The Right to Work for less money

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh whatthefuck ever. What about the right to work and not be forced to join a club, forced to pay for the privilege of being in that club and be told how to vote and think?

Obama's a ******* tool who is the lucky recipient of a gazillion union $$ confiscated from its brain-dead members... of course he's "pro-union".

Hey, I've got an idea. Instead of making government bigger by regulating business and labor even more - how about we allow people to make their own decisions about whether to apply for a union job or not, or whether to negotiate a union shop agreement?


Do you honestly think you have the freedom to not have jobs exists that you don't like?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Unions restrict job growth because they force employers to pay them out the nose to the point where hiring more workers is impossible.

They don't force employers to pay anything. If an employer does not want what the union has to offer at the price they are offering it they are FREE NOT TO BUY IT.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

I'm conflicted myself. Its not a coincidence that wages became stagnant about the same time unions began to lose membership.

Still, I think unions only have themselves to blame for their demise. Not from the side of the employers but from the side of the membership and their recruiting efforts that were and are weak.

 

[Koios]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

I'm conflicted myself. Its not a coincidence that wages became stagnant about the same time unions began to lose membership.

Still, I think unions only have themselves to blame for their demise. Not from the side of the employers but from the side of the membership and their recruiting efforts that were and are weak.

Not quite as simple as that. Much was done politically to alter public opinion, and create fear among workers with politics in economics drag (Supply Side / Trickle Down, for example).

And its impact is still significant: many fear higher wages will price them out their jobs, and make their Happy Meals $20. And it's bullshit, which relies solely on false, flat-cost psuedo-economics, that ignores the increased demand, economies of scale and competition that come into play, when median household incomes rise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh that. Gotcha.

Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.

But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.

Sorry for ******* with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.

Unions have long since outlived their usefulness... they, like every good cause before them, have become a racket whereby the select few extort a lot of money from their minions.

That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing inflation, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.

But there's an upside: we proved the ******* opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too ******* blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?

Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

I'm conflicted myself. Its not a coincidence that wages became stagnant about the same time unions began to lose membership.

Still, I think unions only have themselves to blame for their demise. Not from the side of the employers but from the side of the membership and their recruiting efforts that were and are weak.

Not quite as simple as that. Much was done politically to alter public opinion, and create fear among workers with politics in economics drag (Supply Side / Trickle Down, for example).

And its impact is still significant: many fear higher wages will price them out their jobs, and make their Happy Meals $20. And it's bullshit, which relies solely on false, flat-cost psuedo-economics, that ignores the increased demand, economies of scale and competition that come into play, when median household incomes rise.

Whatthefuckever... you're nuts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Unions have long since outlived their usefulness... they, like every good cause before them, have become a racket whereby the select few extort a lot of money from their minions.

That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing inflation, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.

But there's an upside: we proved the ******* opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too ******* blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?

Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?

So in other words the free market itself is fully capable of sorting out whether union-shop agreements are beneficial and we don't need the nanny state to dictate that?

 

[Koios]

Unions have long since outlived their usefulness... they, like every good cause before them, have become a racket whereby the select few extort a lot of money from their minions.

That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing inflation, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.

But there's an upside: we proved the ******* opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too ******* blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?

Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?

Because of public fear of unions, which was exploited in the 80s and continues today.

Meanwhile, Jet Blue and Southwest benefit from being smaller and smarter. They reduced costs by limiting themselves to lucrative routes, and not being everywhere on earth. Southwest also taught the industry a lesson on how to seat passengers more efficiently, while making it fun for travelers. And the real brain gem was Southwest's all 737 fleet. Only one type of replacement parts. Only one type of mechanic. Saved them beaucoup bux, while making Southwest #3, behind Delta and United. JetBlue doesn't even come close.

 

[Koios]

I'm conflicted myself. Its not a coincidence that wages became stagnant about the same time unions began to lose membership.

Still, I think unions only have themselves to blame for their demise. Not from the side of the employers but from the side of the membership and their recruiting efforts that were and are weak.

Not quite as simple as that. Much was done politically to alter public opinion, and create fear among workers with politics in economics drag (Supply Side / Trickle Down, for example).

And its impact is still significant: many fear higher wages will price them out their jobs, and make their Happy Meals $20. And it's bullshit, which relies solely on false, flat-cost psuedo-economics, that ignores the increased demand, economies of scale and competition that come into play, when median household incomes rise.

