Unions and right to work

[Traveler]

Anyone willing to start a pool about when blood is shed in Michigan over union control or right to work? I give it a week at best.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Stephen Crowder's blood was already spilled, as well as his tooth chipped.

Do you mean someone getting killed?

[Guest]

Uhm... it already got bloody... what else are we talking about?

[talisyn]

Sometimes polite doesn't work.

[Just_A_Guy]

Sometimes polite doesn't work.

. . . said General Beauregard.

[annewandering]

This is sick. A pool about people being hurt? Sick.

[selek]

Anyone willing to start a pool about when blood is shed in Michigan over union control or right to work? I give it a week at best.

The Traveler

Already has.

[selek]

This is sick. A pool about people being hurt? Sick.

Anne, I have to ask:

Which is worse in your lexicon?

A tongue-in-cheek prediction of mob (in both senses of the word) violence?

Or the realization that the violence has already taken place?

You seem far more outraged that we are talking about assault being commited on peaceful citizens than you are about the assault itself.

[LittleWyvern]

Stephen Crowder's blood was already spilled, as well as his tooth chipped.

Spilled? Hardly. At worst, he needs a bandage and a very small filling.

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh. Well, I guess that makes it all right, then.

[LittleWyvern]

Oh. Well, I guess that makes it all right, then.

Oh, I'm not saying it's right, but people are talking about this guy like he's a POW or something. Let's know exactly what happened before we go all "blood is being spilled" over this.

[NeuroTypical]

It is true that Crowder isn't limping around crying like a maced occupy protestor. In fact, he's given the guy who punched him in the face four times a choice - Crowder can press felony assault charges and dood will go to jail, or dood can face him in the ring at a legally sanctioned MMA bout - winner donating all proceeds to charity.

So no, not a heck of a lot of Stephen's blood was spilled. That's why I'm trying to find out what Traveller means with his use of the phrase.

[LittleWyvern]

or dood can face him in the ring at a legally sanctioned MMA bout - winner donating all proceeds to charity.

That might be smart: if Crowder's head "injury" is any indication, dood can't punch.

[kathysmike]

Having lived in Michigan my whole life I find this idea offensive, this topic is full of emotion no matter what side you are on. It has families split down the middle. The mere mention of unions gets every ones hunches up.

I was raised in an union home, my own Mother lives on an Union pension and medical insurance. My Brother is a proud UAW Auto worker 18plus years on the line. Yet I find myself on the Right to Work side of the line. My experience working in the news media here in Detroit in the 80's and 90's taught me that the unions are not what they use to be. That we as the workers need to be able to decide if we want the Benefit of union membership. When I worked my last job I saw many who paid union dues for 30+ plus years in the steel mills but had no benefits to show for their money could not afford the aids they needed to help them live full lives.**********steps off soap box and crawls back under rock********

Edited December 13, 2012 by kathysmike
to correct obvious typos

[talisyn]

Unions are only as good as the members want them to be. This may be a good wake-up to complacency. When I wrote about polite, I meant sometimes vigilance about things like workplace practices need to be rebooted occasionally.

That being said, I think this journalist in question needs to go to more large gatherings and shout interesting questions, in the name of true journalism.

[prisonchaplain]

It's hard to have a strong, effective union when individuals in a company do not have to join. In essence, the non-joiners become free-loaders, benefitting from the collective bargaining power the dues-payers create.

I used to be in favor of right to work laws. In Michigan's case, the passage of this one may be a wake up call for unions that have become ineffective. Nevertheless, I suspect that unless companies choose to treat their workers right without the union involvement we'll soon see a reversal of this legislation.

[talisyn]

I found it incredibly interesting that the 'right to work' law in Michigan explicitly does not include police and firefighters. I need to see what Idaho law exempts.

[Guest]

It's hard to have a strong, effective union when individuals in a company do not have to join. In essence, the non-joiners become free-loaders, benefitting from the collective bargaining power the dues-payers create.

I used to be in favor of right to work laws. In Michigan's case, the passage of this one may be a wake up call for unions that have become ineffective. Nevertheless, I suspect that unless companies choose to treat their workers right without the union involvement we'll soon see a reversal of this legislation.

