Right To Work States.... Are Working

[randel]

why would I want a union-negotiated packet of compensation? I have much better ideas about how to receive my compensation, and I will bargain for those instead; and if they want a quality worker, they will pay them. I don't want a pension plan or a gold-plated health insurance policy; I want a 401(k) match and a HSA tied to a high-deductible account; both of which are cheaper for the company and better for me. I don't want to be paid by seniority, I want to be paid by productivity, and I will quickly leave all of my "I've got the Union so I'm safe" co-workers in the dust.

you are showing your considerable ignorance my friend when it comes to unions..i have a 401k, i don't have a pension, and i pay about 25% of my benefit costs...you automatically assume that all union members have what you consider 'gold plated' insurance and pensions, we don't, you are perpetuating a myth through your ignorance.

 

[randel]

precisely. why should I get screwed over because some of my coworkers are idiots. and it's not even 51% of my coworkers anymore - NLRB is seeking to change the rules so that it's 51% of voters. so hey, if you can figure out a way to filter for union supporters, it could be any percentage of the actual workforce that you like, controlling the others.

wait...you are crying about an election that requires 50% +1? i may be mistaken, but i seem to remember most elections in the united states being something like this......hmmmmmm

 

[randel]

Except the rules have been changed now and even if they weren't changed, why should 51% get to say who represents a 100% of the workers.
It's garbage.

where you from harry? majority wins, what is the problem?

 

[OpportunityCost]

My dad was a steward over his section in Decatur, Illinois at Caterpillar. Unions do indeed protect a lot of people that would be fired for bad work ethic and beahvior that no employer would deal with. I dont just hear this from my dad (who, btw, told them to go another steward if they didnt want to work), I hear this from my grandfather who worked Peabody Coal, and my other grandfather that worked as a Regional VP for York/Borg Warner--now Johnson Controls. Some of the stories hes told me about union guys at the big three, who were his primary clients in heating/AC were just ludicrous.

Im sure the majority is somewhere in the middle with both Union Employees and with non-union shops as to the excesses and abuses but...I think they do keep other in check somewhat. If unions had any guts like they used to, they would be going after retail outlets, this is my opinion mind you, it would appear to be the largest non unionized work force around.

 

[Geo Patric]

so wait. in states where workers are required to join a union, those are the free states? :lamo

boy... you areguments are such powerful rhetorical expressions... boy... it is downright intimidating!

the terrms 'right to work' and 'free state' are, like 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', prejudicial rhetoric. if one side uses such inanitites they can ceratinly expect the other side to come up with one and what would you expect... no-right-to-work? asinine,

EVERY state is a right to work state... no state can deny a citizen the right to work. you and yer conservative pals need to come to a better understanding of the law.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

I still stand by my opinion that union membership should not be mandatory. That being said:
Your point is valid and makes for a catch-22.

even when the union and the employer agree? you get to make that decision for them? because that is the ONLY condition under the law that such an occurrence can occur.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

for the same reason he cannot fire - or refuse to hire - them because they are black
or jewish
or moslem
of hispanic
or women
or men
or disabled

those are all illegitimate reasons to terminate an employee

and besides, your practice would collapse if you were unable to defend employers who engage in such discrimination

that is a stupid analogy


firing someone because they are in a union is hardly discriminatory

unions are nothing more than promoters of less work for more money. They appeal to the unmotivated, the untalented and the slothful

 

[randel]

that is a stupid analogy


firing someone because they are in a union is hardly discriminatory

unions are nothing more than promoters of less work for more money. They appeal to the unmotivated, the untalented and the slothful

you win the award for most ignorant, asinine statement of the day....

 

[TurtleDude]

you win the award for most ignorant, asinine statement of the day....

I am a labor lawyer. I know exactly what I am speaking of. The primary goal of a union is to get more money for less work

 

[justabubba]

My dad was a steward over his section in Decatur, Illinois at Caterpillar. Unions do indeed protect a lot of people that would be fired for bad work ethic and beahvior that no employer would deal with. I dont just hear this from my dad (who, btw, told them to go another steward if they didnt want to work), I hear this from my grandfather who worked Peabody Coal, and my other grandfather that worked as a Regional VP for York/Borg Warner--now Johnson Controls. Some of the stories hes told me about union guys at the big three, who were his primary clients in heating/AC were just ludicrous.

