Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Um not exactly. A labor union and a company equally and mutually agree to a bargained for contract. All that is required is that both parties honor that contract while it is active. So unless the contract stipulates what you mention above that would be a violation.
No one breaks anyone's arms to enter into a contract. Labor laws exist as does contract law.
LOL.... No company wants to "mutually" agree to anything the union forces down their throats. They agree becasue they dont want to have a strike...
so fine.... honor the contract until it ends....
and when the contract ends.... how about the company announce it will no longer be playing the union game...and all positions are open for reapplication? New structuring of pay and benefits... take it or leave it.
I assume you would have no issue with that becasue they honored the union contract until it ended.... and a company now no longer wants to deal with a union.
Sy, nothing is forced down anyone's throat. It is a bargaining system and has worked for years and is fair and equitable. Generally the unions are outgunned financially at these bargaining sessions depending on the company and their resources but big corporations have the big lawyers.
In between contracts, either side is free to not re-up but if they do it is a mutual decision. Each side tries to win the most favorable contract for their side. Nothing wrong there. It is clear very few people who are anti-union have ever been at a contract negotiation table.
As I have stated I don't see this as a black hat/white hate issue. I have seen the good and bad from both sides.
From what I understand about the MI law, it only changes two things. The employer does not have to act as a dues collector for the union, and the workers can not be forced as a condition of employment to join the union and pay dues.
A union should have no problems attracting workers to join if they prove they provide value for the money they collect in dues. Also why should a company be forced to expend their resources to act as a collection agent for the union?
From what I understand about the MI law, it only changes two things. The employer does not have to act as a dues collector for the union, and the workers can not be forced as a condition of employment to join the union and pay dues.
A union should have no problems attracting workers to join if they prove they provide value for the money they collect in dues. Also why should a company be forced to expend their resources to act as a collection agent for the union?
OK, then only unions can form in the private sector and we'll call it a deal.
Before unions in the public sector, you had the Spoils System. You want that back?
LOL.... No company wants to "mutually" agree to anything the union forces down their throats. They agree becasue they dont want to have a strike...
so fine.... honor the contract until it ends....
and when the contract ends.... how about the company announce it will no longer be playing the union game...and all positions are open for reapplication? New structuring of pay and benefits... take it or leave it.
I assume you would have no issue with that becasue they honored the union contract until it ended.... and a company now no longer wants to deal with a union.
Sy, nothing is forced down anyone's throat. It is a bargaining system and has worked for years and is fair and equitable. Generally the unions are outgunned financially at these bargaining sessions depending on the company and their resources but big corporations have the big lawyers.
In between contracts, either side is free to not re-up but if they do it is a mutual decision. Each side tries to win the most favorable contract for their side. Nothing wrong there. It is clear very few people who are anti-union have ever been at a contract negotiation table.
As I have stated I don't see this as a black hat/white hate issue. I have seen the good and bad from both sides.
sure, the unions force plenty down people and business throats dreamy. What do you call it when you are forced to join a union and pay dues? All union contracts are forced upon businesses.... do you really think they want to deal with unions?
The unions are not financially out gunned at all.... They themselves are big business.
and you still have not answers my question.
Sy, nothing is forced down anyone's throat. It is a bargaining system and has worked for years and is fair and equitable. Generally the unions are outgunned financially at these bargaining sessions depending on the company and their resources but big corporations have the big lawyers.
In between contracts, either side is free to not re-up but if they do it is a mutual decision. Each side tries to win the most favorable contract for their side. Nothing wrong there. It is clear very few people who are anti-union have ever been at a contract negotiation table.
As I have stated I don't see this as a black hat/white hate issue. I have seen the good and bad from both sides.
sure, the unions force plenty down people and business throats dreamy. What do you call it when you are forced to join a union and pay dues? All union contracts are forced upon businesses.... do you really think they want to deal with unions?
The unions are not financially out gunned at all.... They themselves are big business.
and you still have not answers my question.
I disagree and I do have first hand experience on both sides.
To directly answer your question which I thought I did by explaining what a bargained contract covers.
But to answer directly:
When a contract expires all parties are relieved of the contract's obligations. I support contract law. Syrenn, this is all just good old fashioned law. See Labor laws for even more understanding.
You can be not like behavior of groups or people but the premise of contractual labor law is sound and very American.
so fine.... honor the contract until it ends....
and when the contract ends.... how about the company announce it will no longer be playing the union game...and all positions are open for reapplication? New structuring of pay and benefits... take it or leave it.
I assume you would have no issue with that becasue they honored the union contract until it ended.... and a company now no longer wants to deal with a union.
From what I understand about the MI law, it only changes two things. The employer does not have to act as a dues collector for the union, and the workers can not be forced as a condition of employment to join the union and pay dues.
