Why do we need union voting anymore?

[MrWonka]

I live in Charleston, SC and recently there have been a number of votes by employees of Boeing to decide if they want to unionize. A couple years ago they voted and the vote went No. This last time they changed the structure of the Union, and they voted yes.

My question is why vote? Do we need that anymore at all? If 60% of the employees vote no to a union. Can the other 40% now choose to form a union on their own without the other 60%? I mean since they're the only ones who are going to have to pay their dues now why not? Why should that 40 % of workers have to care what the other 60% think if that 60 % isn't going to contribute to their union anyway?

People say that this is a death blow to unions, but I think it could actually make things much more interesting. In fact, I could see a scenario where a company may end up with multiple labor unions each with different leadership and be forced to bargain with two separate collectives. Hell 5 employees of a company want to form a Union why can't they? Imagine a large with a significant IT department and a piece of software being developed by a small handful of developers with a ton of expertise on the project. They could conceivably decide halfway through the project that they're underpaid and unionize. It doesn't matter what the rest of the company does those 5 employees can just up and decide to unionize and hold the entire company hostage for better wages.

Why should works need to put unionization up to a vote at all if they can't force all the workers to contribute to it? Why can't the handful of workers that want to unionize just choose to unionize and say **** the rest of the company if they don't like it?

 

[Common Sense 1]

A recent study by Frank Manzo of the Illinois Public Policy Institute and Robert Bruno of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign estimated that public-sector unions could lose more than 700,000 members over time as a result of the ruling and that unions also could suffer a loss of political influence that could depress wages as well.

Alito acknowledged that unions could “experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term.” But he said labor’s problems pale in comparison to “the considerable windfall that unions have received...for the past 41 years.”

Billions of dollars have been taken from workers who were not union members in that time, he said.

https://apnews.com/0f83c64b1dd249de9ec89ab85235790a/Supreme-Court-deals-big-setback-to-labor-unions

 

[Chillfolks]

Any group of employees can form any union they wish within a company. Their is nothing that requires a company to recognize or bargain with a union that has such few members.

 

[Xelor]

I don't care for unions, but if workers insist on forming one, well, they just do.

Unions have pros and cons, and to my mind the cons outweigh the pros, but, obviously, other folks feel differently.

 

[PeteEU]

America needs unions.. since companies have far far to much power over workers. There is no balance. Of course that does not mean you need to go to the insane powers unions have in France... just saying there is a golden middle way.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I live in Charleston, SC and recently there have been a number of votes by employees of Boeing to decide if they want to unionize. A couple years ago they voted and the vote went No. This last time they changed the structure of the Union, and they voted yes.

My question is why vote? Do we need that anymore at all? If 60% of the employees vote no to a union. Can the other 40% now choose to form a union on their own without the other 60%? I mean since they're the only ones who are going to have to pay their dues now why not? Why should that 40 % of workers have to care what the other 60% think if that 60 % isn't going to contribute to their union anyway?

People say that this is a death blow to unions, but I think it could actually make things much more interesting. In fact, I could see a scenario where a company may end up with multiple labor unions each with different leadership and be forced to bargain with two separate collectives. Hell 5 employees of a company want to form a Union why can't they? Imagine a large with a significant IT department and a piece of software being developed by a small handful of developers with a ton of expertise on the project. They could conceivably decide halfway through the project that they're underpaid and unionize. It doesn't matter what the rest of the company does those 5 employees can just up and decide to unionize and hold the entire company hostage for better wages.

Why should works need to put unionization up to a vote at all if they can't force all the workers to contribute to it? Why can't the handful of workers that want to unionize just choose to unionize and say **** the rest of the company if they don't like it?

Because if all employees are not union members, those who are can just be replaced when it comes time to bargain for wages. Replacing 40 percent of your work force is nothing compared to 100 percent. Heck, if it doesn't slow production down to much, they'll do it with smiles at how they have an excuse to cut payroll for a couple quarters.

That's why this law is a union killer. If you take away the bargaining chip, you have nothing to bargain with and are just replaced. 40 Percent of your workforce strikes, you just fire them. Work the other 60 harder, and call a temp agency.

That's what right to work really means. Right to work for a temp agency, no benefits, paying a portion of your wages to a company that's hired you to work for what somebody used to make double and got health insurance and a 401k for.

It's bull****. It's harmful to the middle class. And only dumbasses that never paid a lick of attention in history or economics are stupid enough to support it. Which Ironically, their dumbasses are the ones that need it the most. Not a lot of options today if you lose your job to temps. And the idiots dumb enough to support this aren't the ones that have jobs that need a lot of technical training. Perfect for temps to come in and do for three months til they are turned over so they don't make full time employee. And are then replaced by another temp.