Im sure the majority is somewhere in the middle with both Union Employees and with non-union shops as to the excesses and abuses but...I think they do keep other in check somewhat. If unions had any guts like they used to, they would be going after retail outlets, this is my opinion mind you, it would appear to be the largest non unionized work force around.

your dad, as a steward, had a fidicuary responsibility to "defend" (represent) everyone who sought union representation
union representatives, by law, must represent EVERY bargaining unit employee (both those who are dues paying members and those who are not)
it does not matter whether the bargaining unit employee is a guilty employee
if they seek a union rep, they get one
and just like a public defender, the rep is required to do all within their power to defend the employee
and too frequently, it is a simple matter to protect a guilty employee because management failed to do its job - document the record to evidence the employee's guilt. that happens due to laziness and/or incompetence on the part of management
so, those instances where the union protects a guilty employee are actually instances of management ineptitude

 

[haymarket]

Just to be clear on this: If a group of majority workers take a vote to unionize, its democracy. However, if a person who wants the job and had no say in the original vote (to unionize) must join the union he had no say in forming. That about accurate?

If I'am wrong please correct me.

I had no say about the adoption of the Constitution that I must live under. If I don't like it I know what I can do to escape it.

 

[Geo Patric]

that is a stupid analogy


firing someone because they are in a union is hardly discriminatory

unions are nothing more than promoters of less work for more money. They appeal to the unmotivated, the untalented and the slothful

nothing like unbiased, well informed scrupulously substantiated views. downright refreshing.

geo.

 

[justabubba]

I am a labor lawyer. I know exactly what I am speaking of. The primary goal of a union is to get more money for less work

yes. such a knowledgable labor lawyer
a labor attorney who would dare ask

and why should not the owner of a company have the right to fire union organizers?

has no legitimate standing
which explains your ignorant statement that the union's primary goal is to get more money for less work
in my sector, the federal labor sector, congress establishes the salaries for the federal employees, proving your assessment to be quite stupid

 

[TurtleDude]

nothing like unbiased, well informed scrupulously substantiated views. downright refreshing.

geo.

How many collective bargaining agreements have you negotiated? How many ULPs have you arbitrated? How many 301 cases have you tried?

almost every case involves the unions wanting more benefits for the same or less work

 

[TurtleDude]

yes. such a knowledgable labor lawyer
a labor attorney who would dare ask

has no legitimate standing
which explains your ignorant statement that the union's primary goal is to get more money for less work
in my sector, the federal labor sector, congress establishes the salaries for the federal employees, proving your assessment to be quite stupid

why should there be any public sector unions? which one? since you operate under the full protection of federal laws why do we need a public sector union

at least in the private sector the lines are clear and the bargaining is honest. ON one side the union wants more benefits. On the other side, those bargaining for the corporation, want to obtain labor at the lowest possible cost

in public sector bargaining actions, those "bargaining" on behalf of the employers really aren't always trying to get the taxpayers the best bang for the buck. In union heavy areas, those politicians owe their jobs to union votes so they use OUR money to BUY your votes

 

[Geo Patric]

How many collective bargaining agreements have you negotiated? How many ULPs have you arbitrated? How many 301 cases have you tried?

almost every case involves the unions wanting more benefits for the same or less work

and how many chinups can a monkey do while balanced on the head of a pin?

and what the hell difference does it make?

individual? really? you mean like YOUR individual pursuit of justice refusing to take into account what you were TOLD to do by the fella lining yer pocket?

you will spout pejoratives against what you see as the opposition... i can expect that. it would be nice if you could see that your interests are just that... YOUR interests, not the interests of the people of the nation for whom policy is intended.

that we do not sacrifice ourselves for you should not surprise you. self interest, remember? there is a fascinating passage in the Gorgias where Callicles tries making your argument... and ends up making the argument for collective action, much to Socrates' amusement.

what makes you think that people acting collectively are not acting in self interest? banding together to fight off polar bears... is not communism and it is not altruism. it is acting individually, improving the chances of success by doing so within a group EACH in the pursuit of self interest.

now, replace polar bears with greedy oligarchs and a brutal shop foreman, the oligarchs' dick in his cheeks or... well... we will leave highly educated professionals with a professional and personal interest in the furthering interest of greedy oligarchs outta this, shall we?

anyway... the self interest of one guy (let's say, a lawyer) working for the boss is no more legitimate than the shop full of people working for the boss.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

well tell us Geo-what does a Union seek to do in a CBA?

