End of collective bargaining/other anti-union measures plus reactions ...

You f*cking commie

 

No, because the workers can get the benefit of union-negotiated contracts without paying the dues.

Are you seriously this stupid? C'mon, man, you're better than this. (I think.)

 

He has a serious blind spot when it comes to unions. Like, serious.

 

a union ran over his dog as a child, I think.

 

Anything the union is able to negotiate, the individual workers could also negotiate. The unions are against this because without being able to force people to join, nowhere near as many would.

And Dave, I like to have these discussions but calling each other names only helps the board slide into Schapes-world. Neither of us wants that, right?

My distaste for unions comes from a few different places. Companies I do business with, people I know that are in unions and the attempt of workers for my father's company to unionize some 25 years ago and the tactics the union tried to turn my dad's business into a closed shop. I get they were useful years ago and in a few instances can have value today, but I think they have, for the most part, outgrown their usefulness.

 

Not understanding the free rider problem is pretty f'ing stupid.

But as a gesture of good will, let me reiterate a proposal I made a few years back here. On the day a contract runs out, all employees have to either choose to join the union or choose to stay out. If they choose the union, they have to be a member for the duration of the contract that comes out of the negotiation. If they choose to stay out of the union, they have to take the deal the company is offering on that date. If the union negotiates a better deal, tough shit. (I realize that a big part of union contracts are work rules, and I don't know how you clear that hurdle. I doubt it's practical with most work rules to have one rule for union guys and another for non-union workers.)

I think that balances workers' rights with freedom of association. IIRC, Matt in the Hat thought it was a valid proposal.

 

I used to think that, and there are still some unions that I feel are too powerful, however, if the top executives are going to continue to rake in record compensation while working wages continue to decline, the unions should have a GROWING presence in the U.S.

 

I understand the free rider issue is a problem for the unions. I don't feel it's a problem for everyone else. That isn't "stupid".

And the rules you set out would be fine for me. It would give people an out they don't currently have, which is the main point of the Right to Work laws. You join the union if you want to, not as a condition of employment.

 

no, the purpose of "right" to work laws is to give much more power to the EMPLOYER, not workers. They hold most of the power over their work-force anyway (union or no), and they hold all the power over individual workers.

You seem to think unions have an unbelievable amount of power, which is false in all but a very few specific cases - maybe those are the ones you were exposed to exclusively, who knows - but what you describe has little touch in reality with the unions I have experience with.

If you want to see the great race to the bottom for workplace safety, the environment, etc - then keep passing these types of restrictive worker protection laws. Now over half the country has them, so the states aren't really making themselves "more friendly to business", they're just the same as half the country already. So they'll stop requiring companies to follow other laws (environmental, tax, etc) to make it seem like their argument makes any sense at all.


Virginia is a right-to-"work" state and you see the bad ramifications all the time especially in unqualified workers doing lots of construction and highway work. Stuff is done wrong, which increases the maintenance costs - but those are budgeted differently so it appears the initial contract was cheaper by using non-union labor - but it actually costs more. Or just as often is not done at all and the stuff is just dangerous, but what are a few deaths, those people have insurance that pays the cost instead, or the taxpayers pick up the tab in someone else's budget.
Ride the Metro train in DC and try to take an escalator, forced to buy non-union it all fails and has no cheap maintenance - much higher cost in the long run.

Union labor produced goods are not always better, but it's pretty common that they are - why would you ever want to make a decision based on the unionization or lack thereof though, let the stakeholder decide which product/service is the best for the money (short vs long-term).

If a company wants nothing to do with a union, it's pretty damned easy - just pay a very fair wage and take worker safety seriously (aka respect your workers as something other than a sunk labor-cost) - and they will not need to band together to protect themselves from you.
You don't need a law to enable you to just ignore your workers altogether. Just don't be a dick. I know, I know, that goes against everything they teach you in Business School and how else do you prove you're better than your employees.

 

That's counter-factual, counter-historical and counter-logical. Collective bargaining works. It benefits workers and communities.

Unions are against this right-to-work BS because they don't want to provide benefits to people who aren't paying for those benefits, and they shouldn't have to. Nobody in Michigan was being forced to join a union. Ever. Some workers were required, as a condition of their employment, to pay for the representation they were receiving anyway. Now people don't have to pay for the services the union is providing.

I'm really surprised that people who claim to favor the free market would advocate government intervention like this. People who talk a lot about small government don't seem to mind when government steps in and interferes with negotiations between private sector employers and employees.

 

My dad's socio-economic background was pretty much the reverse negative image of the kind of person who would be pro-union, and that was his view on unions..."No company ever got a union that didn't deserve one."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sons-why-michigans-right-to-work-law-matters/

Some quick quotes form the article;

Worker safety issues used to be a large reason to support unions but with the expansion of OSHA requirements, those old union requirements are as prevalent in non-union workplaces as union shops.

Collective bargaining has resulted in the downfall of more than a few companies because of the requirements of retirement plans that are not sustainable, and has caused some municipalities to have to reduce or even close all together some public services like fire departments and police forces. Some of the blame has to go toward the people opposite the unions at the bargaining tables, but often those people are elected officials that are simply kicking the can down the road, in the case of public union negotiations.

Now, tell the truth. You lefties are afraid of losing the direct donations of the unions. That's the real reason you are against RTW laws.

 

I'm against them because I am a worker.

Citizens United is a bigger threat for what you're saying than right-to-work laws in general - but they do also hurt the concept of political funding ever being "fair and balanced".

Corporate types are against unions the same way lions are against herds of animals - they like it to be easier to pick off individuals for their dastardly purposes, harder to do when one animal is there to help protect another.

As much as you distrust "the government", I distrust business. But at least I have some say in government.

 

What about the municipality that can no longer pay it's firefighters or police?

 

This is how things are now. Additional laws don't change it.

 

Stimulus 2.0?

 

I have a group of Teamsters represented employees that work for me. I could discuss the evolution of wages and working conditions since they chose to unionize but that's not a bright thing to do without union representation.

In their last contract they negotiated a 20 hour limit to their work day. After they have been on the clock for 20 hours we are forced to provide 6 hours of rest time. Probably not an issue for the guy sitting at a computer drinking Starbucks but for guys that are in the elements doing physical work under pressure to get the job done 20 hours is a long day. 6 hours to clean up, go home, get a nap, and be back at work for another 20. I don't remember if the limit is 6 or 7 days in a week but we are required by the government to let them have 6 days off per month. Prior to unionization there was not a maximum number of hours before they could have time off and it was not uncommon to work several days in a row.

 

No, it's not.