So much bull****, so many stupid stupid people. They keep voting against own interests and blaming it on immigrants. That's what's going to make everyones life better. So stupid.

 

[WillyPete]

I live in Charleston, SC and recently there have been a number of votes by employees of Boeing to decide if they want to unionize. A couple years ago they voted and the vote went No. This last time they changed the structure of the Union, and they voted yes.

My question is why vote? Do we need that anymore at all? If 60% of the employees vote no to a union. Can the other 40% now choose to form a union on their own without the other 60%? I mean since they're the only ones who are going to have to pay their dues now why not? Why should that 40 % of workers have to care what the other 60% think if that 60 % isn't going to contribute to their union anyway?

People say that this is a death blow to unions, but I think it could actually make things much more interesting. In fact, I could see a scenario where a company may end up with multiple labor unions each with different leadership and be forced to bargain with two separate collectives. Hell 5 employees of a company want to form a Union why can't they? Imagine a large with a significant IT department and a piece of software being developed by a small handful of developers with a ton of expertise on the project. They could conceivably decide halfway through the project that they're underpaid and unionize. It doesn't matter what the rest of the company does those 5 employees can just up and decide to unionize and hold the entire company hostage for better wages.

Why should works need to put unionization up to a vote at all if they can't force all the workers to contribute to it? Why can't the handful of workers that want to unionize just choose to unionize and say **** the rest of the company if they don't like it?

I believe most union contracts include some form of exclusivity arrangement, so a second union for the same type of work at the same company would clash.

I'll echo others here saying that unions are good and bad, and add that they vary wildly from simple (though valuable) negotiating tools to vote driving political powerhouses.

 

[haymarket]

I live in Charleston, SC and recently there have been a number of votes by employees of Boeing to decide if they want to unionize. A couple years ago they voted and the vote went No. This last time they changed the structure of the Union, and they voted yes.

My question is why vote? Do we need that anymore at all? If 60% of the employees vote no to a union. Can the other 40% now choose to form a union on their own without the other 60%? I mean since they're the only ones who are going to have to pay their dues now why not? Why should that 40 % of workers have to care what the other 60% think if that 60 % isn't going to contribute to their union anyway?

People say that this is a death blow to unions, but I think it could actually make things much more interesting. In fact, I could see a scenario where a company may end up with multiple labor unions each with different leadership and be forced to bargain with two separate collectives. Hell 5 employees of a company want to form a Union why can't they? Imagine a large with a significant IT department and a piece of software being developed by a small handful of developers with a ton of expertise on the project. They could conceivably decide halfway through the project that they're underpaid and unionize. It doesn't matter what the rest of the company does those 5 employees can just up and decide to unionize and hold the entire company hostage for better wages.

Why should works need to put unionization up to a vote at all if they can't force all the workers to contribute to it? Why can't the handful of workers that want to unionize just choose to unionize and say **** the rest of the company if they don't like it?

You bring up a very good argument. Does anyone really believe in the libertarian fantasy that each worker is free to negotiate their own contract with an employer? And if each person is free to do so, why not like you suggest and smaller groups of workers band together to negotiate for just themselves and not anyone else.

The SOCTUS just dealt a blow to the idea that you need a union vote to represent workers since its now anything goes.

 

[haymarket]

A recent study by Frank Manzo of the Illinois Public Policy Institute and Robert Bruno of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign estimated that public-sector unions could lose more than 700,000 members over time as a result of the ruling and that unions also could suffer a loss of political influence that could depress wages as well.

Alito acknowledged that unions could “experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term.” But he said labor’s problems pale in comparison to “the considerable windfall that unions have received...for the past 41 years.”

Billions of dollars have been taken from workers who were not union members in that time, he said.

https://apnews.com/0f83c64b1dd249de9ec89ab85235790a/Supreme-Court-deals-big-setback-to-labor-unions

And that loss of political power is one of the big reasons Republicans favored something like this for a long time now.

 

[haymarket]

I believe most union contracts include some for of exclusivity arrangement, so a second union for the same type of work at the same company would clash.

I'll echo others here saying that unions are good and bad, and add that they vary wildly from simple (though valuable) negotiating tools to vote driving political powerhouses.

If true, those days are now gone and its the wild west in contracts. The people hurt the most will be the companies as now each worker has to be negotiated with individually or as Mr. Wonka suggests - in smaller groups.

When the Big Three automakers here in Detroit went through the government loan process a few years ago, some on the right wanted to gut the unions as part of the deal when the government loaned them money. The first ones to speak up and demand the unions stay were the companies themselves. They liked having all their employees in one neat basket which made their work so much easier.

 

[WillyPete]

If true, those days are now gone and its the wild west in contracts. The people hurt the most will be the companies as now each worker has to be negotiated with individually or as Mr. Wonka suggests - in smaller groups.

