Why don't more companies oust their union(s)?

[manifold]

A lot of this union talk got me wondering what other nonsense might be bouncing around in the vacuous minds of many of our 'esteemed' colleagues here at USMB.

Please explain why you think more companies don't oust the union(s) they are contractually beholden to when those contracts expire.

The correct answer is simple and obvious, the value of the collective union labor force is too great to risk it. But I'd love to see what knd of utter bullshit some of you douchewagons can come up with on the subject. I dare you.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It is very very very hard to do so. I think the only way to do so is through bankruptcy.

The Union is certified as bargaining agent once they get more than 50% of the employees at a workplace to agree to it. Employers are not allowed to promote decertification. Only employees can initiate decertification petitions, may not do it on company premises, on company time, or have any company assistance. Any assistance given by the employer is considered coercion and is a sanctioned unfair labor practice.

The employer does not have to agree with the union on a contract. That is negotiated between the parties. However, Bad faith on the part of an employer is considered an unfair labor practice, and can be sanctioned by the NLRB.

After the contract expires, the employer still has to deal with the union as the sanctioned representative. Sometimes in cases of difficult negotiations both sides will continue with the old contract, but the union is still the employees union and there is nothing the employer can do about it.

What has been happening is that Union shops have been either going broke and out of business, or the companies have been moving the business out from under the union. A union shop in Ohio is represented by the local in Ohio. If the company moves the factory to Alabama, the workers and the union are left stranded in Ohio.

Also, many states have "right to work." laws. this means you are not obliged to join the union as a condition of employment, and the union can't extract dues from non members. In states without "right to work" laws, you pay dues to the union member or not. And in some states, the unions can require membership as condition of employment.

 

[manifold]

It is very very very hard to do so. I think the only way to do so is through bankruptcy.

The Union is certified as bargaining agent once they get more than 50% of the employees at a workplace to agree to it. I no of know method of decertifying.

The employer does not have to agree with the union on a contract. That is negotiated between the parties. However, Bad faith on the part of an employer is considered an unfair labor practice, and can be sanctioned by the NLRB.

After the contract expires, the employer still has to deal with the union as the sanctioned representative. Sometimes in cases of difficult negotiations both sides will continue with the old contract, but the union is still the employees union and there is nothing the employer can do about it.

What has been happening is that Union shops have been either going broke and out of business, or the companies have been moving the business out from under the union. A union shop in Ohio is represented by the local in Ohio. If the company moves the factory to Alabama, the workers and the union are left stranded in Ohio.

Also, many states have "right to work." laws. this means you are not obliged to join the union as a condition of employment, and the union can't extract dues from non members. In states without "right to work" laws, you pay dues to the union member or not. And in some states, the unions can require membership as condition of employment.

The point is they do have recourse, and some exercise it as you have described. So either more and more will do similarly, to the point that unions become a thing of the past, or they won't. And which way it goes will be dictated by market forces. So I'm left wondering why so many people seem to want to interfere with the market sorting itself out on this one over time.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

What recourse is that?

 

[manifold]

What recourse is that?

I still maintain that union contracts do not run in effective perpetuity as you argue they do. And a company willing to take the risk can wind-down existing contracts if they so choose. But regardless, you already outlined other potential avenues of recourse in your first post, such as moving the business elsewhere.

 

[syrenn]

Ever see what happens if you just try to re negotiate the "contract"? I give you the teachers union for an example. I hope you have been watching the news.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

You build a 20 million dollar factory, fill it full of equipment, arrange all kinds of logistics, and you move the whole thing on a whim?

Contracts are not perpetual. Representation is. Unless the membership is very fed with the union, and elect to decertify themselves, there is no recourse for the employer. The employer is not a party to the union representation of their staff.

Decertification elections do happen. I found a goofy website that says there are several hundred of them per year. And 65% of the time the union is decertified.

 

[manifold]

Ever see what happens if you just try to re negotiate the "contract"? I give you the teachers union for an example. I hope you have been watching the news.

you're funny

 

[manifold]

You build a 20 million dollar factory, fill it full of equipment, arrange all kinds of logistics, and you move the whole thing on a whim?

Contracts are not perpetual. Representation is. Unless the membership is very fed with the union, and elect to decertify themselves, there is no recourse for the employer. The employer is not a party to the union representation of their staff.

Decertification elections do happen. I found a goofy website that says there are several hundred of them per year. And 65% of the time the union is decertified.

Who said anything about a whim? Certainly not me.

I said their investment decisions will be dictated by market forces. And the first rule of investment analysis is to ignore sunk costs. I'm sure these companies have one or two senior level finance people that have taken Finance 101.

 

[daveman]

Union Membership in U.S. Fell to a 70-Year Low Last Year

The number of American workers in unions declined sharply last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday, with the percentage slipping to 11.9 percent, the lowest rate in more than 70 years.

The report found that the number of workers in unions fell by 612,000 last year to 14.7 million, an even larger decrease than the overall 417,000 decline in the total number of Americans working.

