Should People Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues?

Should PPL Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues As Condition Of Their Right To Work


  • Total voters
    42
Statistically, union members get paid more than non-union labor in the same field - and that difference is significantly more than what they pay in union dues.

Why should someone get paid more than others in his field if he doesn't pay dues to the organization that got him those better wages?

Why should anyone be forced to join an organization they don't want to be part of?
Wanna work? Gotta join up, get approved, and carry our green an/or red card to prove the kollektive has given you permission to work in accordance with their rules.

Compulsory unionism is unconstitutional.

Why? Does a man have a right sell his labour power to whom e wishes in accordance with whatever contract he might negotiate without needing the permission of the collective?
 
Should PPL Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues As Condition Of Their Right To Work


No. religion should be a free matter of choice with no coercion.

How are 'dues' really any different than 'taxes', other than a simple matter of scale?

How is a union card any different than a SS cared, other than a simple matter of scale?

How is being forced to work in accordance the rules put forth by the union collective any different than being forced to work in accordance with the rules set up by the 'national' collective?

If it's wrong on the small scale, why's it okay when it's bigger and more centralized?

Big government good, local control bad? :cuckoo:
 
Religion is also a union. I think they do not like competition.
complete with faith care healing and an eternal retirement plan. Only 10% of your wages.
Some dispute over gross vs net though.
 
Last edited:
No... I don't think it should be compulsory. However, why wouldn't one want to be a part of a union? Unionized employees, according to the RW Media, can not be fired, get paid way too much, don't have to do their jobs, are lazy, unmotivated blahblahblah....

I don't see the downside.

The truth is, that those stereotypes are far from the truth. The real truth is that there is a war against the working people of this country. I've heard things like "abolish the minimum wage, people are only worth what an employers SAYS they are worth, etc"... and then the tactical part... sending US jobs overseas for $1/hour labor(like a US worker can compete with that), Legislative attempts to take away collective bargaining completely.

You can sit there and rail about "Unions bribing politicians"... but turn a blind eye to the Business community doing the same thing at 10-20-30X the scale.

But to answer the question... No. No one should be forced to join a union. I think that a Union should have to prove themselves to get their members and keep them. Once you start forcing people to join, the Union can sit back on their laurels.
 
Statistically, union members get paid more than non-union labor in the same field - and that difference is significantly more than what they pay in union dues.

Why should someone get paid more than others in his field if he doesn't pay dues to the organization that got him those better wages?

Why should anyone be forced to join an organization they don't want to be part of?
Wanna work? Gotta join up, get approved, and carry our green an/or red card to prove the kollektive has given you permission to work in accordance with their rules.

Compulsory unionism is unconstitutional.

Why? Does a man have a right sell his labour power to whom e wishes in accordance with whatever contract he might negotiate without needing the permission of the collective?

Illegal aliens are not the same as Union forcing. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And the same goes for taxation by the Government.

If one does not have a legal right to be in the Country, one does not have a legal right to work in the Country. And last I checked every Government in the world controls immigration.
 
Statistically, union members get paid more than non-union labor in the same field - and that difference is significantly more than what they pay in union dues.

Why should someone get paid more than others in his field if he doesn't pay dues to the organization that got him those better wages?

Why should anyone be forced to join an organization they don't want to be part of? The Constitution protects your "freedom of association." That includes the right to not associate. Compulsory unionism is unconstitutional.

The Constitution limits the power of government, nothing more. Private sector unions and "compulsory unionism" have nothing to do with the government, except in the sense that "Conservatives" want government to step in and regulate private contracts.
 
To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

They don't. But if you choose to work in a "Closed Shop" Union then you have no right to complain. If you don't want to belong to a union go work somewhere else.

.
 
Should People Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues As A Condition Of Their Right To Work?





.


No

What you describe is more commonly called extortion.

Your exactly right but it happens all the time. You know why? Let me show you the madness.

1. A business votes to Unionize.
2. They collect the dues from those who want to be part of the union.
3. The business starts to descriminate against those who arent in the union because its easeyer to fire them as opposed to the union labor.
4. The union refuses to represent the guy who pays no dues.
5. Now both the union and the business are descriminating aginst the non unionized employee.
6. Both the union and the business are sued.
7. The union is busted and the business loses money.
8. The union goes to their state represenatives that they bought off with union dues.
9. The represenative and his buddies vote for legislation that forces everyone to pay dues reguardless of whether they are in a union or not.
10. The unions win and keep bribing polititions and increasing the prices of goods and services until the business becomes so uncompetitive that it has no choice but to move to a diffrent state or go overseas. Currently, moving overseas is leagle while moving to a different state is not. Funny how that works out huh? See Boeing.

And that is how liberty dies ladies and gentlemen. How is this process constitutional? Exactly how can a group of workers demand higher wages, go on strike when they dont get them, and not be fired?

First of all, a business doesn't "vote to organize". The workers do. And usually, in RTW states the business will treat the "non-organized" employees better so that the rest will quit to get the union depleted of members. Hence they break the Union.

And your post also begs the question....."If UNIONS are the reason we cannot compete with nations like Mexico, are you saying that if we got rid of them we could compete with their labor costs"?

.
 
no they shouldn't , which is why I am glad to live in a right to work state.

So why is this so popular among the left? And why hasnt anyone voted yes? If everyone agrees its a bad system then why not get rid of it? Is this so clear of a wrong that even leftists wont own up to it or attempt to defend it?

It's an excellent system. The poll question is worded improperly.

If an employer agrees to negotiate with an agency that represents the workers, then a person taking employment there has to pay dues to that agency as a condition of employment.

That's your employer's decision. That is employer's policy. You abide by it if you want to work there.
 
To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

The fact that the employer has entered into a contractual agreement stipulating that a union will be the representative of the workers.

Not talking about that. I'm talking absolutes. Who has the greater right to work in general?
 
no they shouldn't , which is why I am glad to live in a right to work state.

So why is this so popular among the left? And why hasnt anyone voted yes? If everyone agrees its a bad system then why not get rid of it? Is this so clear of a wrong that even leftists wont own up to it or attempt to defend it?

It's an excellent system. The poll question is worded improperly.

If an employer agrees to negotiate with an agency that represents the workers, then a person taking employment there has to pay dues to that agency as a condition of employment.

That's your employer's decision. That is employer's policy. You abide by it if you want to work there.

You made a damn good point. :clap2:

To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

They don't. But if you choose to work in a "Closed Shop" Union then you have no right to complain. If you don't want to belong to a union go work somewhere else.

.

I've been in unions. They didn't give a shit about me.

Union leadership is elected. If enough people felt the same way you vote them out and elect new ones that DO "give a shit".

.
 
To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

The fact that the employer has entered into a contractual agreement stipulating that a union will be the representative of the workers.

Not talking about that. I'm talking absolutes. Who has the greater right to work in general?

Right to work where? Your question makes no sense.
 

Forum List

Back
Top