The Right to Work for less money

[Dick Tuck]

Self respect means sticking my children with the bill for my stupidity?

Since when?

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

You seem to think that union contracts work by magic to fund public sector pensions. I disagree.

What ******* state, or the federal government, will contract, in a legally binding way, that it can be just shitcaned.

You might as well argue that contracts are bullshit.

 

[MikeK]

What is wrong about giving the person a choice???

This is what this is about.

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.
The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

But their representatives do. Just as management represents the employer's corporate shareholders in the same negotiation.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The fight in Michigan wasn't over whether someone had to join a union or not. Michigan laws allowed employees to opt out of joining the union. But they were still charged union dues every month and the money went to the union. That's what the fight in Michigan was about. It was about depriving the unions of the money they were getting from non union employees. Ostensibly it was because non union members were getting the benefit of belonging to a union and should be paying dues, or the equivalent of dues.

Non union employees are free to negotiate their own employment terms, free of the unions and the unions don't want some workaholic undermining union employees by working harder and making more money.

Let's try this hypothesis:

The employees of a company were earning $7.50 an hour until they organized and formed (or brought in) a union, which achieved an increase to $15 an hour -- plus a lot of additional benefits like a 40 hour week, overtime pay, paid holidays, paid vacation, coffee breaks, etc. The union contract allowed the company to hire non-union workers who enjoyed the same benefits the union members had fought and sacrificed to achieve but the non-union workers are required to pay the same dues as active union members.

Based on the pre-union rate, a 40 hour week at $7.50 an hour would gross $300 (with no benefits). Based on the unionized rate a 40 hour week at $15 an hour grosses $600 -- with a lot of valuable benefits. But the union dues are $12 a week, which the non-union workers are complaining about!

Does that clarify the situation a bit? The scabs are paying the union $12 for getting them $300 more than they would be getting were it not for the union, not to mention a host of extremely valuable benefits.

These people walk into a $15 an hour job, or a $30 an hour job, and don't give a moment's thought about how that hourly rate, and all the benefits, came about! They think the employer is simply benevolent.

Interesting. Perhaps the Union's trump card would be to negotiate the scabs down to minimum Walmart wage, and tell those who don't want a professional advocate to pound sand. But you're right.

I've still yet to meet a trade worker who'd rather not be represented by an advocate to negotiate wage/benefit. It would be interesting to see schools and public safety manned by scabs who were willing to negotiate the least.

 

[Koios]

The fight in Michigan wasn't over whether someone had to join a union or not. Michigan laws allowed employees to opt out of joining the union. But they were still charged union dues every month and the money went to the union. That's what the fight in Michigan was about. It was about depriving the unions of the money they were getting from non union employees. Ostensibly it was because non union members were getting the benefit of belonging to a union and should be paying dues, or the equivalent of dues.

Non union employees are free to negotiate their own employment terms, free of the unions and the unions don't want some workaholic undermining union employees by working harder and making more money.

Let's try this hypothesis:

The employees of a company were earning $7.50 an hour until they organized and formed (or brought in) a union, which achieved an increase to $15 an hour -- plus a lot of additional benefits like a 40 hour week, overtime pay, paid holidays, paid vacation, coffee breaks, etc. The union contract allowed the company to hire non-union workers who enjoyed the same benefits the union members had fought and sacrificed to achieve but the non-union workers are required to pay the same dues as active union members.

Based on the pre-union rate, a 40 hour week at $7.50 an hour would gross $300 (with no benefits). Based on the unionized rate a 40 hour week at $15 an hour grosses $600 -- with a lot of valuable benefits. But the union dues are $12 a week, which the non-union workers are complaining about!

Does that clarify the situation a bit? The scabs are paying the union $12 for getting them $300 more than they would be getting were it not for the union, not to mention a host of extremely valuable benefits.

These people walk into a $15 an hour job, or a $30 an hour job, and don't give a moment's thought about how that hourly rate, and all the benefits, came about! They think the employer is simply benevolent.

Interesting. Perhaps the Union's trump card would be to negotiate the scabs down to minimum Walmart wage, and tell those who don't want a professional advocate to pound sand. But you're right.

I've still yet to meet a trade worker who'd rather not be represented by an advocate to negotiate wage/benefit. It would be interesting to see schools and public safety manned by scabs who were willing to negotiate the least.

Doesn't work. The company would hire nothing but scabs. Making it required that all workers are paid the same, makes the union worker cost neutral in comparison to the scab. So of course, companies get the union worker, who has the skills for that job, and not hire scabs at the same rate, who need training, more so.

 

[MikeK]

Tell Me......How is it that union supports scream bloody murder when government stops them from raking in the cash hand over fist, but then turn around and ***** about the wealthy raking in the cash hand over fist?

