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.
"Yes, but all those teamsters probably beat the crap out of guys down by the docks while Jimmy Hoffa meets with the mobsters in a smoke filled back room. Also, socialism." - The Fox News crowd
Yeah, sure, the imaginary quote....the ever-favorite and always lame debate tactic of the CD liberal.
I know that IN is a right to work state in our midst at the local level where I live (I live in Ohio.) But I don't believe that Ohio or Michigan or Illinois will every become Right to Work because even the politically conservative persons here in Ohio in particular are usually more supportive of unions versus those in southern states.
Michigan and Wisconsin are right to work states right now.
It is so horrific that my union bosses can't force me to pay union dues to work at a public school. I actually have the freedom to join and pay dues or not.
Why are unions so afraid of persuading workers to pay union dues as opposed to coercion? Why are unions so afraid to allow private ballots for recertification votes and other big votes? Why does the union mismanage the pension so bad with high management fees? Why does the union get to own the health insurance provider and overcharge the tax payers above fair market value? Why does the union officially say they are non-partisan, but 98% of the campaign money goes to Democrats?
Michigan and Wisconsin are right to work states right now.
It is so horrific that my union bosses can't force me to pay union dues to work at a public school. I actually have the freedom to join and pay dues or not.
Why are unions so afraid of persuading workers to pay union dues as opposed to coercion? Why are unions so afraid to allow private ballots for recertification votes and other big votes? Why does the union mismanage the pension so bad with high management fees? Why does the union get to own the health insurance provider and overcharge the tax payers above fair market value? Why does the union officially say they are non-partisan, but 98% of the campaign money goes to Democrats?
Thanks for the info as I did not know that. I am surprised but not really all that invested in the union/non-union debates in MI.
I'm not a union member and never have been. Your questions should be given to the union representatives and maybe they can respond.
But I will state in the places that I have worked in regards to health insurance (I work in government contracting/procurement and insurance/healthcare plans are procured by many government agencies with a bid for services) has never been owned by the union. Maybe school systems are different but I doubt it. Usually insurance is an HR function and they either do a formal or informal bid process for benefits if they are any good at their jobs. They do this every year, which is why you have to re-enroll every year for insurance benefits.
Now unions do request certain benefits at places I have worked, some they got, some they didn't but it never hurts to ask for specific benefits. The last place I worked, even though I felt we had an excellent insurance plan, didn't like the benefits because we switched from an HMO to a PPO plan (). They liked the HMO/POS (which I labeled "piece of you know what") plan better because the co-pays were lower. But with the PPO the monthly premiums were more than $100 less per month than the HMO/POS so really they were coming out on top by saving $1200 a year and paying only $10 more per co-pay. Bargaining for us was truly bargaining and coming to agreements for certain things. The union didn't run anything and I highly doubt that any government agency or private market union runs anything in the organization as the union doesn't have control of an agency's finances.
I am ambivalent about 'right to work.' When you hire in to a company where the workers have decided to be represented by a union and to collectively bargain, why should you be able to countermand that?
Suppose you hire in as a Walmart manager and you don't like the fact that everything is made in China. As a Walmart manager, you don't have the option to say "I'm not selling anything that is made in China." That is the company model. If you don't like it, you can seek employment elsewhere.
I think there are labor law reforms that would be much more useful than 'right to work.' In particular, I think that unions should have to be recertified via election (say) every 10 years or so. As it stands, once the workers vote for a union, that vote stands for time immemorial. I don't even know when the vote occurred to bring in the union that represents me. It was probably over 50 years ago. It seems reasonable to require a periodic revote.
There is no such thing as termination without cause.
There is always a cause and if workers can be hired they can be fired.
There is a such thing as termination without cause.
At every agency I worked for both private and public I am an "at will" employee in management and can be fired at any time for no reason at all. I am well aware of that and am fine with it as in most cases employers do indeed provide a reason for termination but in all my contracts there is language pertaining to the fact that I can be "terminated without cause at any time for any reason the organization sees fit."
As stated, I am usually in management and not a regular lay employee. When you work on contract or in specific salary positions, you can be terminated "for convenience" which means there was no reason related to your work or performance of your duties or attendance record.
Thanks for the info as I did not know that. I am surprised but not really all that invested in the union/non-union debates in MI.
I'm not a union member and never have been. Your questions should be given to the union representatives and maybe they can respond.
But I will state in the places that I have worked in regards to health insurance (I work in government contracting/procurement and insurance/healthcare plans are procured by many government agencies with a bid for services) has never been owned by the union. Maybe school systems are different but I doubt it. Usually insurance is an HR function and they either do a formal or informal bid process for benefits if they are any good at their jobs. They do this every year, which is why you have to re-enroll every year for insurance benefits.
