The problem with America

[drg]

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.

And since that is already the case without "right to work," I see "right to work" as the political shell game it really is.

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 would have to pay dues equivalent to the cost of the union negotiating and maintaining your contract, which is fair. "Right to work" disallows requiring this, allowing freeloading, which weakens unions.

"Right to work" is antiunionism and anti-worker. Very, very clear and simple. There are no laws requiring you to join unions.

[Lohman446]

And since that is already the case without "right to work," I see "right to work" as the political shell game it really is.



You would have to pay dues equivalent to the cost of the union negotiating and maintaining your contract, which is fair. "Right to work" disallows requiring this, allowing freeloading, which weakens unions.

"Right to work" is antiunionism and anti-worker. Very, very clear and simple. There are no laws requiring you to join unions.

However, there are laws making it a "non-choice". I can not join the union but I still have to pay the equivilant of dues - and thats only if I protest. Basically in a closed shop I am told to have the job I must join the union. The unions are too strong - call it what you will but allowing closed shops hurts everyone - look at where businesses start. Its not in states that allow closed shops. The fact is states that insist on protecting the unions are seeing jobs flee to right to work states for reason.

Of course I would also argue that receiving pay benefits in excess of six figures a year for an assembly line job is proof that the unions were allowed to get out of hand. Even if you go by just pay numbers (no benefits) the 2007 average was $28 an hour. I am willing to bet GM / Ford etc could fill there jobs right now with $20 an hour pay and lesser benefit packages then given now (because you have to admit the benefit packages are awesome). Considering near 20% unemployment in MI why should they not be allowed to offer the jobs to those willing to do them substantially cheaper?

If someone can do your job just as well substantially cheaper are you not over paid? Does limiting competition in labor not equate to price fixing in business?

[drg]

However, there are laws making it a "non-choice". I can not join the union but I still have to pay the equivilant of dues - and thats only if I protest. Basically in a closed shop I am told to have the job I must join the union.

Cite the laws. Closed shops are illegal and have been since the 1930s.

The unions are too strong - call it what you will but allowing closed shops hurts everyone - look at where businesses start. Its not in states that allow closed shops. The fact is states that insist on protecting the unions are seeing jobs flee to right to work states for reason.

The solution is to get rid of "right to work'. Race-to-the-bottom is a poor social and economic policy.

Of course I would also argue that receiving pay benefits in excess of six figures a year for an assembly line job is proof that the unions were allowed to get out of hand.

Doesn't happen.

If someone can do your job just as well substantially cheaper are you not over paid? Does limiting competition in labor not equate to price fixing in business?

No. Fair labor practices help society as a whole. Price fixing hurts it. it doesn't work both ways because on one hand you are taking care of people while in the other instance you are soaking people for profits.

[Lohman446]

Pay + benefits (your source) come out in the $55 an hour range. $55 X 40 = $2200 X 52 = $114,400 = six figures

And I did cite the sources. Closed and union shops do in fact exist in many states. While, union shops do, closed shops were done away with and there was a very slight difference. The point is in many places in America a condition of my employment is that I join a union. I may protest and pay dues anyways without joining (hence the difference between a union shop and a closed shop) The fact of the matter is I read your sources (they gave me the $55 an hour number to combat the $73 that they cried foul about).

[drg]

Pay + benefits (your source) come out in the $55 an hour range. $55 X 40 = $2200 X 52 = $114,400 = six figures.

You said pay benefits, which is wages. When you use a term like "six figures" it ALWAYS refers only to the wage portion of a worker's compensation, it NEVER EVER is used to refer to the entire benefits package. It is only used this way if someone is trying to make a deliberately misleading point, which you are. These people are making $35-65k a year and suddenly you have no point at all when you aren't using misleading figures.

And I did cite the sources.

No you didn't. I'm going ask for the third time -- cite the law.

Closed and union shops do in fact exist in many states.

Again, there is no such thing as a closed shop. You cannot be required to join a union.

[Lohman446]

Again, there is no such thing as a closed shop. You cannot be required to join a union.

Cited, for the second time - this time I bolded it to help you out (see post 61). The same post that explained what right to work laws did. It got kind of ignored I feel because it made two points. A) I am right about what right to work laws do and B) I am right about there being union shops in non right to work states

http://www.mckinley.com/about-mckinley/news/role-of-unions-in-michigan-during-recessiob-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

Why should employers not be able to chose from the most economical qualified labor available?

[drg]

Cited, for the second time - this time I bolded it to help you out (see post 61). The same post that explained what right to work laws did. It got kind of ignored I feel because it made two points. A) I am right about what right to work laws do and B) I am right about there being union shops in non right to work states

Again, for the fourth time, CITE THE LAW. Not some BS opinion piece from an unequivocably biased source ("an economist for a conservative think") that STILL doesn't say you are required to join unions. In fact it says just the opposite, that you are NOT required to join unions. No matter how hard it is spun, it simply can't say you are required to join unions because that's just not true.

Why should employers not be able to chose from the most economical qualified labor available?

There is nothing stopping them. The employer agrees to a union shop. Remember what negotiations are and what a contract is. BOTH sides agree to it. So they have chosen that route, it is not forced on them, least of all by law. What's the problem? Why do you oppose the freedom to negotiate labor contracts? Why do you need a law to ban one of the choices that could be freely made by both workers and employers?

[Lohman446]

The unions need to pick the laws they want. Either they are protected while forming (as they need to be) or they are protected by union shop provisions

http://books.google.com/books?id=mvyL2ssxj4gC&pg=PA409&lpg=PA409&dq=union+shop+mi+law&source=bl&ots=L0gVk7tQzn&sig=ElypqnG9RA7QPgm5-zFCI-6JjiA&hl=en&ei=hkFsSqKPCYWBtwf87YCbAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

Start on page 409 with Abood Vs Detroit Board of Education on that one

https://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1008

A second, well cited explanation.


