Unions and right to work

[prisonchaplain]

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.

It's my understanding that workers can vote a union in or out. It's an election. Do we want this organization to represent our interests or not? Like many things in life, representation in the workplace is a matter that is often decided by the staff as a whole, rather than individually.

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).

Workers may pick who represents them, or choose to have no union. I'm not sure how an in-house union would look, but I suppose it's possible.

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.

Again, because membership is individual, rather than collective, the measure FORCES workers to stand alone in negotiations, or to pay dues to unions that will, because of state-imposed individual standing, be weaker.

[annewandering]

PC, the last part of your post seems to have lost a quote mark somewhere or I am for sure confused!

[selek]

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.

Technically correct. They voluntarily trade their labor to their employers in exchange for wages and benefits.

Under "closed shop" rules, they are forced to exchange a portion of their wages for the promise of better working conditions- and are shackled to the union's political agenda whether they agree with it or not.

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.

None of which is relevant to the topic at hand.

No one is suggesting that unions be abolshed- only that their compulsory and extortionate practices be amended.

The one thing that was necessary was unity. With no unity they had no leverage to bargain for anything.

A non-sequitor.

True unity is not enforced at the point of a bayonet, a bullet, or the threat of termination.

In the so called right to work states yes you can have unions, and yes they do work for the workers, even the leeches.

Thank you for not dragging this discussion into name-calling and character assassination.

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.

On the contrary, unions have been losing membership because they now exist to serve their own ends rather than those of the workers.

The Wisconsin Recall and the Michigan Constitutional amendment debacles are cases-in-point. The unions were universal and united in demanding the recall and destruction of Governor Walker and the enshrining of collective bargaining in the Michigan Constitution.

But when the union rank-and-file were safely in the sanctity of the polling booth, they broke with their union bosses in massive numbers.

The dirty little secret is this:

If the unions were what they and their apologists pretend they are, if all of the union solidarity propaganda were true, then they would not need compulsory membership and closed shops to maintain their stranglehold on power.

If the situation were as dire for workers as the propagandists were wont to pretend, the workers would be unanimous in expanding their union support.

They are not.

The workers themselves have been voting with their feet for decades- and it's been an overwhelming vote of "no confidence" in the Tamany-Hall style political machines which are the modern-day union.

Edited December 14, 2012 by selek

[selek]

Again, because membership is individual, rather than collective, the measure FORCES workers to stand alone in negotiations, or to pay dues to unions that will, because of state-imposed individual standing, be weaker.

This line contradicts all of your previous talking points.

If the worker can vote a union in, how, then is he FORCED to stand alone?

Even if the union cannot compel his membership, he still has the choice to join if the union serves his interests.

The unions want closed shops for the same reason East Germany wanted the Berlin Wall- to prevent the mass exodus of talent and initiative from their compulsary worker's paradise.

Edited December 14, 2012 by selek

[selek]

Just for grins and giggles, let's turn this argument around for a minute.

Let's assume for a moment that under the 28th, 29th, and 30th amendments to the Constitution, the government suddenly "discovers" the right to assign customers to a particular grocery store.

By law, they are not allowed to shop elsewhere (their membership is compulsory).

By law, they are not allowed to grow their own food (since this represents competition with the government-approved shop).

By law, they are not allowed to "vote with their feet" and go elsewhere.

How responsive do you think the store will be to customer complaints?

What effect do you think this compulsory allegiance will have on the quality or goods and services offered at the store?

How is compulsory union membership any different?

Can anyone seriously argue that a union to which one must belong is intrinsically stronger, healthier, or more unified than one which must win the support of potential members?

Edited December 14, 2012 by selek

[kathysmike]

All this union talk, has reminded me of a patient who came to the Hearing Aid office, I worked in as a patient consultant helping them adjust to the use and care of hearing instruments. After he was tested and we evaluated his results he needed amplification. As we explained this to him he made it clear that he was a local union president and had so power and influence over the membership that we should fit with our best set of Hearing Aids at no charge and he would make sure that his membership would patronize our office. We thanked him and sent on his way.

[prisonchaplain]

This line contradicts all of your previous talking points.

If the worker can vote a union in, how, then is he FORCED to stand alone?

I was showing that your argument works both ways. Or, to be more precise, that it really doesn't work. The rules are what they are--whether there is a union or not. If there is, and it is a closed shop, then you join the union. If you don't like it, find a non-union shop...or go to a right to work state.

To argue that allowing workers to vote in a union for all, or to reject it, is serfdom or "forcing" seems absurd to me. No one is required to work at a particular place.

Even if the union cannot compel his membership, he still has the choice to join if the union serves his interests.

But without 100% membership the union is weaker, less able to meet his interests. The deck is stacked in favor of management under such a system.

The unions want closed shops for the same reason East Germany wanted the Berlin Wall- to prevent the mass exodus of talent and initiative from their compulsary worker's paradise.

The want closed shops for the same reason management wants open ones. Each is vying for leverage when negotiation time comes.

[prisonchaplain]

All this union talk, has reminded me of a patient who came to the Hearing Aid office, I worked in as a patient consultant helping them adjust to the use and care of hearing instruments. After he was tested and we evaluated his results he needed amplification. As we explained this to him he made it clear that he was a local union president and had so power and influence over the membership that we should fit with our best set of Hearing Aids at no charge and he would make sure that his membership would patronize our office. We thanked him and sent on his way.

Your anecdote does not prove that unions are wrong or corrupt, but rather, as my signature says, that power itself corrupts. Open shops shift power to management. Closed ones give more to the workers. Adam Smith suggests that management, backed by owners and their capital, already have an advantage. So, labor unions can help bring some balance.

[annewandering]

The racist roots of 'right to work' laws

For a history of one of the main early crusaders of "right to work", in fact the man that coined the phrase, check this link out. Then if you feel it is biased just go ahead and google his name.

'Right to work' was never, and is not, for working people. It was always about breaking unions. Yes it is all about breaking unions and MANY say that, not just me.

Study the history and ask yourself if you really believe it is about the working person.

[annewandering]

Quote from Selek:

"No one is suggesting that unions be abolshed- only that their compulsory and extortionate practices be amended."

Actually you are very wrong. Read the history of 'right to work' and you will see that is precisely the purpose of it.

Selek, I have to wonder here. In the name of disclosure, what is your job?

[Guest]

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.

There is no state tax in Florida.

Wages are commensurate to supply versus demand like anything else. There's a 2% unemployment rate for programmers in my town. So programmers make good money. There's a 12% unemployment rate for hospitality in my town. So they make less money. McDonald's workers in some county in North Dakota flip burgers for $15/hour. It used to be $12 - they had to raise it because they were losing workers to Taco Bell next door. Taco Bell raised theirs from $12 because they were losing workers to the Energy Company who pays entry-level, zero-experience, high school graduates $12/hr plus overtime. No Unions required.

A business can only pay their workers if the business is profitable. In this day and age where businesses are squeezed left and right by government regulations and there is a high unemployment rate, this is when you really need to free up the free-market system.

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.

Yes, collective bargaining so you have more leverage to negotiate your pay which, in turn, prevents worker abuse.

Owners may have capital on their side but capital means nothing if there's nobody working for them. A union is beneficial in this case because then workers can collectively refuse to work.

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.

It is inherently wrong to force somebody to purchase a service he neither wants nor needs.

Just so we are clear. I believe Unions are a GOOD thing. The only bad thing about it is if one is forced to pay Union dues that he never wanted nor needed to have/keep a job.

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.

Things are never that black and white. A collective bargaining system is only as weak as its necessity. We're capitalists here. This concept should be fairly easy to grasp: If the need for a stronger collective bargaining system arises, you'll have people paying dues to have it. The law that is needed is that nobody can prevent workers from banding together to form a Union.

And you are, of course, assuming that management is always out to get you and never the other way around.

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

Of course you are assuming that lower wages and fewer benefits are ALWAYS because you're not in a Union and never because for a business to remain competitive he needs to lower wages. And you are assuming that businesses who doesn't have to worry about Unions are going to lower wages and slash benefits creating disgruntled workers who he leans on to make a profit.

