, so that students can go where they think is best for their education. But liberals hate the idea as they really don't give a damn about educating students, they want the union vote over our children's education. Unions over the years have lost huge numbers in membership, now why is that? Their only strength these days are with government employees, and the reason for that is they have democrats in congress that will do anything to keep the union vote over the people.

 

[JasperL]

Simple answer, if the unions don't like it they can pull out. That is their option. However if they don't like the law they can try and change it and or abide by the law and shut up.

And if the workers don't like it they can vote to get rid of the union. You're laying all the obligations on unions and pretending that workers who agree to work for the the pay, vacation, benefits negotiated on their behalf by unions have a right to take those jobs with those benefits and freeload.

People should have an option

They do - don't work for a place where the union has negotiated your pay and benefits.

some unions are great but many are their own worst enemy. The teachers union is one of them, they have destroyed our public schools, and that is exactly why I support a voucher system, so that students can go where they think is best for their education. But liberals hate the idea as they really don't give a damn about educating students, they want the union vote over our children's education.

That's just a political rant against libruls and unions. I don't agree with your analysis but it's off topic anyway.

Unions over the years have lost huge numbers in membership, now why is that? Their only strength these days are with government employees, and the reason for that is they have democrats in congress that will do anything to keep the union vote over the people.

In part it's because of a series of laws that make union busting easier, decades of an NRLB that is anti-union and doesn't enforce what few rules they are and interprets all the rules in a pro-management, anti-union way, and so-called 'right to work' laws that are intended to and do kill off private sector unions. In my own state, when the VW plant threatened to organize (unopposed by VW management) nearly our entire Congressional delegation and the Gov. and state legislature explicitly threatened VW in the press and I'm sure privately as well and said if they unionize they would punish the company by rescinding promised tax breaks for expansion into the state. So you're surprised that with all the rules lined up against unions that they have lost huge numbers of members? Give me a break.

It also doesn't help that lots of unionized blue collar jobs were in manufacturing and companies simply said and often still do say that if you unionize, we'll dismantle the whole thing and send it overseas. And that happened to millions of formerly unionized jobs. It's cheaper to pay 25 cents an hour than provide decent jobs with benefits to American workers. Those rules, too, were not accidental - gutting our blue collar workforce was a deliberate effort on behalf of law makers. It's incredible to blame workers for that.

 

[JasperL]

The laws need to be changed.

Unions should not be required to represent non members. And non members should not be forced to pay dues.

It will never happen because their would be too much money lost in politics.

It's hard to do that. Teacher A comes to work for union negotiated pay and benefits of $X. In year 2 she quits the union. Her coworkers get $X, and the employer is now going to go to her and say, "Hey, you're not in a union - you get $X - $5,000!!"?? If so, maybe after a month, she goes, "I liked that extra $5k, I'm joining the union, so employer please bring my pay back up to scale!" It's just not feasible, which I'm sure is why the law looks to see if the workers in that classification have in a democratic process voted to be represented by a union, then requires the employer to treat them all under the contract. The only disconnect is RTW laws which then explicitly bless freeloading without even bothering to amend laws requiring unions to represent the freeloaders.

 

[jamesrage]

Right, but if there is a union, that union is still required to represent the freeloaders, whether they want to or not.

1.Petition a change in the law.If unions don't want to represent non-union employees then push for a change in the law.

2.What a company chooses to pay their non-union employees employees is none of the union's damn business.If Bob's **** shack wants to pay their non-union members the same pay and benefits as their union employee's then that is Bob's **** shack's owner's business. nNot the union. because the union doesn't own the company.

That's true. Why is it any different than the argument, "Free market types claim no one is forced to work for minimum wage since they don't have to apply and accept that job" What changes when you substitute "join a union" for 'working for minimum wage'?

I am not one of those anti-minimum wage conservatives, so your argument won't work on.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Yay! Hardly historic, though.

 

[justabubba]

In states where closed shops are allowed if you wish to be part of a certian profession then you have to join a a union or at least pay union dues.So this is not a erroneous statement. In right to work states closed shops are banned.So if you want to be a teacher,Police office and there is a teachers union or police union then you can still be a police officer or teacher and not have to join a union, unless you want to join that union.


