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

[daveman]

Y'all are reading way too much into this. All I'm asking is, given a union worker and a non-union worker, which one should be employed? There are only three possible answers:

1. The union worker.
2. The non-union worker.
3. Neither should have an advantage.

Except that the question is rarely that simple.

It is in this case.

C'mon. Take a stab at it.

 

[JBeukema]

So that gives him a greater right to work than the non-union member?

Are you saying I should need to present identification showing I've been permission from the collective to work before you can hire me?

No. Nothing anywhere near that. Different time zone.

Might want to re-read the exchange.

So you're cool with me needing to show my union card or join up in order to be able to work?

 

[Ravi]

Next time I'm forced to get a job will be the first time.

If your refering to my question above I suggest you brush up on english comprehension.

I was referring to your thread title. No one is forced to join a union any more than they are forced to take a job or work for a particular company.

You might as well as if it is fair that we are forced to have a college degree to hold certain jobs.

Stupid question designed to appeal to emotion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So that gives him a greater right to work than the non-union member?

That depends. On the grand scale of the Universe, nothing. On the scale of an individual job, the fact that the majority of the people doing that job in that company have agreed to be represented by the Union and that the company has agreed to a contract with them is what gives the Union member the right to work.

Y'all are reading way too much into this. All I'm asking is, given a union worker and a non-union worker, which one should be employed? There are only three possible answers:

1. The union worker.
2. The non-union worker.
3. Neither should have an advantage.

The employer chooses whether or not a union will be the workers' representative, so your question is dependent on the employer's terms of employment.

Besides, the worker isn't a union worker or a non-union worker until he's actually hired.

 

[manifold]

Don't forget the flip side of the equation: Union states (which are paying more income tax) are bleeding jobs, companies, and population.

Does that sound sustainable to you? Because it's not.

They're bleeding jobs, companies and population but still manage to pay more in federal income tax than they receive.

Thanks for solidifying my point.

I repeat: Does that sounds sustainable to you?

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, empirical evidence suggests that it is sustainable. Perhaps there are other factors you haven't considered in your 'analysis'.

 

[manifold]

Those are the contracts they signed with the company. And unless you're on the board, it doesn't matter if you like it or not.

You mean like union contracts signed with the company?

Exactly. But leftists only have a problem with one of them, don't they?

Yes. And rightists too.

I don't have a problem with either and prefer to recognize the contract rights of everyone.

 

[daveman]

Are you saying I should need to present identification showing I've been permission from the collective to work before you can hire me?

No. Nothing anywhere near that. Different time zone.

Might want to re-read the exchange.

So you're cool with me needing to show my union card or join up in order to be able to work?

Where did I say that?

 

[daveman]

That depends. On the grand scale of the Universe, nothing. On the scale of an individual job, the fact that the majority of the people doing that job in that company have agreed to be represented by the Union and that the company has agreed to a contract with them is what gives the Union member the right to work.

Y'all are reading way too much into this. All I'm asking is, given a union worker and a non-union worker, which one should be employed? There are only three possible answers:

1. The union worker.
2. The non-union worker.
3. Neither should have an advantage.

The employer chooses whether or not a union will be the workers' representative, so your question is dependent on the employer's terms of employment.

Besides, the worker isn't a union worker or a non-union worker until he's actually hired.

The employer decides about the workers organizing?


Ummmm...no.

 

[daveman]

They're bleeding jobs, companies and population but still manage to pay more in federal income tax than they receive.

Thanks for solidifying my point.

I repeat: Does that sounds sustainable to you?

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, empirical evidence suggests that it is sustainable. Perhaps there are other factors you haven't considered in your 'analysis'.

You think it's sustainable? Have you looked at California's economy lately?

 

[daveman]

You mean like union contracts signed with the company?

Exactly. But leftists only have a problem with one of them, don't they?

Yes. And rightists too.

I don't have a problem with either and prefer to recognize the contract rights of everyone.

 

[Care4all]

hmmmm, in massachusetts, here is what it says about the unions there:

Massachusetts Right to Work Laws



Code Section Ch. 149 §19, et seq.


Policy on Union Membership, Organization, etc.

No person shall, by intimidation or force, prevent or seek to prevent a person from entering into or continuing in the employment of any person



Prohibited Activity

No person shall, himself or by his agent, coerce or compel a person into a written or oral agreement not to join or become a member of a labor organization as a condition of his securing employment or continuing the employment of such person

Penalties Legal and equitable relief

sounds like no one there is forced to join the union???

 

[Anachronism]

hmmmm, in massachusetts, here is what it says about the unions there:

sounds like no one there is forced to join the union???

EXACTLY. Nobody here in Massachusetts HAS TO accept a job which is Unionized. They can choose to decline the job. When my department went Union in 2007, we had several people who chose to leave their jobs rather than joining the Union.

