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.
But my experience with working in a union job was, as long as I paid my dues I had employment. I forgot to pay my dues one month and I received a termination letter from the union. Basicaly my experience was, as long as I paid the union their dues I was employed. I was paying just to keep my job, no other benefit. I really felt like I was paying for "protection" like the legal mafia...go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
Well, this seems like one of the less argumentative boards. Perhaps I can bring up a controversial topic. Are you pro union? If so, why? If not, why? This seems to be a hot topic in my work place right now so I'm just interested.
I agree blue collar can make sense as long as the union works for the employeee and does not just ruin the business. The UAW is a example of worse case IMO.
But my experience with working in a union job was, as long as I paid my dues I had employment. I forgot to pay my dues one month and I received a termination letter from the union. Basicaly my experience was, as long as I paid the union their dues I was employed. I was paying just to keep my job, no other benefit. I really felt like I was paying for "protection" like the legal mafia...go figure.
Some of that depends on the state... some states by law are right to work so even in a union enviornment you do not have to join the union. Employment is not dependent on union membership... not to say the union members could make it tough on you, but the employer can't require membership... Nebraska is an example of a right to work state.
Some of that depends on the state... some states by law are right to work so even in a union enviornment you do not have to join the union. Employment is not dependent on union membership... not to say the union members could make it tough on you, but the employer can't require membership... Nebraska is an example of a right to work state.
Some of that depends on the state... some states by law are right to work so even in a union enviornment you do not have to join the union. Employment is not dependent on union membership... not to say the union members could make it tough on you, but the employer can't require membership... Nebraska is an example of a right to work state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon
Dave,
that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Not sure this is totally right, but here's the breakdown of Right to Work states versus Forced Unionism states - forgive me in my quick listing I think I missed 3, but didn't have time to run back thru the states... its about a 50/50 split in the states that force unionism and the states that protect the workers right to choose membership.
"Right to Work" is Goebbelesque right-wing doubletalk. The reason for such legislation isn't to guard worker's rights but to hamstring unions and help employers.
What gives the lie is that such legislation mandates that workers who don't join the union MUST be given the same wages and benefits as those who belong to the union. If the legislation were sincere "free market" legislation then those workers who choose not to join would also be free to work for less.
This just allows freeloaders to get a free ride on the dues of the union workers. It's the ONLY time you'll see right-wingers advocating workers getting a free ride.
Anyone who doesn't want to work where he must join a union is free to seek employment elsewhere, it's simply a condition of employment and if you don't like it take a walk. There, I just used a free market argument.
"This just allows freeloaders to get a free ride on the dues of the union workers. It's the ONLY time you'll see right-wingers advocating workers getting a free ride.
1) How do you assume I am a right winger?
2) The prior conversation was from Union members talking about the free ride that the union brother "slugs" (their term not mine) were getting.
Not sure this is totally right, but here's the breakdown of Right to Work states versus Forced Unionism states - forgive me in my quick listing I think I missed 3, but didn't have time to run back thru the states... its about a 50/50 split in the states that force unionism and the states that protect the workers right to choose membership.
"Right to Work" is Goebbelesque right-wing doubletalk. The reason for such legislation isn't to guard worker's rights but to hamstring unions and help employers.
What gives the lie is that such legislation mandates that workers who don't join the union MUST be given the same wages and benefits as those who belong to the union. If the legislation were sincere "free market" legislation then those workers who choose not to join would also be free to work for less.
This just allows freeloaders to get a free ride on the dues of the union workers. It's the ONLY time you'll see right-wingers advocating workers getting a free ride.
Anyone who doesn't want to work where he must join a union is free to seek employment elsewhere, it's simply a condition of employment and if you don't like it take a walk. There, I just used a free market argument.
If you are an actor in Los Angeles producers are not free to hire you if you are not with Sag or Aftra. No union- no career. Period.
Last edited by laysayfair; 06-11-2008 at 10:15 PM..
Reason: typo
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.