As to "well they have the right to not bargain in that clause". Its funny when pro-union starts to talk about right, while defending the argument that social reform (and thus laws) are needed. The point is right to work does guarantee fundamental rights to individuals, not just unions. Being all about self sufficient individuals its hard for me to understand that argument against the idea.

[drg]

Cite the law that forces you to join a union.

As to "well they have the right to not bargain in that clause". Its funny when pro-union starts to talk about right, while defending the argument that social reform (and thus laws) are needed. The point is right to work does guarantee fundamental rights to individuals, not just unions. Being all about self sufficient individuals its hard for me to understand that argument against the idea.

"Right to work" does not guarantee any more rights to anyone, it only weakens unions. That's all it is for and that's all it does. You are not required to join a union to work in any instance, so it does not secure that right.

Here's some help for you, some information from a PRO-"Right to work" legal foundation:

http://www.nrtw.org/RDA.htm

The language of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") seems to permit unions to negotiate contracts requiring "membership" in the union as a condition of employment.(14) However, in NLRB v. General Motors Corp.,(15) the United States Supreme Court examined the nature of this purported "membership" requirement, and held that:

[T]he burdens of membership upon which employment may be conditioned are expressly limited to the payment of initiation fees and monthly dues. It is permissible to condition employment upon membership, but membership, insofar as it has significance to employment rights, may in turn be conditioned only upon payment of fees and dues. 'Membership' as a condition of employment is whittled down to its financial core."(16)

Thus, an employee cannot be required to sign a membership card or to take an oath of membership. Indeed, the so-called "union shop" -- requiring formal membership in the union -- ceased to exist as a matter of law after General Motors. Since General Motors, the Supreme Court has further "whittled down" employees' obligations, so that they need not even pay full union dues. Today, the most that can be required of any employee is the payment of that portion of dues that covers the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment (the "financial core fee"), not the costs of the union's political, ideological and non-representational activities.(17) It is now well-established law that an employee may satisfy any union security requirement (even those misleadingly phrased as a "membership" requirement) simply by paying a reduced portion of the dues (the "financial core fee"), and cannot be discharged for refusing to join the union.(18) Most importantly, the union has no power to discipline an individual employee who chooses the nonmember "financial core" or "agency fee" status.(19) Since a union can discipline only those employees who are voluntary members, a "financial core payor" or "agency fee payor" permanently shields himself from fines and other forms of union discipline that can be imposed on members who violate union rules.

[maniacmechanic]

Think about this one ;
My name is Joe , I just took a job in a AFL-CIO union shop , thier are about 100 employees in this shop , everybody seemed real cool , nice guys . After 2 weeks of working there a fellow starts talking about the Union with me , ask if I was going to join , how I felt about unions in general , well I told him I wasn't really wanting to join , didn't really see the benifit in it , you know we have a right to work .
So the next 2 weeks NO ONE in the plant spoke to me , no hi , by , seeya later , nothin , the friday of the 2nd week the "union" fellow aproched me again ask how I was doing , I explained & he said " well thats how they treat scabs around here " & again I explained to him how I felt about unions , nothing had changed in the way I felt
The next 2 weeks were a living he// , I started getting flat tires , someone got in my locker and put shat in it , the rubber mat that I stand on at my work station came up missing & I couldn't get another one , ect ect ,,,, well you get the point & if you think this don't happen in modern "UNION" open shops , go get a nice high payin union job , don't join the union & see how it really works

[Lohman446]

I love the argument - its no big deal ,its just paying dues but the requirement should be protected at all costs and right to work is a bad idea. So is it a big deal or not?

[bryceeden]

There is a time and place for unions when an actual issue exists(EMS needs them now), but many of them(specifically the teachers union comes to mind) do more harm then good at this point and should be abolished until such a time as they are needed again. They demand some crazy stupid stuff and seem to think everyone should be paid way more then what is fair. An example for the job I do I am paid $8.20/hr with piss poor health insurance and benefits. Given the amount of training, years with the company, and nature of the job I feel that I should make closer to $15-$20/hr and have decent insurance(this is pretty inline with what Police make in this area) The owners of my company pocket a ton and we are treated poorly and neglected to put it mildly, so at this point for us a union would serve a purpose. Now if the time comes that said union was demanding $30-$40 per hour they have outlived thier usefulness and become a problem.

[maniacmechanic]

There is a time and place for unions when an actual issue exists(EMS needs them now), but many of them(specifically the teachers union comes to mind) do more harm then good at this point and should be abolished until such a time as they are needed again. They demand some crazy stupid stuff and seem to think everyone should be paid way more then what is fair. An example for the job I do I am paid $8.20/hr with piss poor health insurance and benefits. Given the amount of training, years with the company, and nature of the job I feel that I should make closer to $15-$20/hr and have decent insurance(this is pretty inline with what Police make in this area) The owners of my company pocket a ton and we are treated poorly and neglected to put it mildly, so at this point for us a union would serve a purpose. Now if the time comes that said union was demanding $30-$40 per hour they have outlived thier usefulness and become a problem.

I know they just raised thr Fed minimum wage , to I think 7.35$

[ShooterJM]

After working in both non-union and union shops..... I'd move my manufacturing out of the country before negotiating with a union.

[Lohman446]

After working in both non-union and union shops..... I'd move my manufacturing out of the country before negotiating with a union.

Exactly - and why do you think non right to work states cannot entice new industry?