The Right to Work for less money

[eflatminor]

Question: Is there anything that says non union employees must be compensated the same as union employees in a RTW state? In other words, if an employer wants to pay his union employees a higher overall compensation than his non union employees, is he not free to do so?

 

[Koios]

Question: Is there anything that says non union employees must be compensated the same as union employees in a RTW state? In other words, if an employer wants to pay his union employees a higher overall compensation than his non union employees, is he not free to do so?

I beleive union shops pay all workers on the the same scale, vis a vis the union contract.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Question: Is there anything that says non union employees must be compensated the same as union employees in a RTW state? In other words, if an employer wants to pay his union employees a higher overall compensation than his non union employees, is he not free to do so?

He is, I presume.

But he's not free to offer a union shop agreement to the union in exchange for some other thing that he wants (lower wages or raises, less benefits, or whatever free market forces dictate).


This is a case of the state 'picking winners' in the market - and to a detrimental effect. While there are exceptions, in general RTW states have lower wages and more sluggish economies.

 

[eflatminor]

Question: Is there anything that says non union employees must be compensated the same as union employees in a RTW state? In other words, if an employer wants to pay his union employees a higher overall compensation than his non union employees, is he not free to do so?

I beleive union shops pay all workers on the the same scale, vis a vis the union contract.

Why would the union put into place a contract in a RTW state that guarantees non members get the same compensation and benefits as their members do. That seems illogical.

What I'm wondering is, are employers in RTW states required by law to pay union members and non union members the same?

 

[Koios]

Question: Is there anything that says non union employees must be compensated the same as union employees in a RTW state? In other words, if an employer wants to pay his union employees a higher overall compensation than his non union employees, is he not free to do so?

I beleive union shops pay all workers on the the same scale, vis a vis the union contract.

Why would the union put into place a contract in a RTW state that guarantees non members get the same compensation and benefits as their members do. That seems illogical.

What I'm wondering is, are employers in RTW states required by law to pay union members and non union members the same?

So that their members are not priced out of the job. Non union folks can be brought in, temporarily, but at the same cost. (no economic benefit to employer for hiring non-members). RTW merely remove the provision that non union can only be temporary. The idea, and all it accomplishes, is to starve unions of funds, by lowering dues they collect.

Republicans got on the union-hate bandwagon, largely because teachers unions sided with Dems and became a huge force of motivated volunteers for getting out the vote on election day. And it's kinda short sighted, since union johnny lunchbuckets were Reagan Dems and Reps, by a large margin. Hell; Alaska is a Red State and has the highest level of unionization of all 50 states. Kinda stupid, but something we've come to expect from Republicans, whose stupidity never ceases to amaze.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The non union workers get the benefits that the union workers end up paying for.

Sort of like when 1/2 the country pays income taxes and the rest get the benefits.

The more anti-labor types succeed in driving down wages,

the less taxes those workers pay and the more benefits they qualify for.

If you're making good money, anti-union success just shifts more of the tax burden on you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember back in the days of the Wisconsin labor stuff?

Remember when conservatives around here liked to say that it wasn't the private sector unions they had a problem with,

it was ONLY those public sector unions?

Remember that? Remember how some of us told them they were full of shit?

Well, they were.

 

[Bern80]

I beleive union shops pay all workers on the the same scale, vis a vis the union contract.

Why would the union put into place a contract in a RTW state that guarantees non members get the same compensation and benefits as their members do. That seems illogical.

What I'm wondering is, are employers in RTW states required by law to pay union members and non union members the same?

So that their members are not priced out of the job. Non union folks can be brought in, temporarily, but at the same cost. (no economic benefit to employer for hiring non-members). RTW merely remove the provision that non union can only be temporary. The idea, and all it accomplishes, is to starve unions of funds, by lowering dues they collect.

Republicans got on the union-hate bandwagon, largely because teachers unions sided with Dems and became a huge force of motivated volunteers for getting out the vote on election day. And it's kinda short sighted, since union johnny lunchbuckets were Reagan Dems and Reps, by a large margin. Hell; Alaska is a Red State and has the highest level of unionization of all 50 states. Kinda stupid, but something we've come to expect from Republicans, whose stupidity never ceases to amaze.

The only stupidity here is the notion that this is somehow a bad thing. Now a person gets to work for an employer that is mostly unionized with the confidence that they will succeed or fail on their own merits. The fact that you wouldn't reply to my earlier post suggest your running out of legs to stand on in this debate.

 

[Bern80]

The non union workers get the benefits that the union workers end up paying for.

Sort of like when 1/2 the country pays income taxes and the rest get the benefits.

The more anti-labor types succeed in driving down wages,

the less taxes those workers pay and the more benefits they qualify for.

If you're making good money, anti-union success just shifts more of the tax burden on you.

Assuming one wishes to lower their expectations of their fellow man to the point where the assume everyone else has no choice but to be dependent on government, I suppose, yes, you're right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The non union workers get the benefits that the union workers end up paying for.

Sort of like when 1/2 the country pays income taxes and the rest get the benefits.

The more anti-labor types succeed in driving down wages,

the less taxes those workers pay and the more benefits they qualify for.