 

[Geo Patric]

well tell us Geo-what does a Union seek to do in a CBA?

ah! the old socratic method!

you do not have the chops. make an argument or don't.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

ah! the old socratic method!

you do not have the chops. make an argument or don't.

geo.

Easy question-what is the main goal of a union-more benefits for the same work or less work for the same pay

 

[Geo Patric]

Easy question-what is the main goal of a union-more benefits for the same work or less work for the same pay

if you would like to have a discussion on the merits/demerits of unions and the labor movement and collective bargaining... start a thread. i will happily engage and very likely surprise you with my views. THAT though, is not the issue here. the issue here is whether so called 'right to work' policies restricting the freedom for workers and employers to agree on workplace policy is actually beneficial.

make an argument or don't.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

if you would like to have a discussion on the merits/demerits of unions and the labor movement and collective bargaining... start a thread. i will happily engage and very likely surprise you with my views. THAT though, is not the issue here. the issue here is whether so called 'right to work' policies restricting the freedom for workers and employers to agree on workplace policy is actually beneficial.

make an argument or don't.

geo.

right to work states are working because smart employers tend to relocate there

its part of the concept that golden geese have wings and are able to fly

 

[Geo Patric]

right to work states are working because smart employers tend to relocate there

i do not argue that, though it IS arguable. employers want more for less... like everyone does. workers want more for less, like everyone does. i would not say that either is right or wrong. the issue for me is agreement. once, the ball was entirely in management's court. unions changed that... by stealing the ball. taft-hartly changed the game by saying that the ball belongs to both and who gets to play with it is a matter of agreement between two parties, altogether a rational and reasonable approach.

RTW policies negate that agreement and give the ball to the employer. so, sure, employers like it. but the jobs they are gaining are not the sort of jobs that are the best paid or most highly valued. Neither Microsoft nor General Motors is moving to South Texas anytime soon. note that RTW is primarily in agrarian Southern and Plains states.

Manufacturing requires skilled labor and is still heavily unionized. Information Technologies are even MORE highly skilled and do not require unions, for the most part, because competition keeps wages and benefits high. Oracle is not moving to South Dakota to take advantage of all that cheap labor.

no... golden geese do not fly... pigeons fly.

geo.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

no one is....

Bullshyt. Yes, absolutely, for some companies, if you get a job there you must join their labor union.

 

[justabubba]

i do not argue that, though it IS arguable. employers want more for less... like everyone does. workers want more for less, like everyone does. i would not say that either is right or wrong. the issue for me is agreement. once, the ball was entirely in management's court. unions changed that... by stealing the ball. taft-hartly changed the game by saying that the ball belongs to both and who gets to play with it is a matter of agreement between two parties, altogether a rational and reasonable approach.

RTW policies negate that agreement and give the ball to the employer. so, sure, employers like it. but the jobs they are gaining are not the sort of jobs that are the best paid or most highly valued. Neither Microsoft nor General Motors is moving to South Texas anytime soon. note that RTW is primarily in agrarian Southern and Plains states.

Manufacturing requires skilled labor and is still heavily unionized. Information Technologies are even MORE highly skilled and do not require unions, for the most part, because competition keeps wages and benefits high. Oracle is not moving to South Dakota to take advantage of all that cheap labor.

no... golden geese do not fly... pigeons fly.

geo.

signature-worthy

 

[haymarket]

How many collective bargaining agreements have you negotiated? How many ULPs have you arbitrated? How many 301 cases have you tried?

almost every case involves the unions wanting more benefits for the same or less work

One could just as easily ask some rather pertinent questions of you and your "'experience' with unions: Lets try these shall we?

How many workers have you screwed out of their wages?

How many workers have you cheated out of their benefits?

How many union workers have you denied their rights to?

How many times have you lined up as the hired gun of a company against the interests of working people?

A labor attorney works for labor. Somehow, someway, I suspect you were on the opposite side working for management.