The problem with America

[teufelhunden]

I disagree totally. I am a member of Pittsburgh Plumbers Local Union 27. All of our business agents and business manager are voted in every 2 years. If the members feel something isn't right, we will have someone else representing us. We depend on them to get us hired through contractors that don't have to hire union.. They could very easily go with a non-union worker and pay him around $15 an hour with no benefits. We are trained as apprentices for 5 years for a reason. When a contractor hires union, he knows he is getting the best trained employees out there. Your union rep is the one who is fighting for your job, and is the one putting you in the jobs that is going to make that contractor want to hire union again. That is the reason our pay scale is alot higher than non-union:

http://www.ua27.org/library/document...Commercial.pdf

&




there's a possibility that I may have made that slightly difficult to comprehend, so what it says is hook, line, and sinker.

anybody requiring further explanation may see me after class

[DamianTC]

there's a possibility that I may have made that slightly difficult to comprehend, so what it says is hook, line, and sinker.

anybody requiring further explanation may see me after class

yeah I'm not following you.. try explaining yourself

[teufelhunden]

Hook - that's an easy one
Line - line of people
Sinker - the gentleman shown is Chien Ming-Wang of the New York Yankees, who (when healthy) is an almost strictly ground ball pitcher because his top pitch is a sinker.

[Lohman446]

Without Unions there wouldnt be a middle class in USA. I find it disturbing how so many people in this country eagerly drink the large corporate "greed is good" mentality kool aid being doled out.

If anything we need more labor representation for the middle class, not less. Unfortunately, the only choice we have at the polls is between a party of entitlement enablers or a party of big business fat cats.

Neat. You pulled a great debate trick there. You managed to avoid every issue that pointed out flaws in organized labor while at the same time trying to paint anyone who points out said flaws as supporting what happens in corporate America. You also made it sound like pointing out the flaws made one totally against unionized labor entirely. You were wrong but it sounded convincing.

There is a problem in corporate America today. You must produce a good or a service at a profit in order to survive long term. That means that each employee can only be paid what they are worth. Assembly line workers cannot make $55 an hour (benefits must be included) and still expect to pay the auto mechanic or yard worker $30 an hour. In fact, you should plan on paying said skilled positions more than the factory positions. On the same hand you cannot expect to be paid millions while running a company into the ground.

The way of business cannot be:

A) Sell stock to start business
B) Sell bonds to continue
C) Sell more bonds, marking these as preferred.
D) Declare bankruptcy.
E) Sell assets to a shell company with court approval for a fraction of what they are worth
F) Pay investors pennies on the dollar
G) Start at A again, issuing new stocks.
H) Repeat as needed.

And yet, somehow it has been forced to work for years. We have to change how we look at things. You are not entitled to make $55 an hour for a job that takes minimal training. Nor is your CEO entitled to millions to run a company into the ground. Those ridiculous earnings of millions must be reserved to the successful entrepeneurs - those who actually risk something to make things better.

[Lohman446]

I disagree totally. I am a member of Pittsburgh Plumbers Local Union 27. All of our business agents and business manager are voted in every 2 years. If the members feel something isn't right, we will have someone else representing us. We depend on them to get us hired through contractors that don't have to hire union.. They could very easily go with a non-union worker and pay him around $15 an hour with no benefits. We are trained as apprentices for 5 years for a reason. When a contractor hires union, he knows he is getting the best trained employees out there. Your union rep is the one who is fighting for your job, and is the one putting you in the jobs that is going to make that contractor want to hire union again. That is the reason our pay scale is alot higher than non-union:

http://www.ua27.org/library/document...Commercial.pdf

This is different. Your union rep is selling something to the contractor. That knowledge has a benefit and justifies the higher wages. The contractor has the right to hire non-union if he choses to take that chance. This is not the case in a plant in a non right to work state. The plant owners are not given that right. You also have the right to not be in that union, and to try to work for whatever wages you want outside of it.

My argument is not against the idea of unions, its against the ideas perpetuated in non right to work states.

[DamianTC]

This is different. Your union rep is selling something to the contractor. That knowledge has a benefit and justifies the higher wages. The contractor has the right to hire non-union if he choses to take that chance. This is not the case in a plant in a non right to work state. The plant owners are not given that right. You also have the right to not be in that union, and to try to work for whatever wages you want outside of it.

My argument is not against the idea of unions, its against the ideas perpetuated in non right to work states.

well the thing it, all unions operate under that same idea one way or another. If you are a member of a union, that union has no direct connection to the name thats on your paycheck. The whole idea of unions is that every worker has EQUAL rights as the man working next to him. This will include benefits, wages, work hours.. Everyone goes to the same job.... does the same job.... and is paid the same job wage. To some this plan will not be perfect. Some workers naturally will be a better worker than the average. Some maybe a little slower. But all workers are going to get the same pay. Nothing is stopping a conntractor or company from laying off any employee.