If you're making good money, anti-union success just shifts more of the tax burden on you.

Assuming one wishes to lower their expectations of their fellow man to the point where the assume everyone else has no choice but to be dependent on government, I suppose, yes, you're right.

If you're working for less money, you pay lower taxes. The poorer the working class gets,

the bigger the share of our taxes gets paid by the upper income taxpayers.

 

[Bern80]

The more anti-labor types succeed in driving down wages,

the less taxes those workers pay and the more benefits they qualify for.

If you're making good money, anti-union success just shifts more of the tax burden on you.

Assuming one wishes to lower their expectations of their fellow man to the point where the assume everyone else has no choice but to be dependent on government, I suppose, yes, you're right.

If you're working for less money, you pay lower taxes. The poorer the working class gets,

the bigger the share of our taxes gets paid by the upper income taxpayers.

Which rides upon the assumption that all of the people making less money will stay there and will become government dependents because according to your argument they would have to be too stupid for any other outcome to be possible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't about the right to work for less money.

Wages are lower in RTW states.

It's about the right to work and not being forced to join a union.

That right exists in all 50 states. Its called IF YOU DON'T WANT A UNION JOB DON'T APPLY FOR ONE AT A UNION SHOP. Take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and quite WHINING.

Michigan has the highest rate of unionization, and the highest unemployment, in the Midwest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 productivity, 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?

They did a wonderful job of growing the middle class in Detroit, didn't they?

 

[Jarhead]

Remember back in the days of the Wisconsin labor stuff?

Remember when conservatives around here liked to say that it wasn't the private sector unions they had a problem with,

it was ONLY those public sector unions?

Remember that? Remember how some of us told them they were full of shit?

Well, they were.

No...I dont recall anyone saying it was only public sector unions. Maybe onbe or two...but I didnt see it.

All I know is we now have so many HR laws on the books, unions are no longer an asset...and they know it., so they create issues where issues dont exist.

 

[Koios]

Why would the union put into place a contract in a RTW state that guarantees non members get the same compensation and benefits as their members do. That seems illogical.

What I'm wondering is, are employers in RTW states required by law to pay union members and non union members the same?

So that their members are not priced out of the job. Non union folks can be brought in, temporarily, but at the same cost. (no economic benefit to employer for hiring non-members). RTW merely remove the provision that non union can only be temporary. The idea, and all it accomplishes, is to starve unions of funds, by lowering dues they collect.

Republicans got on the union-hate bandwagon, largely because teachers unions sided with Dems and became a huge force of motivated volunteers for getting out the vote on election day. And it's kinda short sighted, since union johnny lunchbuckets were Reagan Dems and Reps, by a large margin. Hell; Alaska is a Red State and has the highest level of unionization of all 50 states. Kinda stupid, but something we've come to expect from Republicans, whose stupidity never ceases to amaze.

The only stupidity here is the notion that this is somehow a bad thing. Now a person gets to work for an employer that is mostly unionized with the confidence that they will succeed or fail on their own merits. The fact that you wouldn't reply to my earlier post suggest your running out of legs to stand on in this debate.

For the union it is a bad thing, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to their dues-paying members.

For Republicans it is stupid, since many of the angry white males they're pandering to are union joes. But since all Republicans have the IQs of vegetables, many of those union Reps just say they hate the union and having to pay dues, while enjoying the higher pay and benefits. Contradictions are no problemo in service of a comforting delusion.

Meanwhile, as a former marketing executive, I like high wages, since it grows the market and creates something companies can invest in to get after. Unions only create upward pressure, and thus benefit somewhat, markets, that all businesses rely on to be successful. The problem is it's unlevel, but was thought to be a market-based alternative to being commie, back in the day. The thought was that if both management and workers had a say, the natural balance of those forces would achieve pay for actual worth.

Ideally, we'd set wage minimums nationally, to raise the value of the market (middle class) in a way that's balanced, so employers paying wages that add value in service to other companies, get back from the other companies, an equal contribution to the value chain. That would be my preferred. But failing that, thank goodness workers are carrying the water for us, and organizing to a degree, helping to mitigate somewhat our shrinking middle class wealth, which ***** companies in the ass, since we cneed ustomers who can afford to buy our shit.

None too complicated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why don't you take a look at what the most unionized city in America looks like right now? Didn't the police of Detroit describe it as "war like." or was that some other city?

 

[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 productivity, 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?

They did a wonderful job of growing the middle class in Detroit, didn't they?

No. We fucked Detroit. They paid good wages so auto workers coould buy the stuff our companies make. But we, to an increasing degree did not reciprocate, and pay such that our workers could buy new cars every coupla years or whatever. Also we bought foriegn cars, thinking they'd last longer, since now we're ******* ourselves and Detroit in the ass with our lower wages, and needing our cheap Japanese rollerskate to last 15 years.

 

[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.

Hollywood is all union Moe. All actors, workers, EVERYONE. You can not go on to any set, build anything or do anything out there or anywhere without unions doing EVERYTHING.

I'm talking about television. Not Hollywood. I'm talking about showing the films, not making them.

Have you seen any of the films I've listed. If so, which one(s)? And what are your thoughts?