When the Big Three automakers here in Detroit went through the government loan process a few years ago, some on the right wanted to gut the unions as part of the deal when the government loaned them money. The first ones to speak up and demand the unions stay were the companies themselves. They liked having all their employees in one neat basket which made their work so much easier.

Doesn't this change only impact public employee unions? The "company" is the local\state governments. I don't really care much about private sector unions, as I don't (usually) fund them through taxes.

I'm more familiar with the public unions in California and to a lesser extent in Ohio. I think in CA they would likely respond the same with whatever government agency circling the wagons with the unions, as they are steadfast partners in ripping of tax-payers however they can for whatever reason they can make up. No one truly represents the tax payer's interests in those negotiations, so they regularly get shafted.

California public employee unions are hugely powerful politically and self-serving. Their policy of "**** you, pay me" lives up to all the worst stereotypes. I've never seen any sign of willingness to negotiate anything that didn't result in more for them.

In Ohio, my impression is that the negotiates are much more representative of the tax-payer, their demands more reasonable, and their political power is largely muted. That does lead to lower pay/less benefits, but if California is what giving unions too much power leads to, then I'll pass. OH gets a much better return on their spending than CA in terms of quality of public services.

 

[Aristaeus]

Why do those on the right only take about wage negotiations and pay rises when the talk about unions? Unions do so much more: labour law advice, arbitrate disputes between employees and their line managers, representation in disciplinary proceedings, health & safety, etc.

 

[MrWonka]

A recent study by Frank Manzo of the Illinois Public Policy Institute and Robert Bruno of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign estimated that public-sector unions could lose more than 700,000 members over time

This has nothing to do with the question. It is possible that a company with a Union could lose 30% of their membership. However, it is also possible that a company that doesn't have a union because 70% didn't want one may now end up with a union they didn't have if 30% of the workforce can now form one without majority approval.

 

[MrWonka]

America needs unions.. since companies have far far to much power over workers. There is no balance. Of course that does not mean you need to go to the insane powers unions have in France... just saying there is a golden middle way.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

This is largely irrelevant to the topic of discussion, but just because something is in the middle doesn't make it golden, right, or better.

 

[MrWonka]

Because if all employees are not union members, those who are can just be replaced when it comes time to bargain for wages. Replacing 40 percent of your workforce is nothing compared to 100 percent.

If you have hundreds or thousands of employees having to suddenly replace 40% is a big deal. Particularly if those few employees have more advanced skills.

 

[Nap]

I live in Charleston, SC and recently there have been a number of votes by employees of Boeing to decide if they want to unionize. A couple years ago they voted and the vote went No. This last time they changed the structure of the Union, and they voted yes.

My question is why vote? Do we need that anymore at all? If 60% of the employees vote no to a union. Can the other 40% now choose to form a union on their own without the other 60%? I mean since they're the only ones who are going to have to pay their dues now why not? Why should that 40 % of workers have to care what the other 60% think if that 60 % isn't going to contribute to their union anyway?

People say that this is a death blow to unions, but I think it could actually make things much more interesting. In fact, I could see a scenario where a company may end up with multiple labor unions each with different leadership and be forced to bargain with two separate collectives. Hell 5 employees of a company want to form a Union why can't they? Imagine a large with a significant IT department and a piece of software being developed by a small handful of developers with a ton of expertise on the project. They could conceivably decide halfway through the project that they're underpaid and unionize. It doesn't matter what the rest of the company does those 5 employees can just up and decide to unionize and hold the entire company hostage for better wages.

Why should works need to put unionization up to a vote at all if they can't force all the workers to contribute to it? Why can't the handful of workers that want to unionize just choose to unionize and say **** the rest of the company if they don't like it?

This is somewhat how I view it as well. If 30% want to unionize let them, conversely if 70% want to then don't force the 30% that don't. I dislike the exclusive bargaining and would prefer unions stick to members only. Luckily, the majority of the plant I work in voted no on the union but I feel bad for the 30 or so % that wanted a union as I feel they should have been able to form their own.

 

[MrWonka]

the majority of the plant I work in voted no on the union but I feel bad for the 30 or so % that wanted a union as I feel they should have been able to form their own.

And if the 30% union negotiated to have better safety railings installed on a catwalk should they be allowed to make them removable so that they can be taken off before you walk across that catwalk?

 

[haymarket]

Doesn't this change only impact public employee unions? The "company" is the local\state governments. I don't really care much about private sector unions, as I don't (usually) fund them through taxes.

I'm more familiar with the public unions in California and to a lesser extent in Ohio. I think in CA they would likely respond the same with whatever government agency circling the wagons with the unions, as they are steadfast partners in ripping of tax-payers however they can for whatever reason they can make up. No one truly represents the tax payer's interests in those negotiations, so they regularly get shafted.

