Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I went to my employer and said, "I think I'm worth more than you're paying me" (which I do), he'd probably say back "Nobody else is complaining". That's the "freedom" to negotiate independently. The worker is the peon, the boss is, well, the boss.
MAYBE, you haven't spoken to everyone who is against unions.
SOME people do not want to join a union, just to work somewhere. FORCING them to do so, is akin to extortion.
My "X" while we were married went to work part time at Caldors, a department store in Groton Ct. She was told that to work there, she HAD to join the union, and pay union dues, no exception. Some weeks, she only worked 10 hours, (2, 5 hour shifts). On those weeks, her Union dues ended up being more than ½ of her take home pay.
On weeks she worked 20 hours, after taxes, her take home pay was reduced by 1/3, so the union dues could be paid.
Legalized extortion....
Elsewhere, I think you said it was 2/3rds. Now you got it whittled down to as little as 1/3. Still that amount is going to be hard for a lot of people to believe.
So your real question is, If I don't want to submit to legalized extortion, I have to find employment elsewhere, right?
That's why we need right to work laws.
WRONG. What if my company decides to expand operations to Sunday and it requires everybody to work on Sunday. But it's strictly against my religion to work on Sunday. Am I going to be unprincipled enough to violate my religious practices and keep working there? NO!
The biggest problem with unions is they illed Michigan and the Rust Belt economies, by and large. The reason: No opportunity for major new plants. All transplant auto facilities are in RTW. Try finding out the last time a plant of major size moved from a RTW state to a closed shop state. The inverse happens regularly.
Union members simply discovered the market does have a price for every type of labor, and when they exceeded it, as Springsteen said "Those jobs ain't a-comin back".
Now w/o new manufacturing facilities or technology centers, such as Caterpillar's Ga plant to come or GE's New Orleans technology center, as the union shops closed, the alternatives were Wal Mart and the like.
Whoa!
Unions did NOT kill Michigan. Many other factors killed Michigan with the major one being it was a one-trick-pony devoted al;most entirely to the automotive industry and those ancillary business's that supported it.
Free trade agreements negotiated to open up foreign markets to those car makers also had the little caveat that those other markets insited upon; that being: "you will contribute to the betterment of OUR lifestyle by building factories and employing our citizens thereby increasing their ability to buy your cars". Ergo; less production for your Michigan workers.
Now let's talk about those "legacy costs" that so many talking heads trot out to spupport their flawed logic "Unions killed our jobs".
Those legacy costs were agreed-to when negotiated by the companies WHILE they were busily negotiating trade agreements with countries like China, India, Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, Mexico, Malaysia, lower slobbovia, dogpatch etc.. They should have funded Pension Plans and Medical Plans within Pension entitlements while they were making profits to make them self sustaining as virtually every other business with a defined benefit plan is required by law to do, but instead they applied for and got permission to delay filing of Actuarial Assessments to defer payments into those funds and also to pull any surpluses out of the funds to use for other things (sound vaguely familiar to Gov't usage of dedicated funds?) until it was too late and the ship had sailed, THEN they screamed "LEGACY COSTS are killing us".
Those business's knew what they were doing was risky and irresponsible but went about business using the model that had worked for 50 years then blamed the unions with everyone from government (who colluded with them) down to the common pin-head buying into that mantra.
All of you claiming you'd succeed regardless because you're all such superlative workers will never know for sure will you, as you've never worked in a union-free world where your business did not have to comply with a modicum of responsibility due to the shop down the road having a union and raising the bar.
You're right you don't need a union or employment laws. Until the boss hires his drinking buddy and lays you off. Or changes your schedule to accomodate a player on the company's softball team. Or gets rid of you to hire a frat brother. Or ignores safety protocols and you lose a hand.
Funny you should mention that....
My brother is trying to get into the Phila Water Dept....the problem? He doesn't have a relative working there.
MOST unions, especially public sector unions, ONLY hire friends or relatives.
That's why blacks had such a difficult time breaking in to the trade unions up until very recently.
Elsewhere, I think you said it was 2/3rds. Now you got it whittled down to as little as 1/3. Still that amount is going to be hard for a lot of people to believe.
This situation exists due to retail industry having the right to set "part time" hours so they simply hire a bunch more people and put them all on part time hours which allow them to avoid paying benefits and keep slave like conditions in place penalizing anyone who speaks out by cutting their hours and assigning more hours to the brown-nosers. Yep; it's the union setting her hours!
It's really very simple when current legislation allows for this egregious practice. You think this will improve without any unions? Really?
You could make the case that the Union should be doing more to lobby against the part-timers provisions but those came about to satisfy workers demands to get flexible hours to raise kiddies and perform household stuff while still able to keep a job.
Here's what I would do in that situation; raise membership ire at the condition and put forth a 'notice-of-motion' at a regularly scheduled union meeting that calls for a revision of the dues schedule to include a revision that: "dues will be set and collected by an agreed-upon formulae according to hours worked within the month with a maximum to be $XXX."
The notice of motion is required because most union constitutions require any changes to their operating rules be with 30 days notice with a majority voting in favour. You require a seconder and the notice-of-motion lives and becomes a regular motion if after a period of discussion the vote is called and it is in favour. This Motion will then be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting (filling the required 30 day reqmnt) and is discussed again and voted upon by all in attendance (providing quorum is met) then the dues strcture is changed.
The union now is faced with a reduction in revenues so you can bet your bippy they will now become proactive in setting hours in a manner that guarantees a living wage for members (greater dues revenue) instead of a HUGE labour pool all making peanuts.
My brother is trying to get into the Phila Water Dept....the problem? He doesn't have a relative working there.
MOST unions, especially public sector unions, ONLY hire friends or relatives.
That's why blacks had such a difficult time breaking in to the trade unions up until very recently.
Actually, that is the policy at my non-union office. That's how I got my job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.