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

I'm surprised you said this, PC. It's not in character of what I thought your political and economic principles lay.

You forget that there are 2 sides of this equation. There's the workers who are looking out for their interests and there's the business - who has the capital to take his business anywhere he desires. The right-to-work law is aimed at businesses who has the capital and need to hire workers who, otherwise, wouldn't because he can't afford to cater to Union demands in this economic climate. And there's the worker who would rather work for the business for lower pay than work for nobody at all in this economic climate.

In a free market system, not only are workers not forced to work for a union company, businesses do not have to operate in union-controlled states.

And... we haven't even touched on the highly controversial result of being forced to pay dues just so it can be spent to support political agendas contrary to the due-payer's interests in keeping his job.

Edited December 14, 2012 by anatess

[FunkyTown]

And... we haven't even touched on the highly controversial result of being forced to pay dues just so it can be spent to support political agendas contrary to the due-payer's interests in keeping his job.

Unions are a great idea.

Now, before I'm lynched, I should note that this is because Unions are essentially a corporation of workers - They're an amalgamation using their product(In this case, their productivity) as a means of allowing the ability to take advantage of collective bargaining.

That's it.

There is no more requirement for that to turn in to violence than there is for governments or corporations to abuse their power.

Now, on to the reality: 100 years ago, Unions had more bargaining power than they knew. Why? Because the quick and easy move of goods between countries was not possible: Tariffs, taxes, long travel times and poor abilities to protect goods from overseas shipping dangers meant that the companies had to think locally. This resulted in Unions having nearly all the real power while corporations used their monetary power to strong-arm politicians to try to break the Unions. Companies knew they were in trouble. Because of this, Unions became a real powerhouse.

Then, the walls came tumbling down.

Transport became easier. Refrigeration and storage became more efficient. International boundaries became blurred to give business greater ease of access.

This has changed the rules entirely.

Now, companies have choices. If a local group doesn't want to work for peanuts, the company can simply move. It's expensive and not something done lightly, but the option is there and companies know and have taken advantage of it.

Don't believe me?

Look at where your shoes were made. Chances are, it was in a sweat shop where people work in horrid conditions for peanuts. It was probably made for $.50 and sold for 100-200 times that. Look at your electronics. Where were they made?

You have only to look at the rust belt factories that have closed to know that skilled workers are simply being found where they have fewer rights and work for lower wages. It's an economic fact that the US industrial might has declined for decades, now: Some will blame Unions. Some will blame corporate greed.

Me? I blame people. When the Unions had all the power, they grew fat and corrupt. It's the nature of humanity. Now, Corporations hold all the power. Food that used to go to the US is now being exported all over the world as people want to eat more and more like Americans. Oil, tin and other infrastructure-building devices are being pulled more and more to countries like China who are raising the cost of everything from wheat to nickel. Inflation indexes are showing huge increases despite not including those things hit most hard: The basic necessities. You'll find that elsewhere in the world, their standard of living will increase while the standard of living in the US will decrease until they meet somewhere in the middle and jobs start coming back.

This is the fault of people: When we get power, we tend to abuse it. People like you and I are simply on the receiving end of this abuse at the moment.

[Just_A_Guy]

The racist roots of 'right to work' laws

For a history of one of the main early crusaders of "right to work", in fact the man that coined the phrase, check this link out. Then if you feel it is biased just go ahead and google his name.

'Right to work' was never, and is not, for working people. It was always about breaking unions. Yes it is all about breaking unions and MANY say that, not just me.

Study the history and ask yourself if you really believe it is about the working person.

Annewandering, I hope you know I love you; but playing the race card has gone beyond tiresome. It's utterly revolting.

But if you want to play, let's play. Some of contraception's earliest proponents were those who saw it as a means to stop the reproduction of people with undesirable physical disabilities, and to limit the growth - and even diminish the presence of - certain "undesirable" ethnic groups.

So, if you support Sandra Fluke: Why do you hate black people?

[Guest]

Unions are a great idea.

Now, before I'm lynched, I should note that this is because Unions are essentially a corporation of workers - They're an amalgamation using their product(In this case, their productivity) as a means of allowing the ability to take advantage of collective bargaining.

That's it.

There is no more requirement for that to turn in to violence than there is for governments or corporations to abuse their power.

Now, on to the reality: 100 years ago, Unions had more bargaining power than they knew. Why? Because the quick and easy move of goods between countries was not possible: Tariffs, taxes, long travel times and poor abilities to protect goods from overseas shipping dangers meant that the companies had to think locally. This resulted in Unions having nearly all the real power while corporations used their monetary power to strong-arm politicians to try to break the Unions. Companies knew they were in trouble. Because of this, Unions became a real powerhouse.

Then, the walls came tumbling down.

Transport became easier. Refrigeration and storage became more efficient. International boundaries became blurred to give business greater ease of access.

This has changed the rules entirely.

Now, companies have choices. If a local group doesn't want to work for peanuts, the company can simply move. It's expensive and not something done lightly, but the option is there and companies know and have taken advantage of it.

Don't believe me?

Look at where your shoes were made. Chances are, it was in a sweat shop where people work in horrid conditions for peanuts. It was probably made for $.50 and sold for 100-200 times that. Look at your electronics. Where were they made?

You have only to look at the rust belt factories that have closed to know that skilled workers are simply being found where they have fewer rights and work for lower wages. It's an economic fact that the US industrial might has declined for decades, now: Some will blame Unions. Some will blame corporate greed.

Me? I blame people. When the Unions had all the power, they grew fat and corrupt. It's the nature of humanity. Now, Corporations hold all the power. Food that used to go to the US is now being exported all over the world as people want to eat more and more like Americans. Oil, tin and other infrastructure-building devices are being pulled more and more to countries like China who are raising the cost of everything from wheat to nickel. Inflation indexes are showing huge increases despite not including those things hit most hard: The basic necessities. You'll find that elsewhere in the world, their standard of living will increase while the standard of living in the US will decrease until they meet somewhere in the middle and jobs start coming back.

This is the fault of people: When we get power, we tend to abuse it. People like you and I are simply on the receiving end of this abuse at the moment.

Excellent summation FT.

Just want to point out that we don't have to continue to be in the receiving end of this abuse. The good thing about America is we can change the laws if enough of us want to get out of a bad situation bad enough. And I think this is what's happening in Michigan.

When sweatshops start to pop up in the US, I am certain people will go back to the Unions. Cycle-in, Cycle-out.

And really, that's a good thing. Because, the way the American Constitution is structured, it simply just assumes that people are going to naturally navigate to protecting their own self interests - even to the point of greed - so that all the Constitution has to do is to empower and protect the natural sway of self-interests through one group or another including individuals because greed can only survive long enough until somebody else's self interests start to get trampled on.

The error is in the assumption that only one group is capable of greed.

[Guest]

Now, let's talk about getting your shoes made in some sweatshop in Asia for pennies while raking a profit of $100 a pop.

The media blockbuster is, of course, "the abuse in the sweatshops". It's an easy media sell. But, nobody ever talks about what these people in sweatshops would do if 1.) they were given more money, 2.) the sweatshops were closed.

I can give you some idea from experience in the Philippines:

If they were given more money, you will see that Nuclear Engineers and Brain Surgeons are going to work at the sweatshop driving unskilled workers out of their livelihood, because they sure can't work as Nuclear Engineers and Brain Surgeons. What passes for peanuts in America is pretty awesome money for Filipinos. Minimum wage in America is what... $7.25/hour? In the Philippines, minimum wage is 250 pesos PER DAY. That's 5 bucks a day. Just enough to buy 2 Big Mac meals from Philippine McDonald's.

If the sweatshops were closed, the people are going to beg on the streets.

And then you think... well, then Nike should sell their shoes for $10 a pop. Why? People who want Nike are willing to pay $100. If they were strapped for money they'll buy Faded Glory. So why sell for $10? Where does Nike's profit go? Stockholders. That's your IRA, 401K, pension plan, savings accounts, etc. etc. The Chinese and the Jews are excellent at saving their money - they get to benefit from all this profit. Americans are mostly in debt up to their eyeballs, so all they benefit from is a lower interest rate on their credit cards. Of course, the rich people who invest their money on Nike stocks get richer too.