Florida is a right to work state. I don't see sweatshops in Florida. Unions and non-unions work side by side without much fuss and we have a pretty good pay scale here.

What's really the purpose of a Union? To prevent business leaders from abusing workers right? Is it supposed to be a money-making scheme? So, even if say you have non-joiners become free-loaders benefitting from the collective bargaining power of the dues-payers, then the purpose of the Union is met, right? None of the workers are abused!

But then, you say, well that's just not fair! Everybody benefits, everybody should pay! Okay, so what you're saying here is - if you don't pay Union dues, we're okay with you getting abused.

So, let's see what happens if you don't have to pay... let's go with worse-case scenarios... then the Union will not have resources to push back against the businesses and they will disband. Okay, so then what happens? So business goes on as usual unless the business leaders goes out and abuses their workers, and then what happens? Then workers will probably band together, form a Union and fight the business! There's nothing to stop them from banding together.

So, what exactly are we talking about here when we say people who don't need the services of a Union are still forced to pay Union dues? I will conclude that it is only so that the people running the Unions can keep making money for services that has outlived its usefulness.

[selek]

There are a number of aspects of this debate that are being (deliberately, IMO) ignored.

First and foremost, the right to work does not prevent anyone joining a union if they feel it is in their best interest to do so.

It simply prevents the unions from threatening their employment in order to compel them to join.

This legislation does nothing to prevent the unions from lobbying for any particular legislation, or for any particular work-place conditions that they choose. It simply prevents them from picking the pockets of those who do not agree with them in order to pay for it.

In every instance where right-to-work laws have been passed, the workers themselves have "voted with their feet" and fled the unions.

This is analagous in many ways to the plight of East Germans before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

You worked for the collective or not at all. Part of what you earned was confiscated (as a condition of employment) and spent to enrich the appartchik and to advance their political goals instead of yours.

No dissent was tolerated- and thugs, brutality, and even murder were used to enforce solidarity.

Those who did not lend their whole-hearted voice and solidarity to the collective were abused, denigrated, and punished for their ideological impurity.

When given the chance to do so, people fled those conditions.

Why should a union autoworker be denied the same opportunity?

[selek]

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, businesses were required to pay a small fee to various NGO's in order to operate in cities such as Boston, Chicago, and New York.

Their ability to remain open, productive, and profitable was conditional upon their paying those fees in a timely fashion.

On the New York docks in particular, individual workers paid the same sort of fees as a condition of their employment, and were shut out of the workplace for non-compliance.

In exchange for these fees, both the businesses and the workers were offered protection from "unlicensed" competitors and from an extraordinary range of unfortunate random happenstances such as arson, riot, personal assault, workplace "accidents", and even murder.

This was a good investment, as such ills befell those who chose not to invest with startling regularity.

The NGOs then turned around and reinvested the funds in both private businesses and political machines to ensure that politicians were elected and laws passed which served the interests of the "business community" in general and the NGOs in particular. Among their other ventures were high-profile charitable donations and public relations campaigns.

Among the perks of membership in these NGO's were "tariff-free" goods such as alcohol, opulent life-styles, on-call female companionship, and even high "elected" office.

Of course, the model fell into some disrepute when one of it's leading proponents was convicted of tax-evasion in Chicago and spent eight years jailed in Alcatraz.

Despite that setback- and the occasional trial for racketeering, murder, and mob violence- the NGOs succeeded in having the business model codified as "the way things get done" by the government during the depths of the Great Depression.

And thus it has lasted- with almost no change in the business model- from that day to this.

The only difference is that in the 20's and 30's the NGO's operated outside the law. Today, they enforce their compulsory dues with the complicity of the law.

Edited December 13, 2012 by selek

[prisonchaplain]

Florida is a right to work state. I don't see sweatshops in Florida. Unions and non-unions work side by side without much fuss and we have a pretty good pay scale here.

Wages were significantly lower in FL vs. WA. While the cost of living is higher here, the main reason is housing. Food seemed to be about the same cost.