--

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the overall unionization rate last year was down from 12.3 percent in 2009 and 20.1 percent in 1983, when there were 17.7 million union members. The peak unionization rate was 35 percent during the mid-1950s, after a surge in unionization during the Great Depression and after World War II.

Last year’s drop in union membership stemmed partly from large-scale layoffs in several sectors with many union members, most notably construction, manufacturing, teaching and local government.

--

“Unionized companies obviously raise wages and benefits for their workers, and while they often raise productivity, typically they’re at a cost disadvantage, and unionized companies haven’t fared as well,” he said. “In addition, in an increasingly globalized, very fast-moving world, unionized companies may not be able to adjust as quickly.”

 

[Two Thumbs]

A lot of this union talk got me wondering what other nonsense might be bouncing around in the vacuous minds of many of our 'esteemed' colleagues here at USMB.

Please explain why you think more companies don't oust the union(s) they are contractually beholden to when those contracts expire.

The correct answer is simple and obvious, the value of the collective union labor force is too great to risk it. But I'd love to see what knd of utter bullshit some of you douchewagons can come up with on the subject. I dare you.

~ 1995, the Coal miners union wanted more pay. They wanted starting pay to jump from $20/hr to start to [I think] $25. The owners said they were having a hard enough time selling thier coal as is since the same kind was bing mined in KY at $12/hour.

So they told them no raises, the union said they would strike, the owners said you will be stiking in front of closed mines and that they would not sign the new contract.

The union struck. It took them ~6 weeks to figure out no one was going in or out.

Catapillar dumped thier union and vastly increased profits

 

[daveman]

A lot of this union talk got me wondering what other nonsense might be bouncing around in the vacuous minds of many of our 'esteemed' colleagues here at USMB.

Please explain why you think more companies don't oust the union(s) they are contractually beholden to when those contracts expire.

The correct answer is simple and obvious, the value of the collective union labor force is too great to risk it. But I'd love to see what knd of utter bullshit some of you douchewagons can come up with on the subject. I dare you.

~ 1995, the Coal miners union wanted more pay. They wanted starting pay to jump from $20/hr to start to [I think] $25. The owners said they were having a hard enough time selling thier coal as is since the same kind was bing mined in KY at $12/hour.

So they told them no raises, the union said they would strike, the owners said you will be stiking in front of closed mines and that they would not sign the new contract.

The union struck. It took them ~6 weeks to figure out no one was going in or out.

Catapillar dumped thier union and vastly increased profits

Unions haven't figured out that shooting yourself in the foot really doesn't stick it to The Man.

 

[Two Thumbs]

A lot of this union talk got me wondering what other nonsense might be bouncing around in the vacuous minds of many of our 'esteemed' colleagues here at USMB.

Please explain why you think more companies don't oust the union(s) they are contractually beholden to when those contracts expire.

The correct answer is simple and obvious, the value of the collective union labor force is too great to risk it. But I'd love to see what knd of utter bullshit some of you douchewagons can come up with on the subject. I dare you.

~ 1995, the Coal miners union wanted more pay. They wanted starting pay to jump from $20/hr to start to [I think] $25. The owners said they were having a hard enough time selling thier coal as is since the same kind was bing mined in KY at $12/hour.

So they told them no raises, the union said they would strike, the owners said you will be stiking in front of closed mines and that they would not sign the new contract.

The union struck. It took them ~6 weeks to figure out no one was going in or out.

Catapillar dumped thier union and vastly increased profits

Unions haven't figured out that shooting yourself in the foot really doesn't stick it to The Man.

Well, they didn't.

The union power in Dem controled Il is so great, that the state offered so much money to employers to hire and send to school [college] former miners. It happened shorty after my discharge. Imagine have 9 1/2 years of being a technician and not being able to get a job b/c the first thing you are asked; "Are you a coal miner?" and you have to say no.

Get more training or education? forget it. Miners had head of the line privaledges. I had to leave my home state to find work

It's a shame that the left supports such tyranny.

 

[daveman]

~ 1995, the Coal miners union wanted more pay. They wanted starting pay to jump from $20/hr to start to [I think] $25. The owners said they were having a hard enough time selling thier coal as is since the same kind was bing mined in KY at $12/hour.

So they told them no raises, the union said they would strike, the owners said you will be stiking in front of closed mines and that they would not sign the new contract.

The union struck. It took them ~6 weeks to figure out no one was going in or out.

Catapillar dumped thier union and vastly increased profits

Unions haven't figured out that shooting yourself in the foot really doesn't stick it to The Man.

Well, they didn't.

The union power in Dem controled Il is so great, that the state offered so much money to employers to hire and send to school [college] former miners. It happened shorty after my discharge. Imagine have 9 1/2 years of being a technician and not being able to get a job b/c the first thing you are asked; "Are you a coal miner?" and you have to say no.

Get more training or education? forget it. Miners had head of the line privaledges. I had to leave my home state to find work

It's a shame that the left supports such tyranny.

Democrats love buying votes with taxpayer money. It's the only way they remain viable as a political party.