Do a wikipedia search for: Homestead Strike. This perfectly explains the reason why unions are what they are in America today. I live less than 5 miles from where this event happened in 1892 and can give more info about this event if interested

[Lohman446]

well the thing it, all unions operate under that same idea one way or another. If you are a member of a union, that union has no direct connection to the name thats on your paycheck. The whole idea of unions is that every worker has EQUAL rights as the man working next to him. This will include benefits, wages, work hours.. Everyone goes to the same job.... does the same job.... and is paid the same job wage. To some this plan will not be perfect. Some workers naturally will be a better worker than the average. Some maybe a little slower. But all workers are going to get the same pay. Nothing is stopping a conntractor or company from laying off any employee.

Do a wikipedia search for: Homestead Strike. This perfectly explains the reason why unions are what they are in America today. I live less than 5 miles from where this event happened in 1892 and can give more info about this event if interested

Everyone doing the same job and being paid the same makes everyone mediocre. Those who excel are given no reward (and no reason to excel), those who fail are given no reason not to.

The problem is when an employer has no choice but to hire unionized workers. In many states (those not considered right to work states) new hires are required to become part of the union on being hired.

Your example allows those who do not want to be part of the union not to be. The union exists because it can offer a promise to contractors that its members have certain training and are in good standing. Something that cannot be so easily confirmed outside of the union. This gives both the contractor and the union members an advantage. We are also talking a skilled trade.

Its not that I misunderstand the idea of a union. Its that I question the value of anything that the laws require members to join, and require employers to use. If the benefits were so clear to both sides (as they are in your plumber union example) people would join and use union labor without the laws forcing them to.

[drg]

Its not that I misunderstand the idea of a union. Its that I question the value of anything that the laws require members to join, and require employers to use. If the benefits were so clear to both sides (as they are in your plumber union example) people would join and use union labor without the laws forcing them to.

Problem with that oversimplified logic is that what benefits workers and what benefits employers is often at odds. So the laws counterbalance the natural economic power the employers hold.

[Lohman446]

Problem with that oversimplified logic is that what benefits workers and what benefits employers is often at odds. So the laws counterbalance the natural economic power the employers hold.

With the ability to not starve to death, and maintain shelter, are the workers not given a great benefit over those of past generations?

I understand the point. At one time it was simple as an employer to wait out a strike. No work, no eat. Of course at one time not using union labor could result in a lot of "accidents" around job sites and to the employer too. But I would hope we are past that on both sides. We are not discussing not paying a minimum livable wage here. We are discussing the fact that if some of these unionized shops offered a pay + benefit package in the $27.50 range they would have people lined up - maybe they would have to go to $35 - the point remains.

If the argument is that the state has not set appropriate livable wage laws and they need to pass different laws to protect unions we are over complicating things. Why only protect unions if minimum livable wage laws are not adequate to provide for the actual needs (needs, not wants) of the employee. The laws to counterbalance that natural economic power should not require unions.

Unions should be like anything else. Offering a valuable asset to the members and those who utilize them. If they truly did this they would not need the laws in place to force members to join and shops to use them.

[drg]

Unions should be like anything else. Offering a valuable asset to the members and those who utilize them. If they truly did this they would not need the laws in place to force members to join and shops to use them.

They do provide a valuable asset to the members, very valuable. That asset is in direct opposition to the natural economic dominance of the employer, so obviously the employer will try within any means at its disposal to maintain that dominance. In a capitalist society, it will be able to do that, a situation we have decided as a society is not good (unfortunately we are forgetting this and it led directly to the current problems we are having).

Labor laws give workers a fair chance at avoiding economic oppression that is the natural end of an unregulated capitalist system.

[Lohman446]

They do provide a valuable asset to the members, very valuable. That asset is in direct opposition to the natural economic dominance of the employer, so obviously the employer will try within any means at its disposal to maintain that dominance. In a capitalist society, it will be able to do that, a situation we have decided as a society is not good (unfortunately we are forgetting this and it led directly to the current problems we are having).

Labor laws give workers a fair chance at avoiding economic oppression that is the natural end of an unregulated capitalist system.

Ok, so we have laws in place that allow unions to form and protect that formation. Why do we have laws that require individuals to join? This is because the union cannot demonstrate on its own to those individuals that it is worth joining is it not?

After consideration of your concept I would also pose the question. Considering most employers who use unions that are influenced by right to work are corporations (with investors seeking return on investment) is the great economic dominance you allude to really as great as it would seem? The idea goes back to the day of factory owners being able to wait out a strike while living off savings that the working class did not have. Basically the workers would come back when they were hungry. While I will not argue the disparity between the rich and not rich I would question if the not rich are in such desperate straits and if the current employer make-up allows the great economic dominance that we saw in the early industrial age.