 

[Bern80]

So that their members are not priced out of the job. Non union folks can be brought in, temporarily, but at the same cost. (no economic benefit to employer for hiring non-members). RTW merely remove the provision that non union can only be temporary. The idea, and all it accomplishes, is to starve unions of funds, by lowering dues they collect.

Republicans got on the union-hate bandwagon, largely because teachers unions sided with Dems and became a huge force of motivated volunteers for getting out the vote on election day. And it's kinda short sighted, since union johnny lunchbuckets were Reagan Dems and Reps, by a large margin. Hell; Alaska is a Red State and has the highest level of unionization of all 50 states. Kinda stupid, but something we've come to expect from Republicans, whose stupidity never ceases to amaze.

The only stupidity here is the notion that this is somehow a bad thing. Now a person gets to work for an employer that is mostly unionized with the confidence that they will succeed or fail on their own merits. The fact that you wouldn't reply to my earlier post suggest your running out of legs to stand on in this debate.

For the union it is a bad thing, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to their dues-paying members.

For Republicans it is stupid, since many of the angry white males they're pandering to are union joes. But since all Republicans have the IQs of vegetables, many of those union Reps just say they hate the union and having to pay dues, while enjoying the higher pay and benefits. Contradictions are no problemo in service of a comforting delusion.

Meanwhile, as a former marketing executive, I like high wages, since it grows the market and creates something companies can invest in to get after. Unions only create upward pressure, and thus benefit somewhat, markets, businesses rely on to be successful. The problem is it's unlevel, but was thought to be a market-based alternative to being commie, back in the day. The thought was that if both management and workers had a say, the natural balance of those forces would achieve pay for actual worth.

Ideally, we'd set wage minimums nationally, to raise the value of the market (middle class) in a way that's balanced, so employers paying wages that add value in service of other companies, get back from the other companies, and equal contribution to the value chain. That would be my preferred. But failing that, thank goodness workers are carrying the water for us, and organizing to a degree, helping to mitigate to a degree our shrinking middle class wealth, which **** companies in the ass, since we customers who can afford to buy our shit.

None too complicated.

But what you are contending we should do simply doesn't work that way. The value of something can not be set arbitrarily. For the guy that claims to have studied economics I would think you would understand this concept. The value of anything is determined by scarcity and demand. Something's value, labor in this case, can't arbitrarily jump from $10/hr to $15/hr without one of those other factors changing as well. This is basic supply and demand curve stuff, which they teach in basic econ which you claimed to have studied. And even if some law were passed that made that happen it wouldn't have the outcome you think it would. Wage increases to that extent across such so much of labor force don't happen in a vacuum. The costs of goods and services are going to go up accordingly. In short raising minimum wages is a) immoral because you don't have the right to be the only person in the transaction that gets a say in what you make and b) it's impossible because you can't raise the cost of something in vacuum and expect that all other market conditions are going to remain where they were before you arbitrarily raised wages.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The only stupidity here is the notion that this is somehow a bad thing. Now a person gets to work for an employer that is mostly unionized with the confidence that they will succeed or fail on their own merits. The fact that you wouldn't reply to my earlier post suggest your running out of legs to stand on in this debate.

For the union it is a bad thing, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to their dues-paying members.

For Republicans it is stupid, since many of the angry white males they're pandering to are union joes. But since all Republicans have the IQs of vegetables, many of those union Reps just say they hate the union and having to pay dues, while enjoying the higher pay and benefits. Contradictions are no problemo in service of a comforting delusion.

Meanwhile, as a former marketing executive, I like high wages, since it grows the market and creates something companies can invest in to get after. Unions only create upward pressure, and thus benefit somewhat, markets, businesses rely on to be successful. The problem is it's unlevel, but was thought to be a market-based alternative to being commie, back in the day. The thought was that if both management and workers had a say, the natural balance of those forces would achieve pay for actual worth.

Ideally, we'd set wage minimums nationally, to raise the value of the market (middle class) in a way that's balanced, so employers paying wages that add value in service of other companies, get back from the other companies, and equal contribution to the value chain. That would be my preferred. But failing that, thank goodness workers are carrying the water for us, and organizing to a degree, helping to mitigate to a degree our shrinking middle class wealth, which **** companies in the ass, since we customers who can afford to buy our shit.

None too complicated.

But what you are contending we should do simply doesn't work that way. The value of something can not be set arbitrarily. For the guy that claims to have studied economics I would think you would understand this concept. The value of anything is determined by scarcity and demand. Something's value, labor in this case, can't arbitrarily jump from $10/hr to $15/hr without one of those other factors changing as well. This is basic supply and demand curve stuff, which they teach in basic econ which you claimed to have studied. And even if some law were passed that made that happen it wouldn't have the outcome you think it would. Wage increases to that extent across such so much of labor force don't happen in a vacuum. The costs of goods and services are going to go up accordingly. In short raising minimum wages is a) immoral because you don't have the right to be the only person in the transaction that gets a say in what you make and b) it's impossible because you can't raise the cost of something in vacuum and expect that all other market conditions are going to remain where they were before you arbitrarily raised wages.

That's some nice theory.