Unions and right to work

[Guest]

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.

And, of course, the flip side to that story is... where it not for those businesses all of those people will be dead on the street with their stomachs bloated out. There are $1.2 Billion people in India. There are no jobs - safe or not - that can feed all of them.

America lives in luxury. You have so much money you can afford OSHA regulations. I mean, just go to your local Golden Corral restaurant and look at the food left on the tables to rot. All those people who died in India would not be working in those companies if they can only sit in an American Golden Corral picking after the scraps.

[Guest]

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?

Lobby who? Congress? It's okay for ANYBODY to lobby Congress. Corporations AND workers alike.

The problem is, when a worker is paying money that is spent to support a lobby AGAINST his perception of what is in his best interest.

[Traveler]

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?

But are union lobbyists representing "workers" or unions? I thought the whole argument about right to work was because unions do not want to represent workers just unions? As I read the arguments the unions really do not want anything to do with workers - unless they pay union dues.

What is the difference between unions only wanting to represent paying members and governments that only allow tax payers to vote? I find it odd that union members do not want to benefit able non-paying workers - yet they overwhelming support a party that wants to provide benefits to certain citizens that are able to support themselves but do not do so?

I am also very suspicious of unions that do not police their own members and see to it that their members do not show up to work high or drunk. Should not unions make sure that does not happen - instead of preventing companies from firing such workers and endangering other workers? Very few manufacturing and assembly places (none) are safer if workers are drunk and high. Such unions do not represent workers - they represent special interests within the union - that by defination is corruption. The only reason workers would allow such things is if they fear union repercussions - which smells of corruption.

The Traveler

[kathysmike]

Union dues not only being used to back candidates whom we do not personally back, support for ballot proposals we do not agree with, used to pay lobbyist who lobby for laws to passed that go against our beliefs.

Now that's what I call wise use of our hard earned wages.

[Traveler]

Union dues not only being used to back candidates whom we do not personally back, support for ballot proposals we do not agree with, used to pay lobbyist who lobby for laws to passed that go against our beliefs.

Now that's what I call wise use of our hard earned wages.

Not all unions are bad - just like governments. For example the printers union. Though I usually oppose unions - I would encourage any printer to join that union.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Not all unions are bad - just like governments. For example the printers union. Though I usually oppose unions - I would encourage any printer to join that union.

The Traveler

And there's this Florida union of electricians that are pretty popular here that electricians want to join. And grocery store chains here have a lot of unions. And this is in a right-to-work state.

[selek]

A couple of things need to be noted very clearly:

First and foremost, the "pro-union" voices are beating up on a strawman.

No one here- and none of the legislators who passed the laws which created this tempest in a teapot- have advocated for the abolition or outlawing of unions.

None.

But they would (rather understandably) prefer to talk about anything other than the legion of excesses and abuses commited by the unions- including the blatant racism, blatant lawlessness, and destruction of property that attended the recent union protests.

That is why they cast this argument in terms of "union=good/management=bad". Because painting anyone who opposes union abuses with a simplistic Snidely Whiplash caricature is the only way they can win this argument.

Note that with the exception of Prison Chaplain's admission about political donations, they have consistently refused to address or even acknowledge the lengthy lists of abuses perpetrated by the unions.

Nor have they acknowledged that- where they are given the opportunity to do so- the workers themselves are abandoning the unions in record numbers.

They simply retreat back to the idea that "the union knows what is best for the workers better than the workers themselves, and therefore membership must be mandatory".

They have consistently refused to answer any questions, or to address the similarities in tactics, motiviations, and outcomes between organized labor and organized crime.

Instead, they have played the race card, the class envy card, and the populist "if you don't like unions, you're un-American card".

Not once have they acknowledged the very real problems- and very real abuses- which attend compulsory union membership.

Not once have they addressed what this argument is really all about: our First Amendment freedoms of association and free speech.

They talk if flowery terms about the "good" that unions do- but they consistently shy away from addressing the price Americans pay for that alleged service.

