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

[syrenn]

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.

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if I want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... the hotel can TRY to hire me but i will be ALLOWED to work there if I do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

 

[syrenn]

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.

LMAO! Yes you area missive FAIL.

Ask any employer if they want to get rid of the unions and hire whom they want, 100% of them will oust the unions.

 

[Anachronism]

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

The Union requirement is part of the job. If you are not willing to take the "bad" with the good, then you probably really don't want the job to begin with. There is no sane Union in this country that is going to allow non-union employees to do the same job as the represented employees. That's a recipe for disaster for BOTH sides.

Ask any employer if they want to get rid of the unions and hire whom they want, 100% of them will oust the unions.

Of course any employer is going to want to employ individuals that they can hire and fire at will, treat like dog shit, use and abuse, pay less than market value to, etc.... That's a no-brainer. The reason these companies don't want the Unions is specifically for that reason.... to be able to abuse the employees at will without them having any way to fight back.

I'll give you an example..... Right now where I work our Dispatch and Control Center is working on Unionizing. "Why would they do such a thing?" you ask. Let's see.... They're a 24/7 operation that gets no compensation for working overnight, weekend, or holiday shifts. They work a 12 hour rotating schedule that the company likes to change or modify on a whim, and if you can't cover your "new" shifts they threaten to discipline or discharge you. At best they are generally compensated at straight time for their OT (which is fairly common due to a lack of full staffing) and are at times not compensated at all for the extra time. The managers and supervisors play favorites with everything from OT to discipline and shift scheduling..... So the majority of these 70+ people decided two years ago to try and join the Union. They were successful in getting enough signatures to do so. Now they've just fought off an attempt from within to decertify the group (the vote was 53-16) and they're finally going to hopefully get a contract in the next couple of months. A contract that will actually force their supervisors and managers to treat them fairly, to play by the rules, and to actually treat them like human beings instead of cattle.

 

[DaGoose]

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

The Union requirement is part of the job. If you are not willing to take the "bad" with the good, then you probably really don't want the job to begin with. There is no sane Union in this country that is going to allow non-union employees to do the same job as the represented employees. That's a recipe for disaster for BOTH sides.

Ask any employer if they want to get rid of the unions and hire whom they want, 100% of them will oust the unions.

Of course any employer is going to want to employ individuals that they can hire and fire at will, treat like dog shit, use and abuse, pay less than market value to, etc.... That's a no-brainer. The reason these companies don't want the Unions is specifically for that reason.... to be able to abuse the employees at will without them having any way to fight back.

I'll give you an example..... Right now where I work our Dispatch and Control Center is working on Unionizing. "Why would they do such a thing?" you ask. Let's see.... They're a 24/7 operation that gets no compensation for working overnight, weekend, or holiday shifts. They work a 12 hour rotating schedule that the company likes to change or modify on a whim, and if you can't cover your "new" shifts they threaten to discipline or discharge you. At best they are generally compensated at straight time for their OT (which is fairly common due to a lack of full staffing) and are at times not compensated at all for the extra time. The managers and supervisors play favorites with everything from OT to discipline and shift scheduling..... So the majority of these 70+ people decided two years ago to try and join the Union. They were successful in getting enough signatures to do so. Now they've just fought off an attempt from within to decertify the group (the vote was 53-16) and they're finally going to hopefully get a contract in the next couple of months. A contract that will actually force their supervisors and managers to treat them fairly, to play by the rules, and to actually treat them like human beings instead of cattle.

But.....but.....but.....Unions have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant.

There's the rub. If a company treats its employees right then I would agree that there's no need to organize (even as pro-labor as I am). But all too often when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies unfairly squeeze their employees to provide bigger checks for CEO's.

.

 

[DaGoose]

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.

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if I want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... the hotel can TRY to hire me but i will be ALLOWED to work there if I do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

Uhhhh.....Employers DO hire who they want and the union cannot say who or who doesn't get hired. Employees do not join the union until AFTER they are hired as a condition of employment. And that is only in "Closed Shop" states.

The only exception are labor halls. And companies such as mine can maintain a list of names of individual contractors that are not allowed on the property for legitimate reasons.

.

 

[Care4all]

under the law, no one is required to join a union, no matter the state, is what this says?

Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)
If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.

The Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.

 

[Anachronism]

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

Not necessarily true in my experience.... They don't have to be Union members to be hired, but they do have to join the Union once they are hired.... IF it goes to the street.

I'll give you an example.... The Maps & Records Tech jobs I mentioned earlier. They have to be posted INTERNALLY first. That means all the current Union members get first crack at them IF THEY ARE QUALIFIED. We haven't found any QUALIFIED applicants, so it's now going to be posted EXTERNALLY. At that point ANYONE has the opportunity to submit a resume. Even if the applicant is an existing BUW member from another company, that is not taken into account once it goes EXTERNAL. Of course whoever gets offered the job will have to join Local 369 of the BUW if they accept the job.

But.....but.....but.....Unions have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant.