Talk about infantile whining.

It's a matter of perception.

Another view of the situation is union supporters complain about government impeding their efforts to achieve equitable compensation from a corporate employer who is distributing increasing dividends to shareholders and massive bonuses to management while its employees' wages are sub-standard and have been stagnant for years.

 

[Gadawg73]

What exactly qualifies as middle class living wage jobs?
What exactly qualifies as lower class living wage jobs?
What exactly qualifies as higher class living wage jobs?
And how much for each one?
Who sets these wages and where is he or her?

 

[Gadawg73]

Tell Me......How is it that union supports scream bloody murder when government stops them from raking in the cash hand over fist, but then turn around and ***** about the wealthy raking in the cash hand over fist?

Talk about infantile whining.

It's a matter of perception.

Another view of the situation is union supporters complain about government impeding their efforts to achieve equitable compensation from a corporate employer who is distributing increasing dividends to shareholders and massive bonuses to management while its employees' wages are sub-standard and have been stagnant for years.

Employees are welcome and free to buy all the stock they want.
If they choose not to that is their own fault.
Shareholders own the company so they should get first shot at the profits.
Sad fact that the owners of companies in America get TAXED TWICE.
Once with corporate profits and the dividends are taxable income to the shareholders.
And unions wonder why they do not get the wages they want.
TAXES are the biggest problem and all we hear is the BS "massive bonuses".
Unions contribute 100% of their campaign contributions to the very folks that **** them in the ass the most: Democrats.
Democrats keep high taxes on corporations thus limiting the wages union members receive.
Want higher wages? Vote Republican that lower corporate taxes and that leaves more $$ for employees and shareholders.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothin magical about it. Unions just have more leverage in making the individual reward for a career of service way better than folks going it alone, and taking what the HR folks say they're worth.

No shit. Ask an office worker in a non union company what their pension is, and get a laugh. Then ask a retired union worker what theirs is like, on top of SS. Pretty stark difference in the answers you're likely to get.

It still has to be paid for, and putting that off on the next generation is selfish and greedy. Isn't that supposed to be what the Republicans do?

Sure; I get that it has to be paid for. Not sure why union workers' kids are paying for it. Where's your thinking on that?

How do you think it is being paid for? Where do you think government gets the money it spends?

 

[Too Tall]

It isn't about the right to work for less money. It's about the right to work and not being forced to join a union. Let's cut the bullshit. And there's at least 2 if not 3 other threads on this.

I don't think it's bullshit at all. I think the right to work for less money is crucial to productive society. Many of our problems, especially economic problems, are created exactly when we try to interfere with this right. The right to work for less money is what provides all of us with the good and services we need at reasonable prices.

As is the right to collectively bargain crucial to our society.

What these laws end up doing, in all reality, is forbid people to get together and bargain as a group.

Nothing could be further from the truth. All these laws do is allow a person to get a job in a union shop and not be required to join the union. The union continues to collective bargain and allows unions to continue exactly as it did before the law was changed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

You seem to think that union contracts work by magic to fund public sector pensions. I disagree.

What ******* state, or the federal government, will contract, in a legally binding way, that it can be just shitcaned.

You might as well argue that contracts are bullshit.

You want to try to repeat that without spitting all over your screen?

 

[Too Tall]

Well no.

But thanks for playing.

It is though. License means pay to play. Patents are completely voluntary.

Um...both things operate on the very same principles that Unions do.

Pay to play and completely voluntary.

What is voluntary about mandatory membership in the union?

 

[MikeK]

Nothing could be further from the truth. All these laws do is allow a person to get a job in a union shop and not be required to join the union.

That is called "scabbing." A non-union worker employed in a union shop is a "scab."

The union continues to collective bargain and allows unions to continue exactly as it did before the law was changed.

And when management turns its back on a union demand, regardless of how reasonable, the only recourse the union has is to strike. But when management has been gradually filling the ranks with scabs (non-union workers) and the union workers strike, management simply brings in more scabs to take up the slack and ignores the striking union employees.

What these "Right-To-Work" laws do is effectively disarm the unions, making them irrelevant.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nothing could be further from the truth. All these laws do is allow a person to get a job in a union shop and not be required to join the union.

That is called "scabbing." A non-union worker employed in a union shop is a "scab."

The union continues to collective bargain and allows unions to continue exactly as it did before the law was changed.

And when management turns its back on a union demand, regardless of how reasonable, the only recourse the union has is to strike. But when management has been gradually filling the ranks with scabs (non-union workers) and the union workers strike, management simply brings in more scabs to take up the slack and ignores the striking union employees.