Not once have they acknowledged that compulsory membership- in any organization- violates not only our First Amendment rights, but the eternal principle of free agency.

Instead, they argue that these freedoms and principles must be sacrificed on the altar of the kollective.

That the "greater good" can be served only when individual conscience and individual choice are sacrificed in the name of "unity".

Students of history will find such sentiments ominously familiar.

Edited December 14, 2012 by selek

[selek]

Not all unions are bad - just like governments. For example the printers union. Though I usually oppose unions - I would encourage any printer to join that union.

The Traveler

Contrary to the caricature offered up, no one here is opposed to unions- where they workers choose to unite voluntarily.

It is only where membership is compulsory, and employment is conditional upon swearing fealty to the brotherhood, that we have a problem.

[annewandering]

Selek, you may not be in favor of breaking up unions but right to work is.

[prisonchaplain]

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?

Sometimes. There are some industries for which one has no alternatives that are reasonable. Boeing would be an example in my area. In that case it would seem that the right of labor to organize into a group that has a reasonable chance of negotiating with management and capital outweighs an individual worker's right to not have to join an organization to trade his labor for wages and benefits.

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.

True enough. Then again, I support the Electoral College too. All or nothing gives states more attraction. Likewise with workers.

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.

I do not see why it is so important to give workers an ability to opt out of a union. On the other hand, they should definitely have the legal right to opt out of their dues going towards union PACs--especially those that "invest" in politics unrelated to labor management relations.

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.

You may dismiss this concern. I agree with you. Businesses may do better in the long term if they can bolster employee morale, but their ultimate duty is to what they do, not whom they employ.

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.

Capital matters because you also can't work if you don't have a job. Companies have successfully tamped down wages and reduced benefits by arguing that if they do not then jobs will be lost, perhaps even factories closed. When labor believes management then cooperation brings a new balance. It's always good to remember that management and capital provide the jobs, so they hold great leverage.

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.

I'm glad my state mandates car insurance. Likewise, if I worked in an industry where closed union shops, open union shops, and non-union shops existed, it is an easy guess that the closed union shop would have the better pay/benefits package. It's not always so, but most often. So, I'd be thankful for "forced" union membership.

[selek]

Selek, you may not be in favor of breaking up unions but right to work is.

"Right to work" is a catch-phrase, nothing more.

As a result it means different things to different people in different contexts.

In this instance, the legislation passed does two things: first, it removes the right of unions to demand membership as a condition of employment, and second, removes the right of the unions to automaticallt deduct dues from employee paychecks without their express consent.

Nothing in this legislation demands the disbanding of unions, nor does it prevent workers from voluntarily organizing.

It simply removes the ability of the union to threaten a worker's job unless he swears fealty.

That's not "anti-union", it's "pro-worker".

You have offered us nothing in this thread except Kool-aid flavored rhetoric about the evils of anyone who opposes compulsory union membership.

You've played the race-card, the class-envy card, and the "un-American" card.

But you've offered no facts, no reason, and no justification as to why an American citizen can or should be forced to join an organization against his will.

You've offered up cartoon-character portrayals of employers and non-union members, you've resorted to name-calling and character assassination.

But you've yet to offer up any evidence that right-to-work legislation intrinsically and inescapably harms unions or prevents workers from organizing.

Because "you say so" isn't an argument, it's a statement of faith.

Declaring that the world is flat doesn't make it so.....

...and neither do empty declarations about other people's super-secret intentions.

Come back and talk to me when you're interested in a serious discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of compulsory membership.

Edited December 14, 2012 by selek

[selek]

Sometimes. There are some industries for which one has no alternatives that are reasonable. Boeing would be an example in my area. In that case it would seem that the right of labor to organize into a group that has a reasonable chance of negotiating with management and capital outweighs an individual worker's right to not have to join an organization to trade his labor for wages and benefits.

This is a strawman.