Die hard union supporters claim that no one is forced to join a union since you don't have to apply for that job.

and we would be correct

the applicant applies for a bargaining unit job

at the time of application they would know the job is one that requires union dues payment as a condition of employment (in non-right-to-work states)

to avoid being a dues paying union member they should avoid applying for a union represented job

nothing magical or diabolical about that. straight forward. but some seem unable to comprehend the very simple policy

 

[justabubba]

The problem is unions, at least most jurisdictions, are required by law to bargain for both members and non-members. If that's required then joining or not should not in fact be optional. The equivalent would be making taxes optional, but requiring the city to provide services equally to taxpayers and those who elect not to pay taxes. and then justifying it as a freedom thing. No, it's a "you need to pay for services" thing, and a "no, you can't freeload off the efforts of others" thing.

no. the more appropriate equivalent would be whether to reside in a democratically elected nation or not if one did not approve of the democratically elected government

if one does not condone living in such a governed nation, they have the right to leave so that they are no longer subjected to that government's powers and influence
to take it further, that causes this reader to wonder why that person would apply to live in such a country with its democratically elected government, if they were so opposed to that government

 

[justabubba]

I agree unions are the problem. The rest of your post I don't agree with as much.


No one should be forced to join an organization they fell doesn't benefit them as a condition of employmet.

i am willing to bet that the employee you speak of did not apply for that union job with a gun at their head. instead, i would bet they applied for that union job of their own free will
if that person was so opposed to a union job, why did they not instead restrict their job applications to only non-union represented employers
chances are they did not make that selection because the union jobs are better. they offer better pay. better benefits. and, the employees are no longer at-will employees who can be fired for almost any reason

As for freeloading. At my job the laziest and least productive workers are union members. The union doesn't try to make them more productive, they defend them. They talk a good game but in the end hurt rather then help hard workers then defend the worst. At lest that has been my experience.

so, you are saying the union does not require its employees to work as hard as you would have them work
seems like the union is earning its dues

 

[justabubba]

Small unions - of company/corporation ONLY size - I agree with and am all for (providing they put practically ZERO pressure on their employees to join).

Major unions I despise (like the Teamsters or and UAW).

They are bloated whales that suck dues from the workers and give them painfully little in return.

Major unions have probably, indirectly destroyed more jobs then they have saved...MANY more.

i would look forward to any cite you can offer which would substantiate your allegations that the unions destroy more jobs than they save

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The problem is unions, at least most jurisdictions, are required by law to bargain for both members and non-members. If that's required then joining or not should not in fact be optional. The equivalent would be making taxes optional, but requiring the city to provide services equally to taxpayers and those who elect not to pay taxes. and then justifying it as a freedom thing. No, it's a "you need to pay for services" thing, and a "no, you can't freeload off the efforts of others" thing.

:shrug: I don't really think that should be a law either. Unions should be a voluntary organization and if someone doesn't want to be a part of it they shouldn't have to. If they want to, great, enjoy. I also don't see why many of these unions need millions upon millions of dollars to "negotiate with an employer".

i am willing to bet that the employee you speak of did not apply for that union job with a gun at their head. instead, i would bet they applied for that union job of their own free will
if that person was so opposed to a union job, why did they not instead restrict their job applications to only non-union represented employers
chances are they did not make that selection because the union jobs are better. they offer better pay. better benefits. and, the employees are no longer at-will employees who can be fired for almost any reason
so, you are saying the union does not require its employees to work as hard as you would have them work
seems like the union is earning its dues

I think the problem with that is that in many heavily unionized career fields you'd be extremely limited on the type of non-union job you could find.

 

[Patrickt]

The problem is unions, at least most jurisdictions, are required by law to bargain for both members and non-members. If that's required then joining or not should not in fact be optional. The equivalent would be making taxes optional, but requiring the city to provide services equally to taxpayers and those who elect not to pay taxes. and then justifying it as a freedom thing. No, it's a "you need to pay for services" thing, and a "no, you can't freeload off the efforts of others" thing.

Unions are criminal organizations whose business is extortion. The government is an accomplice and the NLRB is a front group to support unions. Unions exist to protect the incompetent, the corrupt, the lazy, and in my line of work, the brutal.

 

[JasperL]

Unions are criminal organizations whose business is extortion. The government is an accomplice and the NLRB is a front group to support unions. Unions exist to protect the incompetent, the corrupt, the lazy, and in my line of work, the brutal.

Good take. Thanks. :roll: