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.
And where the auto industry is making a comeback (paying multiple times the minimum wage) today, they are choosing overwhelmingly to set up shop in Southern and Western states with low union influence. There's no secret as to why that is. As a result, we are seeing automakers (both American and foreign automakers) set up shop in Texas, Tennessee, NC, etc. See, for instance: Regional Review: Automakers Driving Growth in Southern States - Area Development
The auto industry doesn't pay crap anymore, often temporary jobs that pay as little as $8-12/hr maybe $15-$20 if you're lucky and hired "permanent" and no to little benefits vs before $28/hr permanent and full benefits. Even UAW autoworkers were put on a two-tier pay system, recent hires payed ~$15/hr and less benefits.
Employers don't like unions just because of risk if having to pay higher wages, but they don't like workers having a contract and certain rights. Employers would rather act capricious and arbitrary and even abusive at times rather than agree to a contract.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,144,523 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
And where the auto industry is making a comeback (paying multiple times the minimum wage) today, they are choosing overwhelmingly to set up shop in Southern and Western states with low union influence. There's no secret as to why that is. As a result, we are seeing automakers (both American and foreign automakers) set up shop in Texas, Tennessee, NC, etc. See, for instance: Regional Review: Automakers Driving Growth in Southern States - Area Development
While this is true.... Places like Toyota Manufacturing of Indiana (Where the Tundra is built) is a non-union shop...but at the same time... during the actual construction of the building and even to this day, they use third-party contractors that ARE union shops. The local IUOE there provided the workers.
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.
They should be paid according to the work they do, not depending on rather they are part of a club. If they produce more or work harder than their union "brothers" they should be paid more. If they produce less, they should be paid less. See how that works? Equal work for equal pay.
If the non-union workers don't want to pay dues, they should not get union wages.
I admit, I don't really know much about this topic. My father was in a union, and when they occasionally went on strike, the union still paid a weekly paycheck, although it was a reduced payment. My mother is still getting my father's pension (father deceased) and she is 93 years old!
If the non-union workers are getting union wages, they should at least contribute something, maybe a lower amount than a union worker, just to fund the union's efforts to improve wages or working conditions, or whatever. They would not get wages if the union strikes. They also would not contribute to the pension fund.
Sounds like the non-union workers want all the benefits of a union without paying the dues.
Unions destroy businesses. Unions bring it upon themselves when it comes no union workers. A employer can not pay and union worker less for the same job. Very Stickily.
Unions cause inflation on every day good just to cover union wages.
I realize this hearing was specifically started by California Teachers, but here is my perspective for California Civil Service:
We generally received cost-of-living raises every year, unless money was short. After an out-going governor signed the bill making it mandatory for all State employees to pay union dues:
We generally received cost-of-living raises every few years. Other years the union would negotiate to waive the raise in exchange for extra perks for the union, while reminding us how much they did for us.
People who don't choose to join the union pay "fair-share" dues of exactly the same amount.So it's not a situation of people who don't belong shouldn't reap benefits or should be paid less. They pay the exact same amount. What they do not receive is union representation if they have a problem (officially they do, but everyone I've known always got the "there's nothing we can do" when a fair-share person complained. That may be different in different agencies.)
The union stated they had the right to donate our dues to any political activity they chose, which always seemed to be Democratic campaigns. Take 200,000 or so State employees times at least $50 a month and that's some serious political muscle.
SEIU has an opt-out for people who don't want their dues to go to political campaigns. You have to write a letter that is word-perfect, that must be received by them between July 1st and the 8th or so of every year. If they receive it and it's exactly perfect, and you are a fair-share dues payer, then they will not take money for political activity.
My $58 a month dropped to $22. That's a lot of money each month going to support the politicians and campaigns of their choice. It is my understanding that people who've actually joined the union do not have this choice. I have a feeling that if SCOTUS rules against SEIU they'll just make the opt-in available to everyone, but they don't advertise it anywhere so most people even now don't know that it exists.
What companies have union and non union doing the same exact job. I don't know any.
I've worked in management at several, all in RTW states. Normally, 40% join the union; 60% don't. We paid them the same, with the same benefits, and they were the same wages and benes we offered in plants w/o any union.
I've worked in management at several, all in RTW states. Normally, 40% join the union; 60% don't. We paid them the same, with the same benefits, and they were the same wages and benes we offered in plants w/o any union.
Are these small companies. I ask because the unions I know represent large corporations like postal workers, food workers, truck drivers and so on. Maybe because you live in a RTW state that both are employed at the same company? I don't really know.
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.