The right of workers to organize is not under attack. Only the right of unions to compel membership as a condition of employment.

The two are not synonymous.

Workers are still free to organize if they feel the need to do so. It is their decision.

On a related note, your line of argument also puts paid to the derision "corporations as people" has received. Unions are organized as non-profit corporations for tax purposes.

If the union corporation has "rights"- as you allege, so too, must the employer corporation.

I do not see why it is so important to give workers an ability to opt out of a union.

Are there any other organizations to which you feel an American citizen can be forced to pledge his allegiance?

[prisonchaplain]

"Right to work" is a catch-phrase, nothing more.

As a result it means different things to different people in different contexts.

In this instance, the legislation passed does two things: first, it removes the right of unions to demand membership as a condition of employment, and second, removes the right of the unions to automaticallt deduct dues from employee paychecks without their express consent.

Nothing in this legislation demands the disbanding of unions, nor does it prevent workers from voluntarily organizing.

Selek, this legislation and your summary are not one among many meanings of Right to Work. It is the essence of the movement. If workers have the right not to pay dues, many won't. Unions have less money and fewer members, and thus negotiate from a position of weakness.

There is nothing complicated or relative about this issue. Right to Work tilts power towards management, closed shops tilt it towards labor.

That's not "anti-union", it's "pro-worker".

It's pro-management. It gives workers the freedom to freeload off the negotiating power of unions and their dues-paying members.

You have offered us nothing in this thread except Kool-aid flavored rhetoric about the evils of anyone who opposes compulsory union membership.

Since you and I are conservatives, let me offer you something--a famous conservative thinker who agrees with me: Why Milton Friedman Opposed Right-To-Work - Forbes

You've played the race-card, the class-envy card, and the "un-American" card.

I'll confess to not having read Anne's link. However, it would not surprise me if Right to Work movement had its beginnings in some type of racism. So many things in that era did. Class envy? Well, sure, unions represented working class people, and historically management hired thugs to beat the fight out of them. As for Americanism, I did grow up believing that part of being American was being able to have a very decent middle class standard of living while working a blue collar job. Unions were a big part of making that so.

But you've offered no facts, no reason, and no justification as to why an American citizen can or should be forced to join an organization against his will.

Bottom line, if you don't want to join the union team find a non-union or open shop. Nobody HAS to work anywhere. It is not unreasonable to have an all-or-nothing vote amongst workers, concerning union representation. Right to Work without union representation is nowhere enshrined in any of our founding freedom documents.

Again, even Milton Freedman, a well-respected conservative economist, opposed Right to Work legislation his entire adult life.

Y

[Guest]

Sometimes. There are some industries for which one has no alternatives that are reasonable. Boeing would be an example in my area. In that case it would seem that the right of labor to organize into a group that has a reasonable chance of negotiating with management and capital outweighs an individual worker's right to not have to join an organization to trade his labor for wages and benefits.

Your example of Boeing is exactly why right-to-work is needed. People who don't want to join a union has NOWHERE else to go. If the workers feel their wages and benefits are being trampled on, they will join a union. They won't have to be forced into it.

True enough. Then again, I support the Electoral College too. All or nothing gives states more attraction. Likewise with workers.

I'm not sure I get the relationship between the Electoral College and the Union. Are you saying that all of a States votes go to one candidate as an All or nothing option? The principle of Electoral College is that the States elect the President of the Federation. Not individuals. The State can decide to let the groundhog pick the President. So, I don't really get the connection.

Here's a connection but I don't think this is what you mean - the people voted on how electoral colleges are distributed in their State Constitutions. When enough people feel they are not represented, they will vote to change the State Constitution.... As is what's happening in Michigan as far as right-to-work legislation is concerned.

I do not see why it is so important to give workers an ability to opt out of a union. On the other hand, they should definitely have the legal right to opt out of their dues going towards union PACs--especially those that "invest" in politics unrelated to labor management relations.