What's really the purpose of a Union? To prevent business leaders from abusing workers right? Is it supposed to be a money-making scheme? So, even if say you have non-joiners become free-loaders benefitting from the collective bargaining power of the dues-payers, then the purpose of the Union is met, right? None of the workers are abused!

Unions are not just about preventing abuse. They are formed so that workers bargain for their salary, benefits, and working conditions collectively. Even Adam Smith, considered by most to be a classic conservative economist, argued that labor unions helped balance the employer/employee equation, since owners have capital on their side.

But then, you say, well that's just not fair! Everybody benefits, everybody should pay! Okay, so what you're saying here is - if you don't pay Union dues, we're okay with you getting abused.

Maybe they're just saying that if you want the benefits of a union job you should be a union member. It might not be an abuse to get a few dollars less per hour, less health benefits, etc., but if you want those higher goodies you should be willing to pay your dues.

So, let's see what happens if you don't have to pay... let's go with worse-case scenarios... then the Union will not have resources to push back against the businesses and they will disband. Okay, so then what happens? So business goes on as usual unless the business leaders goes out and abuses their workers, and then what happens? Then workers will probably band together, form a Union and fight the business! There's nothing to stop them from banding together.

Basically, we're talking about the difference between an all or nothing system vs. one in which collective bargaining always only represents a portion of the workers. In the latter case the collective bargaining position will always be weaker because they never really represent all the workers--always only a faction. This allows management to divide and conquer. The tolerance for lower wages and benefits is always greater when you feel alone or part of a weakened group.

So, it's not the worst case scenario. It's the prolongued scenario of weaker unions, lower wages, and fewer benefits.

So, what exactly are we talking about here when we say people who don't need the services of a Union are still forced to pay Union dues? I will conclude that it is only so that the people running the Unions can keep making money for services that has outlived its usefulness.

Nobody is forced to work for a union company. Those who choose to do so should be willing to pay the dues.

[mirkwood]

Police and fire can't strike. It makes it very difficult for us to accomplish anything in our efforts to get improved pay and benefits.

[selek]

Despite the flowery rhetoric, what Prison Chaplain is really arguing is that unions should be awarded worker fealty automagically and unceasingly, rather than forcing them to win the hearts and minds of their constituents.

Rather than allowing workers the choice to freely support or freely oppose the movement of the Kollective, allegiance- and tribute paid- must be compulsory as a condition of employment rather than a matter of individual conscience.

The argument assumes that workers are too stupid, too venal, or simply too cowed to unite on their own, and require the benevolent protection of the union (for a small monthly consideration, of course).

Contrary to the hysteria, grievance mongering, and end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it hyperbole, there is nothing in this legislation that prevents people from forming unions.

It simply removes the ability of unions to compel membership at the point of a pink slip.

In that sense, compulsory union membership is a form of serfdom in which your ability to labor for the support of your self and family are tied to the good graces of the ruling class.

In the same sense, compulsory union membership is economic servitude- your ability to labor for the support of yourself and your family is tied to a portion of that labor being appropriated (without your consent) to the ambitions, agendas, and maintenance of a separate class who profess to speak for the workers.

The veracity of that claim is subject to considerable debate- but what is NOT open to debate is that the "voice" of the workers have grown very wealthy on the sums appropriated from the actual laborers...

Orwell spoke rather eloquently about the phenomenon in Animal Farm....

Edited December 14, 2012 by selek

[Vort]

Knowing PC as I pretend I do, I would be very surprised if that was what he meant to say.

[annewandering]

I am trying to be polite but the idea of Unions being employee servitude is just too much. Employees are 'servants' of the companies they work for. Unions help them to be reasonably recompensed for their work. Before unions became strong people lived in terrible conditions and were paid very very little. Because unions were able to organize, under extremely difficult and life threatening situations, workers gradually got safer conditions and better compensation. The one thing that was necessary was unity. With no unity they had no leverage to bargain for anything. In the so called right to work states yes you can have unions, and yes they do work for the workers, even the leeches. Because of the leeches lack of support, and I am not talking financial support, the unions leverage is greatly diminished, which is good for the company but not so much for the workers.