Right To Work States.... Are Working

[Blue Dog]

that person can still accept the job. but they have agreed by that acceptance to have their union dues paid from their wages. there is no obligation for that new union member to participate in internal union activities
the only thing that he cannot decline the the withholding of union dues from his wages. which wages will likely be significantly larger than those of his non-union counterparts

Theres the rub. I do not have to "join" the organization but I have to pay for the privilege. Thats the problem I have with the union shop.

 

[justabubba]

That should be between the employee and the employer.

it is
the employee is now represented by the union, collectively, with a collective voice, rather than interacting with the employer solo, without much power, individually

The town I work in has a podunk, family grocery store.
The meat cutters are unionized and have wages the far exceed the median income level.

They're on strike because the store won't give them a $5 raise and cover more of their medical costs.

bargaining unit members are also allowed to be stupid. it happens. they can try to impose such a burden on the employer that the employer has no alternative but to find a means around their demands
not saying that is what is happening in the instance you provided, but it could be

If that same store were to advertise the positions at less than their current rate, there would be a line down the street of prospective employees willing to work.

but the store has entered into a contract saying that it would bargain for wage rates. which it has established thru negotiations culminating with the current wage. the one the union employees want increased

Unions limit the amount of workers in a market place.

nope. it would be stupid for the union to depress the number of bargaining unit members paying union dues
their union becomes stronger with each additional employee

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Theres the rub. I do not have to "join" the organization but I have to pay for the privilege. Thats the problem I have with the union shop.

The thing people seem to forget is that unions are a business too.
They are one of the worst offenders to boot, rent seekers.

They attempt to get legislation passed in order to force people to join, to get extra revenue from dues.

 

[justabubba]

Theres the rub. I do not have to "join" the organization but I have to pay for the privilege. Thats the problem I have with the union shop.

and you avoid that "problem" by exercising your liberty not to accept employment at an establishment where there is a bargaining unit

 

[DashingAmerican]

the union is workplace democracy in its most pure form.

and like politicians, most union leaders are corrupt.

 

[justabubba]

The thing people seem to forget is that unions are a business too.
They are one of the worst offenders to boot, rent seekers.

They attempt to get legislation passed in order to force people to join, to get extra revenue from dues.

why should only business be allowed to seek legislation which is in its interest. why should labor be excluded from seeking political action which would benefit its members

 

[Blue Dog]

and you avoid that "problem" by exercising your liberty not to accept employment at an establishment where there is a bargaining unit

Agreed. That begs the question as to why can't union membership be optional. If the union is that good, it should not have to force membership. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

it is
the employee is now represented by the union, collectively, with a collective voice, rather than interacting with the employer solo, without much power, individually

By force in many cases.
Unions in some states represent a rent seeking business.

bargaining unit members are also allowed to be stupid. it happens. they can try to impose such a burden on the employer that the employer has no alternative but to find a means around their demands
not saying that is what is happening in the instance you provided, but it could be

Yep, fortunately the grocery store hired other people to fill their vacancies.
They however are still picketing, but quite unsuccessfully.

but the store has entered into a contract saying that it would bargain for wage rates. which it has established thru negotiations culminating with the current wage. the one the union employees want increased

They are negotiating a new contract with the terms, accept it or we strike.
It's trying to force the signing of a contract, under duress, which in any other situation would void the contract.

nope. it would be stupid for the union to depress the number of bargaining unit members paying union dues
their union becomes stronger with each additional employee

Unions don't need the whole market, they just need enough to turn a personal profit for their executives.

 

[DashingAmerican]

why should only business be allowed to seek legislation which is in its interest. why should labor be excluded from seeking political action which would benefit its members

They should, but they shouldn't be able to say you have to join or you still have to pay the dues even if you don't.

 

[justabubba]

and like politicians, most union leaders are corrupt.

under the law, the union MUST be democratically elected
just as with politicians, sometimes the electorate chooses poorly
and in other instances has two weak choices
just as we elect the politicians we deserve
so does a union elect the representatives it deserves

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

why should only business be allowed to seek legislation which is in its interest. why should labor be excluded from seeking political action which would benefit its members

Labor unions are a business.

No one should be allowed to establish a rent seeking relationship.

 

[justabubba]

They should, but they shouldn't be able to say you have to join or you still have to pay the dues even if you don't.

why should the prospective employee be allowed to opt out of what the employer and employee union have agreed will be a condition of employment
if one must wear protective gear as a condition of employment, do you also believe you should be able to exclude yourself from such precondition of employment

 

[randel]

Thats not my point. I have no problem with unions. I have a problem with being forced to join one. If you are forced to join an organization in order to obtain employment that in itself is dictatorial. I agree with the premise ,I do not have to take the job and can walk away from it. However, If my union membership is not optional than you cannot call it democratic. I apologize if I did not make that clear earlier.

no one, i repeat, NO ONE, is holding a gun to your head...why do you feel that it is your right to go into a unionized workplace, a workplace where the majority felt that being unionized was to their benefit, and tell them to piss off, you are not joining, but you want to enjoy all the benefits that this union has negotiated for? why should you be allowed a free pass? if you don't want to work in a union shop, THEN DON'T WORK IN ONE..you are wanting to pretend that you are being 'forced' to be in a union, when nothing is further from the truth. i've noticed you have been ducking the questions i have asked....

 

[justabubba]

Labor unions are a business.