That's beside the point. Regardless of investments in Union PACs, the theory of forced unions still rankle.

You may dismiss this concern. I agree with you. Businesses may do better in the long term if they can bolster employee morale, but their ultimate duty is to what they do, not whom they employ.

I just told you that. Businesses don't exist to hire people. Businesses exist to make profit.

Capital matters because you also can't work if you don't have a job. Companies have successfully tamped down wages and reduced benefits by arguing that if they do not then jobs will be lost, perhaps even factories closed. When labor believes management then cooperation brings a new balance. It's always good to remember that management and capital provide the jobs, so they hold great leverage.

You're not getting my point. Business versus Labor goes in the same cycle as Supply versus Demand. It balances itself naturally if you don't instill regulation that blocks natural competition.

When unemployment rate is down, management does not have leverage to tamp down wages and reduce benefits because workers can easily find a job elsewhere. When unemployment is up, management have more leverage to tampe down wages and reduce benefits...

Now... look at that cycle. Why would unemployment rate go down? Because the economy is robust - when the economy is robust, businesses have higher profits. Look at the flip side - unemployment rate is up means the economy is limping which means busineses are not making money. What's the natural reaction - business with higher profits can afford to pay their employees more. Business with diminished profits cannot afford to pay their employees more. A cycle that ebbs and flows despite the existence/absence of Unions.

If you leave the Business versus Labor alone, it balances itself out... naturally. Just like Supply versus Demand does.

So, Unions are great to guarantee that the balance in the cycle continues. But, forcing them in play upsets this balance to the other side because a company in a recession has no leverage to counter a union that do not play by the natural rules of the same sandbox.

You seem to fear that Unions will work from a position of weakness. I've mentioned it before - in a free society, where workers are free to join or not join a Union, the Union is only as strong as the need for their services. Which is how it SHOULD be. Then you won't have a Union more powerful than it's purpose which upsets the natural Business versus Labor balance.

I'm glad my state mandates car insurance. Likewise, if I worked in an industry where closed union shops, open union shops, and non-union shops existed, it is an easy guess that the closed union shop would have the better pay/benefits package. It's not always so, but most often. So, I'd be thankful for "forced" union membership.

The closed union shop may have better pay/benefits but they may not have as many jobs to choose from. And guess what's happening there - businesses produce more expensive products so they sell it for more money. Delta is a good example - Delta can't compete with SouthWest. GM is another example - GM can't compete with Toyota. So, yes, closed union shops may have more pay/benefits until the union eats the hand that feeds them.

Now, we can count how many States have closed Union shops and how many States have open union shops and compare their GDPs during a bubble and during a recession. I don't have the time right now to do so, but I'm going to attempt to find out.

Do we really have to talk car insurance? Because, it does not even equate. Didn't we discuss this difference in the Obamacare versus car insurance discussions?

Edited December 14, 2012 by anatess

[Backroads]

If workers have the right not to pay dues, many won't. Unions have less money and fewer members, and thus negotiate from a position of weakness.

But it seems to me that if all must join the union, the union has no perogative to work hard for its members.

Just trying to wrap my head around that. I'm rather neutral on the debate.

[prisonchaplain]

This is a strawman. The right of workers to organize is not under attack. Only the right of unions to compel membership as a condition of employment. The two are not synonymous. Workers are still free to organize if they feel the need to do so. It is their decision.

On a related note, your line of argument also puts paid to the derision "corporations as people" has received. Unions are organized as non-profit corporations for tax purposes.

If the union corporation has "rights"- as you allege, so too, must the employer corporation.

I honestly do not understand your arguments here. What is my strawman argument. Are you disagreeing that Right to Work laws emaciate unions? If you have a choice not to pay dues, even many who appreciate the union will chose not to. So, you give workers the freedom to freeload. How's that some grand fight for freedom? Why should workers have a special right not to join the team when they go to work? If they don't like the team, they can choose to work elsewhere. No one is forcing them to work at a particular place, or join an organization.