 

[manifold]

A lot of this union talk got me wondering what other nonsense might be bouncing around in the vacuous minds of many of our 'esteemed' colleagues here at USMB.

Please explain why you think more companies don't oust the union(s) they are contractually beholden to when those contracts expire.

The correct answer is simple and obvious, the value of the collective union labor force is too great to risk it. But I'd love to see what knd of utter bullshit some of you douchewagons can come up with on the subject. I dare you.

~ 1995, the Coal miners union wanted more pay. They wanted starting pay to jump from $20/hr to start to [I think] $25. The owners said they were having a hard enough time selling thier coal as is since the same kind was bing mined in KY at $12/hour.

So they told them no raises, the union said they would strike, the owners said you will be stiking in front of closed mines and that they would not sign the new contract.

The union struck. It took them ~6 weeks to figure out no one was going in or out.

Catapillar dumped thier union and vastly increased profits

A perfect example of a union overestimating the value of it's labor pool, and suffering the consequences which once again, are dictated by the market. So again, why would anyone want to force the invisible hand of the market rather than letting it do its thing?

 

[Two Thumbs]

A lot of this union talk got me wondering what other nonsense might be bouncing around in the vacuous minds of many of our 'esteemed' colleagues here at USMB.

Please explain why you think more companies don't oust the union(s) they are contractually beholden to when those contracts expire.

The correct answer is simple and obvious, the value of the collective union labor force is too great to risk it. But I'd love to see what knd of utter bullshit some of you douchewagons can come up with on the subject. I dare you.

~ 1995, the Coal miners union wanted more pay. They wanted starting pay to jump from $20/hr to start to [I think] $25. The owners said they were having a hard enough time selling thier coal as is since the same kind was bing mined in KY at $12/hour.

So they told them no raises, the union said they would strike, the owners said you will be stiking in front of closed mines and that they would not sign the new contract.

The union struck. It took them ~6 weeks to figure out no one was going in or out.

Catapillar dumped thier union and vastly increased profits

A perfect example of a union overestimating the value of it's labor pool, and suffering the consequences which once again, are dictated by the market. So again, why would anyone want to force the invisible hand of the market rather than letting it do its thing?

Money.

There's tons of easy money to be made my dicking with the maket in a false fashion.

All the miners went to school for free, got UI, while in school and only had to work for thier employer for 6-12 months after wards.

 

[manifold]

~ 1995, the Coal miners union wanted more pay. They wanted starting pay to jump from $20/hr to start to [I think] $25. The owners said they were having a hard enough time selling thier coal as is since the same kind was bing mined in KY at $12/hour.

So they told them no raises, the union said they would strike, the owners said you will be stiking in front of closed mines and that they would not sign the new contract.

The union struck. It took them ~6 weeks to figure out no one was going in or out.

Catapillar dumped thier union and vastly increased profits

A perfect example of a union overestimating the value of it's labor pool, and suffering the consequences which once again, are dictated by the market. So again, why would anyone want to force the invisible hand of the market rather than letting it do its thing?

Money.

There's tons of easy money to be made my dicking with the maket in a false fashion.

All the miners went to school for free, got UI, while in school and only had to work for thier employer for 6-12 months after wards.

Are you saying that the government should have stepped in to keep the mine open?

 

[Two Thumbs]

A perfect example of a union overestimating the value of it's labor pool, and suffering the consequences which once again, are dictated by the market. So again, why would anyone want to force the invisible hand of the market rather than letting it do its thing?

Money.

There's tons of easy money to be made my dicking with the maket in a false fashion.

All the miners went to school for free, got UI, while in school and only had to work for thier employer for 6-12 months after wards.

Are you saying that the government should have stepped in to keep the mine open?

Oh HELL no.

The government (the state of Il) should have let the miners and the union, suffer the consequences of thier action to stike themselves outta business.

Instead the union went to the state and the miners got taken care of by the tax payer.

 

[manifold]

Money.

There's tons of easy money to be made my dicking with the maket in a false fashion.

All the miners went to school for free, got UI, while in school and only had to work for thier employer for 6-12 months after wards.

Are you saying that the government should have stepped in to keep the mine open?

Oh HELL no.

The government (the state of Il) should have let the miners and the union, suffer the consequences of thier action to stike themselves outta business.

Instead the union went to the state and the miners got taken care of by the tax payer.

That seems contradictory to what you initially said happened.

Got any links that might help clear up the confusion?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Are you saying that the government should have stepped in to keep the mine open?

Oh HELL no.

The government (the state of Il) should have let the miners and the union, suffer the consequences of thier action to stike themselves outta business.

Instead the union went to the state and the miners got taken care of by the tax payer.

That seems contradictory to what you initially said happened.

Got any links that might help clear up the confusion?

Sorry,
I've tried to find it online a few times before. And I come up with nothing or references to something like it at a different time or place.

What am I contradicting?

union wanted more
co said no
union stuck
co closed
union went to state for aid
State gave them aid
miners got free college and training
non-miners couldn't get jobs b/c of how much money the State paid employers