In reality what the verbage you quoted is referring to is that nobody can be forced to sign a card or cast a vote for a Unionization process. It does not mean that you can accept a Unionized job without joining the Union.

 

[boedicca]

That depends. On the grand scale of the Universe, nothing. On the scale of an individual job, the fact that the majority of the people doing that job in that company have agreed to be represented by the Union and that the company has agreed to a contract with them is what gives the Union member the right to work.

Y'all are reading way too much into this. All I'm asking is, given a union worker and a non-union worker, which one should be employed? There are only three possible answers:

1. The union worker.
2. The non-union worker.
3. Neither should have an advantage.

The employer chooses whether or not a union will be the workers' representative, so your question is dependent on the employer's terms of employment.

Besides, the worker isn't a union worker or a non-union worker until he's actually hired.

That is absolute nonsense. A company doesn't have the power to reject union representation if the workers vote for it...vote being the operative word (which Card Check is designed to make meaningless).

 

[daveman]

Y'all are reading way too much into this. All I'm asking is, given a union worker and a non-union worker, which one should be employed? There are only three possible answers:

1. The union worker.
2. The non-union worker.
3. Neither should have an advantage.

The employer chooses whether or not a union will be the workers' representative, so your question is dependent on the employer's terms of employment.

Besides, the worker isn't a union worker or a non-union worker until he's actually hired.

That is absolute nonsense. A company doesn't have the power to reject union representation if the workers vote for it...vote being the operative word (which Card Check is designed to make meaningless).

Nor is a company likely to invite the union in.

 

[syrenn]

Next time I'm forced to get a job will be the first time.

If your refering to my question above I suggest you brush up on english comprehension.

I was referring to your thread title. No one is forced to join a union any more than they are forced to take a job or work for a particular company.

You might as well as if it is fair that we are forced to have a college degree to hold certain jobs.

Stupid question designed to appeal to emotion.

If your choice is to join the union or you CANT work for the business you want to work for because they are a "union shop" That is forcing you to join the union.

..or not work for whom you chose to work for.

Hotels in SF are like that. You either JOIN the union (regardless if you want to or not)... or you don't GET to work for the hotel.

 

[syrenn]

hmmmm, in massachusetts, here is what it says about the unions there:

sounds like no one there is forced to join the union???

EXACTLY. Nobody here in Massachusetts HAS TO accept a job which is Unionized. They can choose to decline the job. When my department went Union in 2007, we had several people who chose to leave their jobs rather than joining the Union.

In reality what the verbage you quoted is referring to is that nobody can be forced to sign a card or cast a vote for a Unionization process. It does not mean that you can accept a Unionized job without joining the Union.

But if you WANT the job....but don't want to join the union. Guess what...the UNION wont LET you work.

 

[JBeukema]

No. Nothing anywhere near that. Different time zone.

Might want to re-read the exchange.

So you're cool with me needing to show my union card or join up in order to be able to work?

Where did I say that?

Make up your mind.

Should I be required to present identification proving the collective has granted me to sell my labour power according to the terms they set or not?

 

[daveman]

So you're cool with me needing to show my union card or join up in order to be able to work?

Where did I say that?

Make up your mind.

Should I be required to present identification proving the collective has granted me to sell my labour power according to the terms they set or not?

I feel no obligation to defend statements I didn't make.

 

[manifold]

If your refering to my question above I suggest you brush up on english comprehension.

I was referring to your thread title. No one is forced to join a union any more than they are forced to take a job or work for a particular company.

You might as well as if it is fair that we are forced to have a college degree to hold certain jobs.

Stupid question designed to appeal to emotion.

If your choice is to join the union or you CANT work for the business you want to work for because they are a "union shop" That is forcing you to join the union.

..or not work for whom you chose to work for.

Hotels in SF are like that. You either JOIN the union (regardless if you want to or not)... or you don't GET to work for the hotel.

Massive FAIL. Nobody has a right to work for whomever they choose. If they did, I'd be playing for the Red Sox.


PS: And I'd gladly join the union.

 

[manifold]

hmmmm, in massachusetts, here is what it says about the unions there:

sounds like no one there is forced to join the union???

EXACTLY. Nobody here in Massachusetts HAS TO accept a job which is Unionized. They can choose to decline the job. When my department went Union in 2007, we had several people who chose to leave their jobs rather than joining the Union.

In reality what the verbage you quoted is referring to is that nobody can be forced to sign a card or cast a vote for a Unionization process. It does not mean that you can accept a Unionized job without joining the Union.

But if you WANT the job....but don't want to join the union. Guess what...the UNION wont LET you work.

Another massive FAIL. You seem to be on a roll. The company contracted with the union, granting the union exclusive rights as their supplier of labor. It's really that simple. If the company contracted with Staples to be their exclusive supplier of paper, is that a violation of W.B Mason's rights? No. The same principle applies.