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

[Big Black Dog]

No. I think unions are nothing more than organized thugs and originally did much to help the work force in America but these days are the biggest reason the country is going down the tubes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Strawman OP.

Nobody has ever been forced to join a union.

Generally where an employer has contracted to negotiate with a union you can be required to pay agency fees, but you can't be forced to join the uniion or forced to pay the portion of union dues that would go to activities such as political lobbying.

In New York they generally offer you that opt out opportunity a the time of your hiring.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, you just don't get it.

I have to make up my own interpretation since you refuse to elaborate.

Non-union workers have more right to work because there are more non-union jobs in America.

Ok? Feel better?

 

[daveman]

Right to work where? Your question makes no sense.

No, you just don't get it.

I have to make up my own interpretation since you refuse to elaborate.

Non-union workers have more right to work because there are more non-union jobs in America.

Ok? Feel better?

Not what I was after but I suppose it will have to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. I think unions are nothing more than organized thugs and originally did much to help the work force in America but these days are the biggest reason the country is going down the tubes.

The going down the tubes you're referring to is that fact that our unions are losing what they gained (that 'much to help the work force' you refer to) to foreign work forces because those workers are forced to work under conditions that existed prior to when our labor unions, in the past,

won their battles to get rid of those conditions.

The country is not going down the tubes from the conservative perspective. It is merely going to where conservatives want it to go...

...to being a place where the mass of the working class works at low wages, with few benefits, and little job security,

where corporations/employers are the supreme authority over workers, to the detriment of workers' rights, protections, and privileges,

and to where the government is generally aligned as an ally to business/corporate/employer/ownership interests, to the detriment of wage earners, workers, labor, etc.

 

[daveman]

No. I think unions are nothing more than organized thugs and originally did much to help the work force in America but these days are the biggest reason the country is going down the tubes.

The going down the tubes you're referring to is that fact that our unions are losing what they gained (that 'much to help the work force' you refer to) to foreign work forces because those workers are forced to work under conditions that existed prior to when our labor unions, in the past,

won their battles to get rid of those conditions.

The country is not going down the tubes from the conservative perspective. It is merely going to where conservatives want it to go...

...to being a place where the mass of the working class works at low wages, with few benefits, and little job security,

where corporations/employers are the supreme authority over workers, to the detriment of workers' rights, protections, and privileges,

and to where the government is generally aligned as an ally to business/corporate/employer/ownership interests, to the detriment of wage earners, workers, labor, etc.

If your demands for high wages and benefits drive a company overseas or out of business entirely, who is benefiting? Haven't you shot yourself in the foot?

Maybe we should just legally force companies to stay in the country and stay in business, regardless of whether or not they can meet payroll. Or, heck, cut out the middleman and nationalize everything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you just don't get it.

I have to make up my own interpretation since you refuse to elaborate.

Non-union workers have more right to work because there are more non-union jobs in America.

Ok? Feel better?

Not what I was after but I suppose it will have to do.

Well, your question was rhetorical, designed to make a point rather than to elicit an answer,

so your best bet is to just try making your point in a different fashion.

 

[Sallow]

Not sure what you are getting at..at various times to get employment I had to:
-Submit a urine sample.
-Sign confidentially agreements.
-Submit to FBI background checks.
-Submit to credit checks.
-Allow companies to question former employers and friends.

These things I have done to secure various positions. I wasn't "forced" but if I wanted to work..I had to do it. Where's the opposition to those things?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. I think unions are nothing more than organized thugs and originally did much to help the work force in America but these days are the biggest reason the country is going down the tubes.

The going down the tubes you're referring to is that fact that our unions are losing what they gained (that 'much to help the work force' you refer to) to foreign work forces because those workers are forced to work under conditions that existed prior to when our labor unions, in the past,

won their battles to get rid of those conditions.

The country is not going down the tubes from the conservative perspective. It is merely going to where conservatives want it to go...

...to being a place where the mass of the working class works at low wages, with few benefits, and little job security,

where corporations/employers are the supreme authority over workers, to the detriment of workers' rights, protections, and privileges,

and to where the government is generally aligned as an ally to business/corporate/employer/ownership interests, to the detriment of wage earners, workers, labor, etc.

If your demands for high wages and benefits drive a company overseas or out of business entirely, who is benefiting? Haven't you shot yourself in the foot?

Maybe we should just legally force companies to stay in the country and stay in business, regardless of whether or not they can meet payroll. Or, heck, cut out the middleman and nationalize everything.

What we should do (and yes I know we won't) is only have 'free trade' agreements with nations whose labor laws are reasonably comparable with ours. The remainder should be subject to tariffs or somesuch penalty in order to do business in the U.S., i.e., export here.

Blaming unions because US companies can't compete with 50 cents an hour labor wages overseas is silly.

 

[Anachronism]

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

As a Union Member myself, nobody is Forced to join a Union. There are any number of jobs where if you choose not to join, you are no longer eligible for the job, but that is not a matter of Force.

 

[Jack Fate]

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

As a Union Member myself, nobody is Forced to join a Union. There are any number of jobs where if you choose not to join, you are no longer eligible for the job, but that is not a matter of Force.

That is called coercion, which is force by another name.

 

[daveman]

I have to make up my own interpretation since you refuse to elaborate.