And then you think... well, what about those Wal-mart Made in China pencils? Okay, what do you want Wal-mart to do... buy pencils from Michigan that cost 10 times as much as Chinese pencils? They'll have to sell it for 10 times as much - which then makes it so Americans will have to pay 10 times as much for a measly pencil. Not many people want to buy a regular #2 pencil for $1 a piece. They can't afford it. They already complain about how school supplies are too expensive these days...

Okay... let's get back to Unions...

Edited December 14, 2012 by anatess

[MorningStar]

My husband has a union job. The good thing is that he gets automatic raises. The bad thing is that it doesn't matter if he's doing more awesome than everyone else - he still gets the same raise. There is no motivation for anyone to work as hard as they can.

At his last job though, he was there for 3 years and never got a single raise, so that was lame too. At his previous job, he got a $2 raise within a few months because he quickly proved how awesome he was. They didn't want to promote him to supervisor though during his 4 years there because they couldn't find anyone to replace his skills.

Union negotiations are now happening with his current company and they're arguing that comparable places are all paying more all over the country. That's nice. But they have less funding than they used to, so it's not really a great time to demand raises, but they will most likely get a 2% raise. That will be about another 49 cents per hour. Weeeeeeeeeeee. They haven't received the 3% cost of living increase since he started. This year they got 1%. My husband said, "I'll just be glad to not be getting a pay decrease!"

[Vort]

We have the standard of living that we do in part because we have slave labor. It's no longer legal to own slaves in the US, so we have exported much of the slave labor to foreign countries.

I don't know the answer to this dilemma. Just saying, "Those Indians/Chinese/whoever don't pay their people enough, so we're not doing business with them!" doesn't help the Indians/Chinese/whoever; this is the general excuse why we continue the relationship. I truly wish I understood the correct path to follow.

Unions exist because without them the workers would be exploited for the profit of the business owners. This is not so much an individual failing of the business owners as it is the nature of capitalism in the Darwinian economic jungle. I am no fan of unions, because they themselves are corrupt institutions that eat their own young and often enthusiastically dismember the golden goose. But in the long run, things would not be better without unions.

[Guest]

We have the standard of living that we do in part because we have slave labor. It's no longer legal to own slaves in the US, so we have exported much of the slave labor to foreign countries.

I don't know the answer to this dilemma. Just saying, "Those Indians/Chinese/whoever don't pay their people enough, so we're not doing business with them!" doesn't help the Indians/Chinese/whoever; this is the general excuse why we continue the relationship. I truly wish I understood the correct path to follow.

Unions exist because without them the workers would be exploited for the profit of the business owners. This is not so much an individual failing of the business owners as it is the nature of capitalism in the Darwinian economic jungle. I am no fan of unions, because they themselves are corrupt institutions that eat their own young and often enthusiastically dismember the golden goose. But in the long run, things would not be better without unions.

Agree. Completely.

What's missing is - People already have the power over the business. In the end, the business is dependent on people buying their products. Because, unless it's a life-saving, life-sustaining product, people can live without it. The people, as the law was in Michigan before the right-to-work law passed, had no power over the Unions inside Michigan. If a business closes its doors the people and the business lose.

By the way, that's why firefighters and police officers are exempt from the right-to-work law. They provide a life-saving, life-sustaining product that is not available from any other source. People have no power over it.

In the Teacher's Union - nobody has the power over the Union - not the people nor the State. Something is terribly wrong here.

Edited December 14, 2012 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

There is no state tax in Florida.

Nor in Washington...though we have one of the highest rates of union membership.

It is inherently wrong to force somebody to purchase a service he neither wants nor needs.

I used to agree. However, with closed shops the "democracy" is still there. The workers vote, and whichever perspective win gets embraced by everyone. If an individual is adamantly opposed, they can leave and work for an open shop or a non-union shop.

Just so we are clear. I believe Unions are a GOOD thing. The only bad thing about it is if one is forced to pay Union dues that he never wanted nor needed to have/keep a job.

It seems unfair, but if you are on a team, and the team votes in it, so long as we are not taking about immorality, shouldn't the individual worker support his/her team mates.

