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

[daveman]

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.

Can you answer your own question? Do you have what you believe is the correct answer?

Of course. Neither worker has a greater right to work than the other.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[daveman]

Anybody know whether so-called "right to work" states pay more or less in federal income tax than they receive? I don't, but I'd wager that most, if not all of them receive more than they pay in.

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.

 

[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.

Since I didn't do that, I can only wonder why you said that to me.

Oh, yeah, I forgot where you held the unions accountable for their part in driving out industry.

Oh, wait...

 

[daveman]

To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

The collective identifies him as a member of the in-group and he has a card identifying him as such...

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

 

[manifold]

Anybody know whether so-called "right to work" states pay more or less in federal income tax than they receive? I don't, but I'd wager that most, if not all of them receive more than they pay in.

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.

 

[manifold]

You know what? I'm okay with that.

Now, about those unsustainable union wages...

As opposed to what? Unsustainable CEO wages?

We got two people in the US right now that control some 108 billion dollars.

That's a little off kilter.

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?

 

[Jack Fate]

As opposed to what? Unsustainable CEO wages?

We got two people in the US right now that control some 108 billion dollars.

That's a little off kilter.

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?

Union contracts are signed with the company, but what happens when the economy goes down and business goes down? Do the union demands go down? Not without a fight. Then you wonder why companies leave the country and call it greed.

 

[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?

Union contracts are signed with the company, but what happens when the economy goes down and business goes down? Do the union demands go down? Not without a fight. Then you wonder why companies leave the country and call it greed.

You mean like how many CEOs & executives of failed companies still get their bonus checks?

Only they don't even have to fight for them.

 

[Publius1787]

No

What you describe is more commonly called extortion.

Your exactly right but it happens all the time. You know why? Let me show you the madness.

1. A business votes to Unionize.
2. They collect the dues from those who want to be part of the union.
3. The business starts to descriminate against those who arent in the union because its easeyer to fire them as opposed to the union labor.
4. The union refuses to represent the guy who pays no dues.
5. Now both the union and the business are descriminating aginst the non unionized employee.
6. Both the union and the business are sued.
7. The union is busted and the business loses money.
8. The union goes to their state represenatives that they bought off with union dues.
9. The represenative and his buddies vote for legislation that forces everyone to pay dues reguardless of whether they are in a union or not.
10. The unions win and keep bribing polititions and increasing the prices of goods and services until the business becomes so uncompetitive that it has no choice but to move to a diffrent state or go overseas. Currently, moving overseas is leagle while moving to a different state is not. Funny how that works out huh? See Boeing.

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?

First of all, a business doesn't "vote to organize". The workers do. And usually, in RTW states the business will treat the "non-organized" employees better so that the rest will quit to get the union depleted of members. Hence they break the Union.

And your post also begs the question....."If UNIONS are the reason we cannot compete with nations like Mexico, are you saying that if we got rid of them we could compete with their labor costs"?

.

Labor costs will always be higher in the U.S. than they are overseas. Especially if the balance of trade isnt allowed to play out naturally.But what factor makes a business make the extra effort and pay the extra money to scrap shop and move somewhere else? Well, economies of scale for one but a unionised workforce makes it much more likely. Just look at the steel industry, the textiles, etc etc etc. I remember when a textile unionised in my home town after over a hundred years of operations. The owner fired everyone, closed his doors, and demolished the textile so no one else could open it. After all, all of his bills were paid and he had more than enough money to retire on. Good for him! After all of his familys sacrafice and risk taking in order to build, maintain, and operat the textile who the hell are the workers to tell them that theyre going to make demands on his property? Moreover, I love how liberals think that businesses arent people but workers are people. You certainly cant tax a brick wall.

 

[Publius1787]

no they shouldn't , which is why I am glad to live in a right to work state.

So why is this so popular among the left? And why hasnt anyone voted yes? If everyone agrees its a bad system then why not get rid of it? Is this so clear of a wrong that even leftists wont own up to it or attempt to defend it?

It's an excellent system. The poll question is worded improperly.

If an employer agrees to negotiate with an agency that represents the workers, then a person taking employment there has to pay dues to that agency as a condition of employment.

That's your employer's decision. That is employer's policy. You abide by it if you want to work there.

And what happenes if the emplyer refuses to negotiate? Theyre jobs are protected by rediculous union laws which prevents the business from fireing all the whining moochers who lack the skill and ability to establish, own, and operate a business of their own, yet see fit to make demands of those that do.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

That's illegal in right to work states. I've worked in both. I much prefer right to work states because I don't want my union dues going to candidate I do not support. That is un-American.

Taking money from your pay to support candidates you don't support is un-american?



So... you oppose public campaign financing for any candidate who doesn't sell out to corporate interests?

 

[Publius1787]

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.

So the union attached union memebership as a condition of work? And then theres those who refuse to join the union but receive the job and are still forced to pay dues. Yes at a lower rate but it makes no since nevertheless.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

So a man sacrafices and sweats and builds a business up to greatness and later refuses to negotioate with a newly established union. They go on strike and rediculous laws prevent the employer from fireing them. Thats some one sided negotiation.

 

[JBeukema]

To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

The collective identifies him as a member of the in-group and he has a card identifying him as such...

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?

 

[Publius1787]

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...

As opposed to what? Unsustainable CEO wages?

We got two people in the US right now that control some 108 billion dollars.

That's a little off kilter.

One problem. The CEO is elected by those who OWN the business if he doesent have a majority steak allready. So how he descides to run the business in accordance with his or the other majoruty owners will is certainly none of your consern.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

 

[JBeukema]

The following illegal alien sympathizers don't believe I should need permission from the collective to work:
asterism, Avorysuds, bripat9643, CaféAuLait, candycorn, Charles_Main, cutter, daveman, Dont Taz Me Bro, freedombecki, Granny, Jack Fate, Jazmine, Lucky#13, Momanohedhunter, Publius1787, Quantum Windbag, RadiomanATL, RetiredGySgt, Rozman, Skull Pilot, Steelplate, syrenn, TheBrain, thereisnospoon, WillowTree

 

[Anachronism]

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.

Additionally, the fact that the Union member has to still meet the qualifications to do the job in order to get it. The phrase... "Qualified by Fitness and Ability" is a very important one. We had a number ofUnion members bid on that Maps & Records job I mentioned earlier. None if them met the qualifications, so now it's going to the street.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

The fact they took a risk, organized, and stood up for their right to negotiate working conditions.

As to the OP, you have no right to work. An employer has the right to hire and fire as he wishes inside the boundaries of the law. If the condition of employment as set by the employer is union membership, then if you what the job you join, or look for a new job.

The folks that tend to argue for a right to work are the Communists. Free market supporters understand there is no inherent right to work, only a right to employ others as you see fit.

 

[daveman]

Anybody know whether so-called "right to work" states pay more or less in federal income tax than they receive? I don't, but I'd wager that most, if not all of them receive more than they pay in.

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?