What these "Right-To-Work" laws do is effectively disarm the unions, making them irrelevant.

To the lazy union worker they are a scab.
We call them motivated workers.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nothing could be further from the truth. All these laws do is allow a person to get a job in a union shop and not be required to join the union.

That is called "scabbing." A non-union worker employed in a union shop is a "scab."

The union continues to collective bargain and allows unions to continue exactly as it did before the law was changed.

And when management turns its back on a union demand, regardless of how reasonable, the only recourse the union has is to strike. But when management has been gradually filling the ranks with scabs (non-union workers) and the union workers strike, management simply brings in more scabs to take up the slack and ignores the striking union employees.

What these "Right-To-Work" laws do is effectively disarm the unions, making them irrelevant.

Do the non union workers get the job done as well as the union workers?

 

[Wiseacre]

Nothing could be further from the truth. All these laws do is allow a person to get a job in a union shop and not be required to join the union.

That is called "scabbing." A non-union worker employed in a union shop is a "scab."

The union continues to collective bargain and allows unions to continue exactly as it did before the law was changed.

And when management turns its back on a union demand, regardless of how reasonable, the only recourse the union has is to strike. But when management has been gradually filling the ranks with scabs (non-union workers) and the union workers strike, management simply brings in more scabs to take up the slack and ignores the striking union employees.

What these "Right-To-Work" laws do is effectively disarm the unions, making them irrelevant.

Do the non union workers get the job done as well as the union workers?[/QUOTE]


A non-union worker can get fired.

 

[Gadawg73]

That is called "scabbing." A non-union worker employed in a union shop is a "scab."


And when management turns its back on a union demand, regardless of how reasonable, the only recourse the union has is to strike. But when management has been gradually filling the ranks with scabs (non-union workers) and the union workers strike, management simply brings in more scabs to take up the slack and ignores the striking union employees.

What these "Right-To-Work" laws do is effectively disarm the unions, making them irrelevant.

Do the non union workers get the job done as well as the union workers?[/QUOTE]


A non-union worker can get fired.

That fact increases competition which always results in a better product and company.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 cannot believe the number of people fooled by this false concept.
Right to work is narrowly defined as the right to become employed without being compelled to join a labor collective. Period.
Obama, never wanting to miss a campaign opportunity, is first sticking his nose where it does not belong. He is merely pandering to a supportive voting bloc. He has NO BUSINESS even commenting on the LEGAL affairs of an individual State( Read the Constitution. 10th Amendment).
The practice of forced unionism has nothing to do with workers or their rights in a union setting.
What we have here is a money laundering scheme. Unions need dues paying members so that unions can receive federal funding which in turn the unions guarantee dues get funneled back to democrat candidates in the form of forced political donations. This money is TAKEN from workers who have NO CHOICE to whom the money goes. In turn for the political favors, union bosses need to deliver votes to union friendly candidates.
As we have seen, the anger will of the union cry babies will subside. Oh they will make threats of recall elections( see Wisconsin..how'd that work out for them?) and we have union friendly politicians threatening "there will be blood".. And union thugs like the well connected Mafia guy Jimmy Hoffa threatening "civil war"..
**** him. He's a ******* flyspeck

 

[Polk]

" Why then would you want to take away the right of workers to collectively negotiate what payment they receive for their labor? "

I don't want to do that, at least not for workers in the private sector. But neither do I want to deny any worker the right to avoid paying dues or any agency fee. It's a little bit like the ObamaCare tax for those who don't have health insurance, they shouldn't have to pay for somerthing they don't want.

Public secor is different IMHO, their compensations and benefits should be tied to what their counterparts in the private sector are getting. Fine by me if they want to unionize and negotiate over other issues, but public sector unions are bankrupting many cities and counties with underfunded pensions and benefits that cannot be met. That's gotta stop.

Why should workers be able to get the benefits of union representation without having to contribute to the cost of it?

As for public sector unionization, that's a whole other ball of wax that'll derail this thread like woh.

 

[Polk]

In a "right to work" state, aren't older workers pitted against younger workers? Can a company layoff older workers who are union members and replace them with younger workers who are willing to work for less pay and benefits?

No, that would be age discrimination which violates your civil rights. I know because I sat on a jury of an age discrimination case a few years back. If you can prove that they are replacing employees based on age, the company can get their ass kicked in court.

In theory. In practice, it's almost impossible to prove. A lot of labor law is like that. It's technically illegal to fire someone who attempting to organize a union, and yet it's extremely common for firms to do so.

 

[Polk]

What is wrong about giving the person a choice???

This is what this is about.

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.
The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Yes they do. They're called elected officials. You elect the "management".