A union should have no problems attracting workers to join if they prove they provide value for the money they collect in dues. Also why should a company be forced to expend their resources to act as a collection agent for the union?
if unions were all about the workers... they would not need dues.
From what I understand about the MI law, it only changes two things. The employer does not have to act as a dues collector for the union, and the workers can not be forced as a condition of employment to join the union and pay dues.
A union should have no problems attracting workers to join if they prove they provide value for the money they collect in dues. Also why should a company be forced to expend their resources to act as a collection agent for the union?
if unions were all about the workers... they would not need dues.
Dues are still needed for lawyers and such for getting the best contract, defending people who are fired unfairly, etc.
Um not exactly. A labor union and a company equally and mutually agree to a bargained for contract. All that is required is that both parties honor that contract while it is active. So unless the contract stipulates what you mention above that would be a violation.
No one breaks anyone's arms to enter into a contract. Labor laws exist as does contract law.
LOL.... No company wants to "mutually" agree to anything the union forces down their throats. They agree becasue they dont want to have a strike...
so fine.... honor the contract until it ends....
and when the contract ends.... how about the company announce it will no longer be playing the union game...and all positions are open for reapplication? New structuring of pay and benefits... take it or leave it.
I assume you would have no issue with that becasue they honored the union contract until it ended.... and a company now no longer wants to deal with a union.
Sy, nothing is forced down anyone's throat. It is a bargaining system and has worked for years and is fair and equitable. Generally the unions are outgunned financially at these bargaining sessions depending on the company and their resources but big corporations have the big lawyers.
In between contracts, either side is free to not re-up but if they do it is a mutual decision. Each side tries to win the most favorable contract for their side. Nothing wrong there. It is clear very few people who are anti-union have ever been at a contract negotiation table.
As I have stated I don't see this as a black hat/white hate issue. I have seen the good and bad from both sides.
To be honest, the right has a point in their opposition of unions, however they are wrong. They are correct in recognizing the dangers of unions. As with anything, like business or capitalism, unions can get out of control and power-hungry, and as such, should be curbed.
However, that's not to say that they should not exist, just as no one sensible would argue that businesses, or capitalism should not exist, they just need to be curbed...aka regulated, as the case may be.
It is true, that unions can foster a culture of laziness, I've witnessed it myself, being part of management in a prominent company in NY that most everyone has heard of when I lived there. People can get into the whole attitude of "well that's not my job on paper, so I'm not doing it." However, that really boils down to the individual, remember "Individual Responsibility" Republicans?
At the same time, unions have been a TREMENDOUS force of good in this country and others, creating certain standards for workers, destroying child-labor abuse, getting folks fair compensation, regulating the work week as far as how many hours an employer can force an employee to work, etc., etc., etc., the list is long. So therefore, there is a place for them.
The Republicans cannot come to the table expecting to do away with unions for good, that's not sensible, it's radical. At the same time Democrats must not feel that unions can do no wrong, they can, just as businesses can and do.
We just need to find a happy medium...that's the trick.
My 2 cents.
I've been reading some of the other threads and the right has some good points, thinking about the SAG union and such. There has been quite some abuses by unions in recent years, however, the overall function of them has still remained a force of good.
We just need to somehow figure out the how-to of that.
But this partisan, "all unions are evil" or "all unions are perfect."
That's not gonna cut it.
sure, the unions force plenty down people and business throats dreamy. What do you call it when you are forced to join a union and pay dues? All union contracts are forced upon businesses.... do you really think they want to deal with unions?
The unions are not financially out gunned at all.... They themselves are big business.
and you still have not answers my question.
I disagree and I do have first hand experience on both sides.
To directly answer your question which I thought I did by explaining what a bargained contract covers.
But to answer directly:
When a contract expires all parties are relieved of the contract's obligations. I support contract law. Syrenn, this is all just good old fashioned law. See Labor laws for even more understanding.
You can be not like behavior of groups or people but the premise of contractual labor law is sound and very American.
this question
so fine.... honor the contract until it ends....
and when the contract ends.... how about the company announce it will no longer be playing the union game...and all positions are open for reapplication? New structuring of pay and benefits... take it or leave it.
I assume you would have no issue with that becasue they honored the union contract until it ended.... and a company now no longer wants to deal with a union.
I've been reading some of the other threads and the right has some good points, thinking about the SAG union and such. There has been quite some abuses by unions in recent years, however, the overall function of them has still remained a force of good.
We just need to somehow figure out the how-to of that.
But this partisan, "all unions are evil" or "all unions are perfect."
That's not gonna cut it.
Here's the solution: allow workers the CHOICE of union participation. That is what the unions are fighting against, and what Democrat state legislatures are calling for blood over. Allowing any third party to forcefully take dues out of a workers pay is wrong--plain and simple.