No one should be allowed to establish a rent seeking relationship.

labor unions represent the ability of the employees to associate freely
or are you also opposed to other Constitutional rights

 

[Blue Dog]

no one, i repeat, NO ONE, is holding a gun to your head...why do you feel that it is your right to go into a unionized workplace, a workplace where the majority felt that being unionized was to their benefit, and tell them to piss off, you are not joining, but you want to enjoy all the benefits that this union has negotiated for? why should you be allowed a free pass? if you don't want to work in a union shop, THEN DON'T WORK IN ONE..you are wanting to pretend that you are being 'forced' to be in a union, when nothing is further from the truth. i've noticed you have been ducking the questions i have asked....

Apologies. What is your question. I thought you were making comments.

 

[randel]

Agreed. That begs the question as to why can't union membership be optional. If the union is that good, it should not have to force membership. Wouldn't you agree?

again, why should you be able to go into a shop where the majority voted union, feeling they were better represented this way, and tell them to piss off, but still be able to enjoy the benefits they have negotiated for?

 

[randel]

Apologies. What is your question. I thought you were making comments.

read the post again...my questions are contained therein

 

[randel]

labor unions represent the ability of the employees to associate freely
or are you also opposed to other Constitutional rights

i really don't get some people here, they bigtime champion the rights of business, but can't seem to see past the end of their own nose when it comes to their own well being....

 

[Blue Dog]

read the post again...my questions are contained therein

If the question is why I should go into a union shop and tell them to piss off. Heres your answer: I should not be forced to join a union because union membership should not be a requirement for any job. It should be a free choice. Joining a union should not be mandatory, and that is why I should walk into a place. Now you do not have to agree with my answer, but there it is. If you make union membership voluntary than you and I have no issue to discuss, because I have no problem with unions themselves. Only their tactics. Fair enough?

 

[DashingAmerican]

why should the prospective employee be allowed to opt out of what the employer and employee union have agreed will be a condition of employment
if one must wear protective gear as a condition of employment, do you also believe you should be able to exclude yourself from such precondition of employment

That's apples and oranges. They don't have to pay for the safety equipment.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

labor unions represent the ability of the employees to associate freely
or are you also opposed to other Constitutional rights

Except in cases where there is a closed shop.
I'm perfectly fine with labor unions contracting to represent individuals, on an individual level without force.

I'm not fine with joining a labor union, being a requirement of employment.
That does not represent free association, most especially in areas where the choices are be employed with labor union representation or be unemployed.

You'd never accept other businesses, having the ability to force people to consume their products, because a previous generation voted to make it mandatory.

 

[randel]

If the question is why I should go into a union shop and tell them to piss off. Heres your answer: I should not be forced to join a union because union membership should not be a requirement for any job. It should be a free choice. Joining a union should not be mandatory, and that is why I should walk into a place. Now you do not have to agree with my answer, but there it is. If you make union membership voluntary than you and I have no issue to discuss, because I have no problem with unions themselves. Only their tactics. Fair enough?

you have only answered half the question...why should you be entitled to the same pay, same benefits, that my union as negotiated, when you don't want to be a member or pay dues? why should you be entitled to representation(and in unionized shops in the so called 'right to work' states, you are)?? why should you get a free ride? why should you benefit without contributing?

 

[Blue Dog]

you have only answered half the question...why should you be entitled to the same pay, same benefits, that my union as negotiated, when you don't want to be a member or pay dues? why should you be entitled to representation(and in unionized shops in the so called 'right to work' states, you are)?? why should you get a free ride? why should you benefit without contributing?

The answer becomes a circular argument. If I say the union should have been a voluntary membership from the get go, you would say that doesn't answer the question about receiving benefits. The choice should still belong to me. I should get the free ride because I should have the option to join. As I believe I stated earlier if the union is that good ,one would want to join anyway. Using your analogy" I should not have a gun put to my head". I hope I answered your question.

 

[randel]

The answer becomes a circular argument. If I say the union should have been a voluntary membership from the get go, you would say that doesn't answer the question about receiving benefits. The choice should still belong to me. I should get the free ride because I should have the option to join. As I believe I stated earlier if the union is that good ,one would want to join anyway. Using your analogy" I should not have a gun put to my head". I hope I answered your question.

so, you are saying that you are entitled to everything the union negotiated for, even though not a member, correct? why should you get special treatment? like i explained earlier, your bitching about people being 'forced', when no such thing has happened, those people have made a choice, they can agree to take the job, knowing it is a union job, or they can say no thank you, i'll look elsewhere...there is no force, no coercion...it is a load of bs....the choice is yours, take the job, with all conditions being known beforehand, or say no thank you...such a sense of entitlement, good lord.

 

[Slartibartfast]

you have only answered half the question...why should you be entitled to the same pay, same benefits, that my union as negotiated, when you don't want to be a member or pay dues? why should you be entitled to representation(and in unionized shops in the so called 'right to work' states, you are)?? why should you get a free ride? why should you benefit without contributing?

I can see where it would be ok if a new worker either gets a standard company agreement (or individually negotiated agreement) or the negotiated union agreement when they start the job and perhaps during a yearly open enrollment period or something. But in no way should the nonunion people benefit from the risk taken by the union people, that is just dishonest.

Also having such a dual system would probably help keep the union administration honest as they would have to continue to work for people to want to continue their membership.