Now unions do request certain benefits at places I have worked, some they got, some they didn't but it never hurts to ask for specific benefits. The last place I worked, even though I felt we had an excellent insurance plan, didn't like the benefits because we switched from an HMO to a PPO plan (). They liked the HMO/POS (which I labeled "piece of you know what") plan better because the co-pays were lower. But with the PPO the monthly premiums were more than $100 less per month than the HMO/POS so really they were coming out on top by saving $1200 a year and paying only $10 more per co-pay. Bargaining for us was truly bargaining and coming to agreements for certain things. The union didn't run anything and I highly doubt that any government agency or private market union runs anything in the organization as the union doesn't have control of an agency's finances.
So you are new to public unions.
What often happens: the teachers' union during contract negotiations gets it put in contractually that the school district can only negotiate with the health insurance provider owned by the state teacher's union (MESSA, Michigan; WEA Trust, Wisconsin, etc).
This guarantees a monopoly for the health insurance provider owned by the union.
What happens when there is a monopoly? They only sell top of the line products at prices 30 to 40% above fair market costs. (Democrats are fine with this as they get campaign kick backs). So schools have less money to spend on textbooks, hiring more teachers, buying new computers, fixing leaky roofs, etc....as hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted a year on overpaying for health insurance.
Union tyranny.
Guess who gets a majority of seats on the pension management board?
I am ambivalent about 'right to work.' When you hire in to a company where the workers have decided to be represented by a union and to collectively bargain, why should you be able to countermand that?
Because you're not employed by the union, you're employed by your employer. What happens between you and the employer is your decision, if you want to use an intermediary and your employer is sympathetic to your request then you can use an intermediary. However if you do not want to use an intermediary why should you be forced to?
Here's a question, if a union collectively bargains for benefits, can the union be collectively punished for failure to perform? Could your employer fire the union for the lack of performance of an individual union member? If not why not?
Now if the "union" was in effect a subcontract employment agency, where the company pays the union to provide the necessary skills and labor, and then the union pays their employees (who are employed by the union) then that's an entirely different scenario. However I somehow think that pro-union people would not like that scenario. Sadly in my opinion Unions in the US meet the criteria of wanting to have their cake and eat it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Suppose you hire in as a Walmart manager and you don't like the fact that everything is made in China. As a Walmart manager, you don't have the option to say "I'm not selling anything that is made in China." That is the company model. If you don't like it, you can seek employment elsewhere.
False analogy Walmart would be your employer in that case, you are contractually bound to perform the roles and responsibilities of your employment, you could recommend to Walmart that they change their sourcing with valid reasons, projections, and improvements gained, then it's up to Walmart to accept or reject those recommendations. In a union shop the union doesn't pay your wages, your employer does. Employment contracts should be between two entities, the employer and employee/employment agency, nothing in that contract should require or enforce the entry of a third party to the contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
I think there are labor law reforms that would be much more useful than 'right to work.' In particular, I think that unions should have to be recertified via election (say) every 10 years or so. As it stands, once the workers vote for a union, that vote stands for time immemorial. I don't even know when the vote occurred to bring in the union that represents me. It was probably over 50 years ago. It seems reasonable to require a periodic revote.
What difference does it make between you and your employer whether you are or are not a member of a union? Why should there be a "law" that requires people who voluntarily associate to have any kind of procedure that is not determined solely by it's membership? What you're suggesting enshrines in law union interactions with their members and employers, personally I think that unions are not nor ever should be legally inserted between employers and employees, requiring that people associate with unions for the purpose of being employed is a violation of peoples 1st and 9th Amendment rights, people have the right to free association, thus the right to not associate, and people have the right to seek employment or the right to employ.
What often happens: the teachers' union during contract negotiations gets it put in contractually that the school district can only negotiate with the health insurance provider owned by the state teacher's union (MESSA, Michigan; WEA Trust, Wisconsin, etc).
This guarantees a monopoly for the health insurance provider owned by the union.
What happens when there is a monopoly? They only sell top of the line products at prices 30 to 40% above fair market costs. (Democrats are fine with this as they get campaign kick backs). So schools have less money to spend on textbooks, hiring more teachers, buying new computers, fixing leaky roofs, etc....as hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted a year on overpaying for health insurance.
Union tyranny.
Guess who gets a majority of seats on the pension management board?
Maybe not "everywhere," but union abuses and inefficiencies are pretty common.
I hear a lot of people comment on how unions help Germany. I never hear those same people point out the vast differences between the unions there and here.
Unions have done amazing things for this country, but they need to evolve a bit with the times or find themselves extinct.
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.
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.
). They liked the HMO/POS (which I labeled "piece of you know what") plan better because the co-pays were lower. But with the PPO the monthly premiums were more than $100 less per month than the HMO/POS so really they were coming out on top by saving $1200 a year and paying only $10 more per co-pay. Bargaining for us was truly bargaining and coming to agreements for certain things. The union didn't run anything and I highly doubt that any government agency or private market union runs anything in the organization as the union doesn't have control of an agency's finances.