And the function of unions in modern society is irrelevant, with laws and federal organizations with billion dollar budgets dedicated to workplace safety. Toyota has been turning a profit making cars in America, while GM goes bailout...well not GM but the UAW.
I disagree and I do have first hand experience on both sides.
To directly answer your question which I thought I did by explaining what a bargained contract covers.
But to answer directly:
When a contract expires all parties are relieved of the contract's obligations. I support contract law. Syrenn, this is all just good old fashioned law. See Labor laws for even more understanding.
You can be not like behavior of groups or people but the premise of contractual labor law is sound and very American.
this question
so fine.... honor the contract until it ends....
and when the contract ends.... how about the company announce it will no longer be playing the union game...and all positions are open for reapplication? New structuring of pay and benefits... take it or leave it.
I assume you would have no issue with that becasue they honored the union contract until it ended.... and a company now no longer wants to deal with a union.
I have no issue with that potential happening at all. Why would you think I would? I support the rule of law and contract law in this case. Anyone who works within a contract understands that the legal ties end with the contract expiration. Most union contracts I have known are only 3 years long. Re-upping or extending the existing one is nothing new.
Don't you wonder why companies would re-negotiate a new contract if the workers within a union are so horrid. They often do contract again. Why is that? Do you know? Don't say anyone forces anyone because with no contract there can be no force.
To be honest, the right has a point in their opposition of unions, however they are wrong. They are correct in recognizing the dangers of unions. As with anything, like business or capitalism, unions can get out of control and power-hungry, and as such, should be curbed.
However, that's not to say that they should not exist, just as no one sensible would argue that businesses, or capitalism should not exist, they just need to be curbed...aka regulated, as the case may be.
It is true, that unions can foster a culture of laziness, I've witnessed it myself, being part of management in a prominent company in NY that most everyone has heard of when I lived there. People can get into the whole attitude of "well that's not my job on paper, so I'm not doing it." However, that really boils down to the individual, remember "Individual Responsibility" Republicans?
At the same time, unions have been a TREMENDOUS force of good in this country and others, creating certain standards for workers, destroying child-labor abuse, getting folks fair compensation, regulating the work week as far as how many hours an employer can force an employee to work, etc., etc., etc., the list is long. So therefore, there is a place for them.
The Republicans cannot come to the table expecting to do away with unions for good, that's not sensible, it's radical. At the same time Democrats must not feel that unions can do no wrong, they can, just as businesses can and do.
We just need to find a happy medium...that's the trick.
My 2 cents.
I've been reading some of the other threads and the right has some good points, thinking about the SAG union and such. There has been quite some abuses by unions in recent years, however, the overall function of them has still remained a force of good.
We just need to somehow figure out the how-to of that.
But this partisan, "all unions are evil" or "all unions are perfect."
That's not gonna cut it.
Here's the solution: allow workers the CHOICE of union participation. That is what the unions are fighting against, and what Democrat state legislatures are calling for blood over. Allowing any third party to forcefully take dues out of a workers pay is wrong--plain and simple.
And the function of unions in modern society is irrelevant, with laws and federal organizations with billion dollar budgets dedicated to workplace safety. Toyota has been turning a profit making cars in America, while GM goes bailout...well not GM but the UAW.
The rank and file can vote away the union with a vote of the membership if that is their wish and the majority vote the union out.
How many here have ever actually read any recent union/company negoatiated contract? If so please tell me which one if you will.
From what I understand about the MI law, it only changes two things. The employer does not have to act as a dues collector for the union, and the workers can not be forced as a condition of employment to join the union and pay dues.
A union should have no problems attracting workers to join if they prove they provide value for the money they collect in dues. Also why should a company be forced to expend their resources to act as a collection agent for the union?
Here's the solution: allow workers the CHOICE of union participation. That is what the unions are fighting against, and what Democrat state legislatures are calling for blood over. Allowing any third party to forcefully take dues out of a workers pay is wrong--plain and simple.
And the function of unions in modern society is irrelevant, with laws and federal organizations with billion dollar budgets dedicated to workplace safety. Toyota has been turning a profit making cars in America, while GM goes bailout...well not GM but the UAW.
The rank and file can vote away the union with a vote of the membership if that is their wish and the majority vote the union out.
How many here have ever actually read any recent union/company negoatiated contract? If so please tell me which one if you will.
rank and file..... is it their business? Is it the unions business?
question... are you a union rep or shop stewed?
Nope. Steward I presume you mean.
The rank and file can vote away the union with a vote of the membership if that is their wish and the majority vote the union out.
How many here have ever actually read any recent union/company negoatiated contract? If so please tell me which one if you will.
rank and file..... is it their business? Is it the unions business?
question... are you a union rep or shop stewed?
Shop stewed?
I am neither.
The union is the business of the membership, yes. Why are you laughing about rank and file? It's a legit term.
