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.
Why should they have to chose? IF you want to join a little club, fine. If not, also fine.
That's fine. But if they don't join the union, they should be paid a lower wage, since they are not contributing to the efforts of the union.
I realize that some people will just knee-jerk disagree with me because I'm liberal, but I don't think it should be politicized. Many people belong to unions, conservatives and liberals.
I respect many of the views posted here. My thing is that, apart from the constitutional considerations at play here, if the union is so great, it should have to do more to convince the larger workforce of its worth. As for other considerations, I hope that this weakens unions and that we are better to negotiate better contracts. In my experience, union members (specifically public sector unions) are overpaid (paid by the taxpayer and getting more generous benefits than the taxpayers who pay their salaries, something I find extremely problematic), and are governed by grossly unfair rules. Work that the private sector often does for far less money and much more quickly and efficiently often takes union workers (who are also getting paid more) much longer to do. Yes, unions have done a lot of good in this country, but, apart from a few industries, we're at a point where the most fundamental union protection/positive work (in my view), namely protection of workers' physical safety, is already enshrined into law, thanks in large part to unions but nonetheless enshrined in law. Today, unions are political fundraising machines for the Democratic Party that often harm the budgets of the states and municipalities that have contracts with them. Moreover, in the case of public teacher's unions, they often fight commonsense reforms that would serve to benefit students and families, but that threaten the union's position in the grand scheme of things.
That's fine. But if they don't join the union, they should be paid a lower wage, since they are not contributing to the efforts of the union.
I realize that some people will just knee-jerk disagree with me because I'm liberal, but I don't think it should be politicized. Many people belong to unions, conservatives and liberals.
While I agree with you in theory, the unions politicize things by overwhelmingly supporting left-wing/Democratic causes and candidates.
While I agree with you in theory, the unions politicize things by overwhelmingly supporting left-wing/Democratic causes and candidates.
I agree and this is an issue I have with unions. But the counter argument is Republicans will not provide support to unions generally. Generally Republican oppose unions. Also management and corporations who oppose unions certainly lobby overwhelmingly through the Republican party and also through Democrats too.
That's fine. But if they don't join the union, they should be paid a lower wage, since they are not contributing to the efforts of the union.
I realize that some people will just knee-jerk disagree with me because I'm liberal, but I don't think it should be politicized. Many people belong to unions, conservatives and liberals.
That probably would've done Detroit/Michigan a lot of good re the auto industry. Excessive union contracts are a huge part of the reason why the auto industry was less competitive with foreign companies and why Detroit and other cities in the region now sit in financial ruin.
Here's what I said, in plain language, just for you:
The union works to procure better working conditions and wages for its members.
Members pay dues to the union to fund these activities.
Let's say union members are paid $40/hr, while contributing dues to the union and to their pensions.
Why should someone who is not paying dues be paid $40/hr?
Would you like it if you were a union member and your co-worker wasn't, but was being paid the same?
In other words, your co-worker is reaping the benefits of a union without paying for those benefits.
I thought conservatives were all about paying their way and not sucking off of others?
"Work to procure better working conditions" translated: strikes and violence.
"These activities" translated: strikes and violence.
Do you honestly think that those dues are what increases pay and benefits? Hardly. they go to line the pockets of the corrupt union heads, who incite violence and hold the company hostage with threats of a strike.
I would never join a union, because I wouldn't like it if my co-worker was a slacker, but I wasn't, but we were being paid the same.
My problem is that, those employees not in the union get the pay and benefits of those union workers. This is the rub, if one is working alongside dues paying union members doing the same job within the same company, there is no way to deny the bargaining benefits of being in the union from those non union workers.
In other words they are getting the benefit of a having a unionized workplace without paying to support the union.
And those dues support union causes that the employee may not agree with. How is that fair?
That probably would've done Detroit/Michigan a lot of good re the auto industry. Excessive union contracts are a huge part of the reason why the auto industry was less competitive with foreign companies and why Detroit and other cities in the region now sit in financial ruin.
First they moved the auto industry to Southern states to avoid unions and for lower pay and benefits.
Next, they moved auto industry to Mexico and China for even lower pay and benefits. But they still sell the autos in the US at the same high prices lol.
I agree and this is an issue I have with unions. But the counter argument is Republicans will not provide support to unions generally. Generally Republican oppose unions. Also management and corporations who oppose unions certainly lobby overwhelmingly through the Republican party and also through Democrats too.
Very true. But, on the flip side, public opinion polls consistently show that a solid majority of the public support right to work laws, so I'd say that the GOP has a message that is more in line with the public (just not with unions and the Democrat Party) on this issue. Of course, this isn't the primary issue in elections, or else we'd see drastically different outcomes. But, where it is a stand alone issue (see the 2012 Michigan vote where the public voted by double digits to reject a proposal aimed at eliminating the state's right to work law by enshrining certain positions in the Michigan Constitution . . . Proposal 2: Unions lose big-money, high-profile effort to restore clout in Michigan | MLive.com), the GOP position wins, even during presidential election years and even in states that lean left.
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.