Things are never that black and white. A collective bargaining system is only as weak as its necessity. We're capitalists here. This concept should be fairly easy to grasp: If the need for a stronger collective bargaining system arises, you'll have people paying dues to have it. The law that is needed is that nobody can prevent workers from banding together to form a Union.

And you are, of course, assuming that management is always out to get you and never the other way around.

It works both ways and the equation is pretty simple. Right to Work rules allow individual workers to not join. This weights the power equation towards management. In closed shops, it's all or nothing--given some weight to the workers. There is nothing absolute about this. The question is, in our free market system, do we want to give leverage to labor or management? Smith argued that labor could use the extra heft.

In a free market system, not only are workers not forced to work for a union company, businesses do not have to operate in union-controlled states.

And... we haven't even touched on the highly controversial result of being forced to pay dues just so it can be spent to support political agendas contrary to the due-payer's interests in keeping his job.

This last part gets to two difficulties with unions. Today it is argued that unions made companies bankrupt by pressuring for over-high wages and absurd workplace rules. In bad economies, ironically, management gets leverage by threatening bankruptcy, relocation, or layoffs. It may be that labor needs more help, not less.

As for political contributions, I agree. It's the one area that caused me to be relatively anti-union and pro-right to work for many years. Some states or agencies have restrictions on this, requiring unions to voluntary raise their PAC monies separate from dues. I support these kinds of rules.

[Traveler]

I find it interesting that anyone believes that large bureaucratic organizations will by nature abuse and suppress the “little guy” and then in the same breath suggest that the best way to insure the little guy is not abused and suppressed is to create another large bureaucratic organization to deal with the evil bureaucratic management organization?

Large bureaucratic management organizations become corrupt and misguided when they begin to believe that they deserve to be paid more than those actually make and produce the good and services that bring in the company profits in order for the company to even exist. Just the same as when a large bureaucratic labor organization becomes corrupt and misguided when the management of that organization believes they should be paid more than the workers that justified the very existence of the “union” in the first place.

Kathysmike’s little story is at the very heart of why people think they need unions (or someone to help and look after their interests) and then why unions are just as like to abuse their membership as companies are likely to abuse their workers.

The Traveler

[annewandering]

Unions are a great idea.

Now, before I'm lynched, I should note that this is because Unions are essentially a corporation of workers - They're an amalgamation using their product(In this case, their productivity) as a means of allowing the ability to take advantage of collective bargaining.

That's it.

There is no more requirement for that to turn in to violence than there is for governments or corporations to abuse their power.

Now, on to the reality: 100 years ago, Unions had more bargaining power than they knew. Why? Because the quick and easy move of goods between countries was not possible: Tariffs, taxes, long travel times and poor abilities to protect goods from overseas shipping dangers meant that the companies had to think locally. This resulted in Unions having nearly all the real power while corporations used their monetary power to strong-arm politicians to try to break the Unions. Companies knew they were in trouble. Because of this, Unions became a real powerhouse.

Then, the walls came tumbling down.

Transport became easier. Refrigeration and storage became more efficient. International boundaries became blurred to give business greater ease of access.

This has changed the rules entirely.

Now, companies have choices. If a local group doesn't want to work for peanuts, the company can simply move. It's expensive and not something done lightly, but the option is there and companies know and have taken advantage of it.

Don't believe me?

Look at where your shoes were made. Chances are, it was in a sweat shop where people work in horrid conditions for peanuts. It was probably made for $.50 and sold for 100-200 times that. Look at your electronics. Where were they made?

You have only to look at the rust belt factories that have closed to know that skilled workers are simply being found where they have fewer rights and work for lower wages. It's an economic fact that the US industrial might has declined for decades, now: Some will blame Unions. Some will blame corporate greed.

Me? I blame people. When the Unions had all the power, they grew fat and corrupt. It's the nature of humanity. Now, Corporations hold all the power. Food that used to go to the US is now being exported all over the world as people want to eat more and more like Americans. Oil, tin and other infrastructure-building devices are being pulled more and more to countries like China who are raising the cost of everything from wheat to nickel. Inflation indexes are showing huge increases despite not including those things hit most hard: The basic necessities. You'll find that elsewhere in the world, their standard of living will increase while the standard of living in the US will decrease until they meet somewhere in the middle and jobs start coming back.