Whatthefuckever... you're nuts.

How so?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing inflation, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.

But there's an upside: we proved the ******* opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too ******* blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?

Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?

Because of public fear of unions, which was exploited in the 80s and continues today.

Meanwhile, Jet Blue and Southwest benefit from being smaller and smarter. They reduced costs by limiting themselves to lucrative routes, and not being everywhere on earth. Southwest also taught the industry a lesson on how to seat passengers more efficiently, while making it fun for travelers. And the real brain gem was Southwest's all 737 fleet. Only one type of replacement parts. Only one type of mechanic. Saved them beaucoup bux, while making Southwest #3, behind Delta and United. JetBlue doesn't even come close.

Fear? What fear? What on Earth are you talking about? Is this the "Reagan fired the ATC's and ruined it for everybody" speech?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not quite as simple as that. Much was done politically to alter public opinion, and create fear among workers with politics in economics drag (Supply Side / Trickle Down, for example).

And its impact is still significant: many fear higher wages will price them out their jobs, and make their Happy Meals $20. And it's bullshit, which relies solely on false, flat-cost psuedo-economics, that ignores the increased demand, economies of scale and competition that come into play, when median household incomes rise.

Whatthefuckever... you're nuts.

How so?

Simply put... if it were so great... union membership would be prevalent.. hell, it'd be in our self-interest. But it's not... and it is dropping as more and more states move away from it.

It's today's brontosaurus.

 

[Polk]

1) Read

2) Weep

'Since Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, signed the legislation making his state the nation’s 23rd right-to-work state in early February, Indiana has added about 43,000 jobs, while Michigan has lost about 7,300, said Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich.'

Indiana's move pushed Michigan on right-to-work - Washington Times


The genie is very much out of the bottle now.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Didn't read the article did you?

The article doesn't provide any support beyond circumstantial evidence.

 

[Gadawg73]

So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like ******* charm, in your case.

What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.

You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.

Oh that. Gotcha.

Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.

But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.

Sorry for ******* with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.

Rising wages always means rising prices.
If the cost of doing business rises with wages rising prices have to be raised.
The market sets the wage. I agree with your skills comments above.
The skills that the individual, not the group, has is what sets his wage.
The harder a worker works to educate themselves as to what the market demands for every set of skill the better chance that worker EARNS a good wage.
Nothing at all to do with unions.
I agree with your claims on getting skilled workers fast that know how to do a job and unions are a good source of that.
But not the only source so why limit to unions only to the consumer?
We do not want that, we want choice in who we want to choose to do OUR work.
Because we are the ones THAT PAY THE FREIGHT.
I use FORMER union workers every time I can doing repairs on my house. But the deck I just built was from a local guy.
Georgia is full of former union workers from up north. They came here because THE COST OF LIVING IS LOWER.
As it is in ALL right to work states.
Why? Refer back to the facts I stated above that the higher the wage the higher the cost of living.
Unions fucked themselves and their members.

 

[Bern80]

So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like ******* charm, in your case.

What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.

You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.

Oh that. Gotcha.

Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.

But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.

Sorry for ******* with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.

The notion that people learn from you I would also think comes with the notion that you're open enough to learn from others. I'll agree that a common goal of increased wages is fine and dandy, but that's where the agreement stops. We disagree on who is supposed to provide that outcome. As with most libs you believe it's someone elses job to ensure that outcome for people. I believe it's YOUR job to ensure the outcomes you want in your life.

So many of your statements are simpy observably false it's hard to know where to start, butI I'll give it a shot.

1) There is no group effort to increas median household income. And even if there was and it actually happened it wouldn't translate to more buying power for those people. If median income went up among a large chunck of households the market would respond to that by increasing the costs of goods and service right along with it. This stated pursuit to increase median household income with the notion that it will make things more affordable is a lie. What you want is simply for things to cost less or be in a better position to buy that and you want someone else to make that happen for you.

2) You imply that unions are one of few ways to increase wages above min wage. Also false. The other way, the MAIN way, wages go up beyond min wage is having a skill set that is worth more than min wage. If it were the case that unions are one of few ways to ensure that employers paid more than min wage then wages among NON-union works ought to be mostly at or near min wage. That is not the case. The reality is the majority of private sector, non-union labor makes MORE THAN minimum wage.