[drg]

Ok, so we have laws in place that allow unions to form and protect that formation. Why do we have laws that require individuals to join? This is because the union cannot demonstrate on its own to those individuals that it is worth joining is it not?

Y'know, I just realized ... you have it backwards, the laws on the books don't require individuals to join. Union shop status is negotiated between the company and the union, it is not a legal requirement. So-called "right-to-work" laws are what are on the books, which BAN workers from freely negotiating to have a union shop. These laws are intended to weaken unions, and it is no coincidence that we run into economic calamity shortly after the rise of such measures.

To address your concerns, right-to-work laws would be done away with, and the workers allowed to negotiate a union shop if they want.

[Lohman446]

Y'know, I just realized ... you have it backwards, the laws on the books don't require individuals to join. Union shop status is negotiated between the company and the union, it is not a legal requirement. So-called "right-to-work" laws are what are on the books, which BAN workers from freely negotiating to have a union shop. These laws are intended to weaken unions, and it is no coincidence that we run into economic calamity shortly after the rise of such measures.

To address your concerns, right-to-work laws would be done away with, and the workers allowed to negotiate a union shop if they want.

Actually around here if you are hired into a shop that is a union shop the laws require you to join the union - as the shop is not allowed to employ any person who is not a member of the union. Right to work state workers are still given the option to form unions and the protections during that formation (or attempted formation) afforded in other states. Its just each individual has the option to join or not join the union. Here if a shop voted to become a union shop even those individual workers who voted against it would be required to join and pay dues.

If I am an employer in a non right to work state I can hire anyone I want - they must then join the union (if unionized). In a right to work state I can hire anyone I want, they have the option of joining the union or not. Those who chose not to are not afforded union protection, but may (in theory) negotiate everything directly with the employer as far as pay / benefits / and protection. They have no union to back them up though where as the person next to them on the line, who has joined the union, does.

[drg]

Actually around here if you are hired into a shop that is a union shop the laws require you to join the union - as the shop is not allowed to employ any person who is not a member of the union. Right to work state workers are still given the option to form unions and the protections during that formation (or attempted formation) afforded in other states. Its just each individual has the option to join or not join the union. Here if a shop voted to become a union shop even those individual workers who voted against it would be required to join and pay dues.

If I am an employer in a non right to work state I can hire anyone I want - they must then join the union (if unionized). In a right to work state I can hire anyone I want, they have the option of joining the union or not. Those who chose not to are not afforded union protection, but may (in theory) negotiate everything directly with the employer as far as pay / benefits / and protection. They have no union to back them up though where as the person next to them on the line, who has joined the union, does.

Can you cite the law? The NLRA bans forced unionism, so I'd be very surprised if your state had a law that actually requires a person to join a union since such laws don't exist.

Also note that people who do not join the union but work in a union shop get union wages, benefits and protections, as they are covered under collectively bargained contracts. This is actually required by law.

No, "right to work" laws are not sensible business laws, they are very plainly union busting laws intended to weaken workers.

[Lohman446]

If any law, it's basic contract law most likely, which is going to be difficult to dispute since it underpins our entire way of doing business in this country. Can you cite the law?

Also note that people who do not join the union but work in a union shop get union wages, benefits and protections, as they are covered under collectively bargained contracts. This is actually required by law.

No, "right to work" laws are not sensible business laws, they are very plainly union busting laws intended to weaken workers.

Right to Work laws guarantee that no person can be compelled, as a condition of employment, to join or not to join, nor to pay dues to a labor union

http://www.mckinley.com/about-mckinley/news/role-of-unions-in-michigan-during-recession-disputed/[/url]] Michigan has a union shop provision allowing employers and unions to negotiate rules that mandate employees join a union or pay union dues and fees

This also discussed what right to work verses union shop provisions means.

Frankly I think our disagreement stems from a misunderstanding of what right to work means to each of us. Right to work to me indicates that a shop (or union) may not impose rules requiring a worker to be part of the union if it is a unionized shop. This is, as I read through, the generally accepted definition - though googling this brings up very skewed opinions to either side.

In the United States of America, a union shop is a place of employment, government agency or company whereby the employer may hire either labor union members or nonmembers but where nonmembers must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs. Under the National Labor Relations Act, the union may only require that employees either join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues.

I guess you do not HAVE to join the union, but you would still have to pay the equivilant dues. These do not apply to right to work states because they do not have closed or union shops. You have the "right to work" without paying someone for that privledge. I don't see the issue - I mean it does not ban unions, it just makes them have to "sell" themselves and the benefits they offer to members and employers.