California public employee unions are hugely powerful politically and self-serving. Their policy of "**** you, pay me" lives up to all the worst stereotypes. I've never seen any sign of willingness to negotiate anything that didn't result in more for them.

In Ohio, my impression is that the negotiates are much more representative of the tax-payer, their demands more reasonable, and their political power is largely muted. That does lead to lower pay/less benefits, but if California is what giving unions too much power leads to, then I'll pass. OH gets a much better return on their spending than CA in terms of quality of public services.

Do you think the Los Angeles board of education wants to negotiate with every individual teacher they have? The comments I made about the Big Three apply to public sector unions also.

 

[Nickyjo]

You bring up a very good argument. Does anyone really believe in the libertarian fantasy that each worker is free to negotiate their own contract with an employer? And if each person is free to do so, why not like you suggest and smaller groups of workers band together to negotiate for just themselves and not anyone else.

The SOCTUS just dealt a blow to the idea that you need a union vote to represent workers since its now anything goes.

Actually the libertarians used to preach, and may still, that right to work laws interfered in the free market, as they have government prohibiting negotiations between two private sector parties, management and labor.

 

[WillyPete]

Do you think the Los Angeles board of education wants to negotiate with every individual teacher they have? The comments I made about the Big Three apply to public sector unions also.

I expect the CA teacher's unions look at this as a minor setback. They certainly aren't going to just melt away to nothing all of a sudden. If either of us cared to check, I'd be shocked if there weren't ex-union honchos on that board, and vice versa. They aren't negotiating in good faith, they're the same. They are negotiating for each other against the tax-payer.

They will use every bit of their political leverage they and the other unions they're allied with can muster to thwart this at the state and local level, and they'll largely succeed, because in no small part they have the state and local governments under their control.

In other states these changes may be negative, but public unions in CA are a runaway train. It'll be decades before this change matters there, if ever.

 

[Nap]

And if the 30% union negotiated to have better safety railings installed on a catwalk should they be allowed to make them removable so that they can be taken off before you walk across that catwalk?

If that is what they want then sure.

 

[PeteEU]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

This is largely irrelevant to the topic of discussion, but just because something is in the middle doesn't make it golden, right, or better.

Actually it more than often does.. certainly going to one extreme side or the other is not the way...

 

[holbritter]

Doesn't this change only impact public employee unions? The "company" is the local\state governments. I don't really care much about private sector unions, as I don't (usually) fund them through taxes.

I'm more familiar with the public unions in California and to a lesser extent in Ohio. I think in CA they would likely respond the same with whatever government agency circling the wagons with the unions, as they are steadfast partners in ripping of tax-payers however they can for whatever reason they can make up. No one truly represents the tax payer's interests in those negotiations, so they regularly get shafted.

California public employee unions are hugely powerful politically and self-serving. Their policy of "**** you, pay me" lives up to all the worst stereotypes. I've never seen any sign of willingness to negotiate anything that didn't result in more for them.

In Ohio, my impression is that the negotiates are much more representative of the tax-payer, their demands more reasonable, and their political power is largely muted. That does lead to lower pay/less benefits, but if California is what giving unions too much power leads to, then I'll pass. OH gets a much better return on their spending than CA in terms of quality of public services.

For the NY public unions, legislation was passed by Cuomo in advance of the decision, that unions do not have to represent those not paying union dues. I'm sure some will stop paying, but I don't think they will lose that many members to hurt them.

 

[Fletch]

Because if all employees are not union members, those who are can just be replaced when it comes time to bargain for wages. Replacing 40 percent of your work force is nothing compared to 100 percent. Heck, if it doesn't slow production down to much, they'll do it with smiles at how they have an excuse to cut payroll for a couple quarters.

That's why this law is a union killer. If you take away the bargaining chip, you have nothing to bargain with and are just replaced. 40 Percent of your workforce strikes, you just fire them. Work the other 60 harder, and call a temp agency.

That's what right to work really means. Right to work for a temp agency, no benefits, paying a portion of your wages to a company that's hired you to work for what somebody used to make double and got health insurance and a 401k for.

It's bull****. It's harmful to the middle class. And only dumbasses that never paid a lick of attention in history or economics are stupid enough to support it. Which Ironically, their dumbasses are the ones that need it the most. Not a lot of options today if you lose your job to temps. And the idiots dumb enough to support this aren't the ones that have jobs that need a lot of technical training. Perfect for temps to come in and do for three months til they are turned over so they don't make full time employee. And are then replaced by another temp.

So much bull****, so many stupid stupid people. They keep voting against own interests and blaming it on immigrants. That's what's going to make everyones life better. So stupid.

90% of the people in this country are non-union. Does that make them all stupid and you smart? Maybe someone of your vast intelligence should just move to France where you wont have to be bothered by all us 'dumbasses.'