This is the fault of people: When we get power, we tend to abuse it. People like you and I are simply on the receiving end of this abuse at the moment.

What we need is to unionize the workers in all the third world countries. They deserve safety and decent wages too.

[Guest]

Nor in Washington...though we have one of the highest rates of union membership.

I don't know why I thought you meant D.C. Sorry!

(Which, not to hijack, never meant a lick of sense to me because D.C. is not a state)

I used to agree. However, with closed shops the "democracy" is still there. The workers vote, and whichever perspective win gets embraced by everyone. If an individual is adamantly opposed, they can leave and work for an open shop or a non-union shop.

No, not really. Think of it this way. There is no Democracy in China regardless of the fact that they can always move to the Philippines. Make sense?

It seems unfair, but if you are on a team, and the team votes in it, so long as we are not taking about immorality, shouldn't the individual worker support his/her team mates.

Which team? A team of workers? Sure, if the person wants to be part of that team. Our disconnect is what comprises a team? Your team is all workers. My team is - those who desire collective bargaining as provided by a specific Union.

It works both ways and the equation is pretty simple. Right to Work rules allow individual workers to not join. This weights the power equation towards management. In closed shops, it's all or nothing--given some weight to the workers. There is nothing absolute about this. The question is, in our free market system, do we want to give leverage to labor or management? Smith argued that labor could use the extra heft.

Sure, labor could use extra heft. Nobody is stopping people from joining or forming Unions. The only thing is that they are given a way to opt out of it. This is not management versus unions. This is workers versus unions.

This last part gets to two difficulties with unions. Today it is argued that unions made companies bankrupt by pressuring for over-high wages and absurd workplace rules. In bad economies, ironically, management gets leverage by threatening bankruptcy, relocation, or layoffs. It may be that labor needs more help, not less.

You say "threatening" like management always has a choice in the matter. See, there's this disconnect between us - you are under the assumption that businesses stay open for the benefit of workers. Like businesses owe people a job or something. I don't believe in that at all.

I believe that businesses exist for a profit. It's the nature of their existence. They are under ZERO obligation to hire anybody. Their obligation is to provide their financial backers a return on their investment. If they can accomplish this with ZERO labor costs, then they don't need to hire anybody and they shouldn't.

Of course, this is rarely the case. Businesses usually need labor to produce profit. So, the balance exist because Management requires workers and workers need a job.

The capital provides no weight on this balance because it doesn't matter how much money you have, you can't make a product without labor.

Collective bargaining power is just a tool to add weight to workers when necessary. If it's not necessary, it doesn't have to exist. And that's the theory behind right-to-work.

As for political contributions, I agree. It's the one area that caused me to be relatively anti-union and pro-right to work for many years. Some states or agencies have restrictions on this, requiring unions to voluntary raise their PAC monies separate from dues. I support these kinds of rules.

I'm never anti-Union. Regardless of the political landscape. I am merely anti-forced-Union. In the same way that I am not anti-healthcare-insurance. I am merely anti-mandated-health-insurance.

[Guest]

What we need is to unionize the workers in all the third world countries. They deserve safety and decent wages too.

Anne... who says they don't have relative safety and relatively decent wages?

Just because Americans call it "slave labor" doesn't necessarily make it so to the people who live there.

[annewandering]

Is it ok for corporations to lobby but not the workers? Even the church has lobbyists, or so I hear. Are the workers an exempted class who have no right to fight in Washington for their best interests?

[annewandering]

Anne... who says they don't have relative safety and relatively decent wages?

Just because Americans call it "slave labor" doesn't make it so.

You do remember the recent fire in Bangladesh right? The one where over a hundred workers died because the company preferred profits over safety? How about the three in India recently where huge numbers of people died. We rarely have that in this country anymore directly because of unions.

Oh and I never said they were slaves. Slaves do get room and board although some in other countries are provided with bunks so they are right there to start to work on their shifts.