There's the rub. If a company treats its employees right then I would agree that there's no need to organize (even as pro-labor as I am). But all too often when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies unfairly squeeze their employees to provide bigger checks for CEO's.

Goose, that's exactly the issue in this case. The company has no interest in anything other than the dividend checks for the investors. It's all about the bottom line. The customers, the employees, the work and the regulators be damned. They're letting go of 1200 non-union employees between back in March and the end of July.... not because we don't need them but to ensure they can cut a certain amount out of the budget. We've literally told the regulators that we're not doing ANY maintenance work that they haven't agreed to allow us to get returned from the customers in the last rate case.

Three departments have gone Union (Engineering, Relay, and now Dispatch) in the last 4 years in an attempt to protect ourselves from the management of this company. THAT should tell everyone something about this company.

 

[DaGoose]

under the law, no one is required to join a union, no matter the state, is what this says?

Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)
If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.

The Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.

Yes. They are called "Fee Payers". In Closed Shop states they are required to pay a percentage of the dues and cannot participate in union elections and activities but they are still entitled to union representation in discipline cases and the same benefits of full members.

In most cases they opt out because they disagree with the union political contributions.

.

 

[Anachronism]

Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)

If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member

What that says is that you CAN choose to be stupid enough to pay dues to an organization but not have any of the RIGHTS associated with that payment of dues. Why anyone would choose to pay dues and then also choose not to be involved in elections, negotiations, and to separate themselves from their Union brethren is totally foreign to me.

Most Union contracts spell out which jobs MUST pay Union dues and/or be Union members. That's the point of the part I highlighted. Basically it says that if the Union is stupid enough not to make that a condition of the contract you don't have to be a Union member but if they do make it a condition you must at least pay the dues.

 

[daveman]

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

The Union requirement is part of the job. If you are not willing to take the "bad" with the good, then you probably really don't want the job to begin with. There is no sane Union in this country that is going to allow non-union employees to do the same job as the represented employees. That's a recipe for disaster for BOTH sides.

Ask any employer if they want to get rid of the unions and hire whom they want, 100% of them will oust the unions.

Of course any employer is going to want to employ individuals that they can hire and fire at will, treat like dog shit, use and abuse, pay less than market value to, etc.... That's a no-brainer. The reason these companies don't want the Unions is specifically for that reason.... to be able to abuse the employees at will without them having any way to fight back.

I'll give you an example..... Right now where I work our Dispatch and Control Center is working on Unionizing. "Why would they do such a thing?" you ask. Let's see.... They're a 24/7 operation that gets no compensation for working overnight, weekend, or holiday shifts. They work a 12 hour rotating schedule that the company likes to change or modify on a whim, and if you can't cover your "new" shifts they threaten to discipline or discharge you. At best they are generally compensated at straight time for their OT (which is fairly common due to a lack of full staffing) and are at times not compensated at all for the extra time. The managers and supervisors play favorites with everything from OT to discipline and shift scheduling..... So the majority of these 70+ people decided two years ago to try and join the Union. They were successful in getting enough signatures to do so. Now they've just fought off an attempt from within to decertify the group (the vote was 53-16) and they're finally going to hopefully get a contract in the next couple of months. A contract that will actually force their supervisors and managers to treat them fairly, to play by the rules, and to actually treat them like human beings instead of cattle.

But.....but.....but.....Unions have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant.

There's the rub. If a company treats its employees right then I would agree that there's no need to organize (even as pro-labor as I am). But all too often when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies unfairly squeeze their employees to provide bigger checks for CEO's.

.

I believe you mean "...when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies ask their employees to sacrifice a little so the company can stay in business."

 

[DaGoose]

The Union requirement is part of the job. If you are not willing to take the "bad" with the good, then you probably really don't want the job to begin with. There is no sane Union in this country that is going to allow non-union employees to do the same job as the represented employees. That's a recipe for disaster for BOTH sides.



Of course any employer is going to want to employ individuals that they can hire and fire at will, treat like dog shit, use and abuse, pay less than market value to, etc.... That's a no-brainer. The reason these companies don't want the Unions is specifically for that reason.... to be able to abuse the employees at will without them having any way to fight back.

I'll give you an example..... Right now where I work our Dispatch and Control Center is working on Unionizing. "Why would they do such a thing?" you ask. Let's see.... They're a 24/7 operation that gets no compensation for working overnight, weekend, or holiday shifts. They work a 12 hour rotating schedule that the company likes to change or modify on a whim, and if you can't cover your "new" shifts they threaten to discipline or discharge you. At best they are generally compensated at straight time for their OT (which is fairly common due to a lack of full staffing) and are at times not compensated at all for the extra time. The managers and supervisors play favorites with everything from OT to discipline and shift scheduling..... So the majority of these 70+ people decided two years ago to try and join the Union. They were successful in getting enough signatures to do so. Now they've just fought off an attempt from within to decertify the group (the vote was 53-16) and they're finally going to hopefully get a contract in the next couple of months. A contract that will actually force their supervisors and managers to treat them fairly, to play by the rules, and to actually treat them like human beings instead of cattle.