Non-union workers have more right to work because there are more non-union jobs in America.

Ok? Feel better?

Not what I was after but I suppose it will have to do.

Well, your question was rhetorical, designed to make a point rather than to elicit an answer,

so your best bet is to just try making your point in a different fashion.

No, it was not a rhetorical question. But thanks for the mind-reading act.

 

[daveman]

The going down the tubes you're referring to is that fact that our unions are losing what they gained (that 'much to help the work force' you refer to) to foreign work forces because those workers are forced to work under conditions that existed prior to when our labor unions, in the past,

won their battles to get rid of those conditions.

The country is not going down the tubes from the conservative perspective. It is merely going to where conservatives want it to go...

...to being a place where the mass of the working class works at low wages, with few benefits, and little job security,

where corporations/employers are the supreme authority over workers, to the detriment of workers' rights, protections, and privileges,

and to where the government is generally aligned as an ally to business/corporate/employer/ownership interests, to the detriment of wage earners, workers, labor, etc.

If your demands for high wages and benefits drive a company overseas or out of business entirely, who is benefiting? Haven't you shot yourself in the foot?

Maybe we should just legally force companies to stay in the country and stay in business, regardless of whether or not they can meet payroll. Or, heck, cut out the middleman and nationalize everything.

What we should do (and yes I know we won't) is only have 'free trade' agreements with nations whose labor laws are reasonably comparable with ours. The remainder should be subject to tariffs or somesuch penalty in order to do business in the U.S., i.e., export here.

Blaming unions because US companies can't compete with 50 cents an hour labor wages overseas is silly.

And pretending that unions have had no role in driving companies out is silly, too.

 

[Anachronism]

Gee, that's interesting. Here's how it has worked in the business I am in...

1. A Department inside the company votes to Unionize.
2. They and the company agree on a contract that is then ratified by the members of that department.
3. 30 Days after the contract is ratified the Union starts collecting the dues from those who are now part of the union.
4. The business starts to descriminate against those who arent in the union because its easeyer to fire them as opposed to the union labor.
5. The department or individuals being discriminated against consider joining the Union themselves.

I've been involved in the Unionization of three different departments in the company I work for..... Engineering, Relay, and now Dispatch & Control.

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?

Very simply because the company has agreed to deal with the employees as a group rather than as individuals. Strikes do not generally occur outside of negotiations. Wildcat Strikes are very rare. At the time a negotiations strike occurs there is no legitimate contract in place, so there is no requirement for those people to be working. Now generally a strike is a last resort, after extensive negotiations, but at times it's necessary to get the point across.

 

[Mr Natural]

They shouldn't be forced to join but they're fools if they don't.

And if they choose not to join, then they shouldn't get any of the benefits their union colleagues fight for.

 

[Sallow]

If your demands for high wages and benefits drive a company overseas or out of business entirely, who is benefiting? Haven't you shot yourself in the foot?

Maybe we should just legally force companies to stay in the country and stay in business, regardless of whether or not they can meet payroll. Or, heck, cut out the middleman and nationalize everything.

What we should do (and yes I know we won't) is only have 'free trade' agreements with nations whose labor laws are reasonably comparable with ours. The remainder should be subject to tariffs or somesuch penalty in order to do business in the U.S., i.e., export here.

Blaming unions because US companies can't compete with 50 cents an hour labor wages overseas is silly.

And pretending that unions have had no role in driving companies out is silly, too.

They didn't.

The 50 cent an hour wage did.

As well as laws allowing companies to exploit that.

 

[Anachronism]

That is called coercion, which is force by another name.

Not at all. We just posted two Maps & Records jobs that are Union positions. They've been posted internally without being filled so they're going to the street. The ad specifically states it's contractually a Union position. Anyone who doesn't want to join the Union doesn't have to apply.

 

[daveman]

What we should do (and yes I know we won't) is only have 'free trade' agreements with nations whose labor laws are reasonably comparable with ours. The remainder should be subject to tariffs or somesuch penalty in order to do business in the U.S., i.e., export here.

Blaming unions because US companies can't compete with 50 cents an hour labor wages overseas is silly.

And pretending that unions have had no role in driving companies out is silly, too.

They didn't.

The 50 cent an hour wage did.

Not really. Union wages made industry unsustainable. The 50 cent an hour wage made them more profitable.

As well as laws allowing companies to exploit that.

You'd like to make it illegal? How?

 

[Sallow]

And pretending that unions have had no role in driving companies out is silly, too.

They didn't.

The 50 cent an hour wage did.

Not really. Union wages made industry unsustainable. The 50 cent an hour wage made them more profitable.

As well as laws allowing companies to exploit that.

You'd like to make it illegal? How?

Doesn't have to be "illegal". You want to employ 50 cent an hour workers? Guess what..no more government contracts, grants or loans.

You'd see a very quick change in corporate policy.

 

[daveman]

They didn't.

The 50 cent an hour wage did.

Not really. Union wages made industry unsustainable. The 50 cent an hour wage made them more profitable.

As well as laws allowing companies to exploit that.

You'd like to make it illegal? How?

Doesn't have to be "illegal". You want to employ 50 cent an hour workers? Guess what..no more government contracts, grants or loans.

You'd see a very quick change in corporate policy.

You know what? I'm okay with that.

Now, about those unsustainable union wages...