3) No, our value is not based on what we put into the economy. At least not according to your employer or the labor market at large. Wherever you work didn't hire based on how much money you're going to spend. They pay you based on what your skills are worth derived from factors such as the scarcity of that skill and the demand for that skill. The faster people like you learn that and behave accordingly the faster median income will rise.

But you're not gonna do that are you. You're going to insist that you should get paid more tomorrow for doing the same work you did yesterday.

 

[Koios]

Yeah, ok.... if it's so great, why is union density in the private sector around 7%? Why is one of the ONLY profitable airlines noticeably non-union? How are the sectors that unions dominate doing financially?

Because of public fear of unions, which was exploited in the 80s and continues today.

Meanwhile, Jet Blue and Southwest benefit from being smaller and smarter. They reduced costs by limiting themselves to lucrative routes, and not being everywhere on earth. Southwest also taught the industry a lesson on how to seat passengers more efficiently, while making it fun for travelers. And the real brain gem was Southwest's all 737 fleet. Only one type of replacement parts. Only one type of mechanic. Saved them beaucoup bux, while making Southwest #3, behind Delta and United. JetBlue doesn't even come close.

Fear? What fear? What on Earth are you talking about? Is this the "Reagan fired the ATC's and ruined it for everybody" speech?

Fear that unions were making workers too well paid, reducing product quality (fault of company product managers / designers and not wage-earning workers). Fear that higher wages were driving the high inflation of the late 70s and at the beginning of the 80s. Fear that service workers would organize and make burgers beyond our economic reach. And it was skillfully exploited by business interests who funded pseudo-economics (preconceived conclusions) which are little more that ad campaigns / politics in "economics" drag.

Does that help?

 

[Gadawg73]

Whatthefuckever... you're nuts.

How so?

Simply put... if it were so great... union membership would be prevalent.. hell, it'd be in our self-interest. But it's not... and it is dropping as more and more states move away from it.

It's today's brontosaurus.

Gramps always said that hot ***** was good and the demand for it was sky high.
He was a horny old bastard but he understood common sense.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Correlation does not prove causation.

Didn't read the article did you?

The article doesn't provide any support beyond circumstantial evidence.

Correlation does not imply causation: How the Internet fell in love with a stats-class cliché. - Slate Magazine

 

[Polk]

Most hi-tech jobs are non-union jobs and they pay extremely well.

.

No one is saying an industry has to be unionized to pay well. The technology sector requires a special skill set very few people have, so those people are able to command a wage premium (although, many of those jobs are being outsourced to China and India, so it may not be the boon it appears to be on the surface).

More to the point very few are willing to do what it takes to acquire this skill set. The solution to making more money, to the point where being in a union is irrelevent is exceedingly simple. You find out what jobs are in demand, that pay what you want and you go out and acquire the skill set necessary to do that job. It is not the high skill jobs that are going overseas. It is the low skill jobs, like manufacturing. If you want people's income to rise and the economy to improve you have to teach people these skills, instead of getting the american peopel to focus on this class warefare thing where people who are dependent on government think they should earn more without requiring more of themselves to do something that pretty much anyone else can do.

Making an argument about effort is weird, since many of the most highly-skilled sectors of the economy are de facto unionized (they just don't refer to themselves as unions). Doctors and lawyers are both organized in to guilds that control the amount of people who can enter the industry (doctors are more successful at this due to some court rulings, but that's another topic).

 

[Polk]

Okay, confession. I'm confused.

I thought the whole idea behind RTW was to outlaw businesses that require union membership as a condition of employment. Now you're saying no business in any state can make that requirement?

I need to do more research. I'm hearing conflicting messages.

It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.

But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."

That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?

What am I missing?

Workers cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment (see Taft-Hartley). They can, however, be required to pay a fee to the union for the costs of collective bargaining, since they are entitled to the benefits of said bargain even though they are not members of the union.

 

[MikeK]

Inasmuch as the "right to work" controversy is presently a major issue one would expect to see a lot of pro-union movies on television, such as:

How Green Was My Valley
The Grapes Of Wrath
Native Land
On The Waterfront
The Pajama Game
Harlan County USA
The Organizer
Norma Rae
Matewan
The Molly Maguires
Hoffa

But how many have we seen?

None.

And why? Because the television channels are corporate entities.

Some of you need to give some thought to that.