But.....but.....but.....Unions have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant.

There's the rub. If a company treats its employees right then I would agree that there's no need to organize (even as pro-labor as I am). But all too often when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies unfairly squeeze their employees to provide bigger checks for CEO's.

.

I believe you mean "...when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies ask their employees to sacrifice a little so the company can stay in business."

As someone who has not had a pay raise in over three years I would agree. My union agreed with that in order to help the company stay competitive and ride out the economic downturn. In response no management (including the CEO) has taken a pay raise either.

But that's not the case with most companies. The workers are asked to sacrifice yet the CEO's and upper management still get double digit wage increases. (Caterpillar is a good example)

.

 

[Anachronism]

I believe you mean "...when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies ask their employees to sacrifice a little so the company can stay in business."

I work in the electric utility industry. The economy means almost nothing to our business. Yet, since the regulators refused to meet the company's exhorbitant demands the company has essentially told them.... "We're going to meet that profit margin, even if it means doing it by cutting 1200 jobs in a 6200 person non-Union workforce (19%) and doing NO WORK that we are not compensated for either by rate payers or through new construction.

 

[daveman]

As someone who has not had a pay raise in over three years I would agree. My union agreed with that in order to help the company stay competitive and ride out the economic downturn. In response no management (including the CEO) has taken a pay raise either.

Kudos to your union and your company's management.

But that's not the case with most companies. The workers are asked to sacrifice yet the CEO's and upper management still get double digit wage increases. (Caterpillar is a good example)

.

"Most companies"? Citation needed.

 

[daveman]

I believe you mean "...when the economy is down and unemployment is up many companies ask their employees to sacrifice a little so the company can stay in business."

I work in the electric utility industry. The economy means almost nothing to our business. Yet, since the regulators refused to meet the company's exhorbitant demands the company has essentially told them.... "We're going to meet that profit margin, even if it means doing it by cutting 1200 jobs in a 6200 person non-Union workforce (19%) and doing NO WORK that we are not compensated for either by rate payers or through new construction.

What other avenues does the company have for compensation?

Surely you're not suggesting the company work without compensation.

 

[Anachronism]

What other avenues does the company have for compensation?

Surely you're not suggesting the company work without compensation.

In this industry there is an expectation that the company eats (through reduction in profits) an amount of the maintenance costs to upkeep the facilities (poles, wires, manholes, etc...) in the short-term in order to be able to include those expenses in future rate cases. This company however, chose to request to be able to bill rate payers immediately for those expenses.

Those requests were turned down by the state's Attorneys General and Departments of Public Utilities. Now they've essentailly told the states.... "If we can't recover the cost immediately we just won't do the work. We'll wait for it to fall down and then charge the consumers for the emergency repair." While that's completely and totally unethical, it's also totally legal. In one state we've gone so far as to sell our entire line of business to another electic utility company because we were so unhappy with the outcome of the rate case; calling the rates we're allowed to charge in that state..... Unsuitable to sustain the required rate of return on investment.

 

[daveman]

What other avenues does the company have for compensation?

Surely you're not suggesting the company work without compensation.

In this industry there is an expectation that the company eats (through reduction in profits) an amount of the maintenance costs to upkeep the facilities (poles, wires, manholes, etc...) in the short-term in order to be able to include those expenses in future rate cases. This company however, chose to request to be able to bill rate payers immediately for those expenses.

Those requests were turned down by the state's Attorneys General and Departments of Public Utilities. Now they've essentailly told the states.... "If we can't recover the cost immediately we just won't do the work. We'll wait for it to fall down and then charge the consumers for the emergency repair." While that's completely and totally unethical, it's also totally legal. In one state we've gone so far as to sell our entire line of business to another electic utility company because we were so unhappy with the outcome of the rate case; calling the rates we're allowed to charge in that state..... Unsuitable to sustain the required rate of return on investment.

Does the company have the capital to fund the repairs?

 

[Anachronism]

Does the company have the capital to fund the repairs?

The company has recorded record profits both here and in the UK the last three or four years.

 

[daveman]

Does the company have the capital to fund the repairs?

The company has recorded record profits both here and in the UK the last three or four years.

Then I agree: They're acting badly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So I shouldn't need to get 'legal' status and pay taxes to work?

HUH?!
As a matter of fact probably a third of all work is paid "under the table".
So the answer to you non-sequitur question is "no".
Or are going to tell us that you've never done any work and accepted cash for the job performed? Please.
What that has to do with forced unionism is a mystery. Stay on point.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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





.

I have no problem with people not being forced to join unions and pay dues...but they should also not reap the benefits of when unions negotiate new contracts and/or raises.

A conundrum of Right to Work laws.
In a perfect world, your idea works.
However that would set up a two tiered or caste system in the workplace.
If non union people were by legislation paid less, they would join the union. Thus defeating the spirit and purpose of "right to work".
Obviously that cannot be done either. Plus it would set up all kinds of litigation based on discrimination against those who opted out of joining a private labor organization.