Are there any other organizations to which you feel an American citizen can be forced to pledge his allegiance?

The military (if a draft becomes necessary). Certain schools or training organizations, if the job requires this. Denominations, if one chooses to be a clergyperson in a a church that belongs to one. I could go on...most employment situations require some type of belonging that is an obligation of employment.

[prisonchaplain]

But it seems to me that if all must join the union, the union has no perogative to work hard for its members.

Just trying to wrap my head around that. I'm rather neutral on the debate.

Workers can vote as a bargaining unit to leave the union.

[Guest]

Workers can vote as a bargaining unit to leave the union.

Now that's interesting... because... not only do you have Business versus Labor, now you have Labor versus Unions. Labor loses. It has too many wars to fight.

[Backroads]

Workers can vote as a bargaining unit to leave the union.

Could you explain just what that means? Because if they must be in the union-that-isn't-protecting-them to have the job, all I can imagine is they have to leave the job.

[prisonchaplain]

Your example of Boeing is exactly why right-to-work is needed. People who don't want to join a union has NOWHERE else to go. If the workers feel their wages and benefits are being trampled on, they will join a union. They won't have to be forced into it.

It is your best argument, in my view. I still believe that the right of labor to organize and negotiate collectively outweighs an individual worker's misgivings.

I'm not sure I get the relationship between the Electoral College and the Union. Are you saying that all of a States votes go to one candidate as an All or nothing option?

You got it. My point is that this system causes candidates to pay attention to individual states as a whole. Even if a small state is a close call, candidates will want to give some favor to them--especially in a close election. On the other hand, if our elections were by popular vote, if the state has 400K voters, what does it matter if they win or lose by a few 1000? They have far less incentive to consider the interest of the state as an entity.

Likewise, if management can divide workers, it is easier for them to control the workforce, and grant it an overall less attractive wage and benefits package.

[selek]

First and foremost, I want to thank you.

We clearly have fundamental disagreements on this issue, but you have at least articulated arguments to support your claim rather than mere caricatures.

If workers have the right not to pay dues, many won't. Unions have less money and fewer members, and thus negotiate from a position of weakness.

If unions cannot win the hearts and minds of the workers- indeed if workers do not feel the need to support the union, by what right may the union compel them to do so?

If you think that I should eat more brussel sprouts- and I don't happen to like them- by what right would you compel me to do so?

By your own definition, the unions are there (ostensibly) to support the workers interests and goals.

If the workers don't want that representation, by what right may the union force it upon them?

There is nothing complicated or relative about this issue. Right to Work tilts power towards management, closed shops tilt it towards labor.

In your opinion.

Your opinion does not a fact make.

It's pro-management. It gives workers the freedom to freeload off the negotiating power of unions and their dues-paying members.

In your opinion.

Your opinion does not a fact make.

I'll confess to not having read Anne's link. However, it would not surprise me if Right to Work movement had its beginnings in some type of racism. So many things in that era did.

Ironically, that list includes unions. Interesting to note, however, that neither you nor Anne want to address the overt racism displayed by union thugs at the Michigan riots this very week....

As for Americanism, I did grow up believing that part of being American was being able to have a very decent middle class standard of living while working a blue collar job. Unions were a big part of making that so.

Without question, unions were a large part of that.

What you cannot escape, however, is that when given the choice, the workers themselves are deserting the unions in droves.

If they do not feel the need to have the union represent them, then who are you to force that choice upon them?

Bottom line, if you don't want to join the union team find a non-union or open shop.

Red-herring. In a great many closed-shop states and industries, there is no non-union alternative.

You either play the game by their rules or go without.

By any definition, that's called a monopoly. And monopolies invariably hurt competition and freedom.

It is not unreasonable to have an all-or-nothing vote amongst workers, concerning union representation. Right to Work without union representation is nowhere enshrined in any of our founding freedom documents.

Nor are closed shops, compulsory membership, or forced allegiance enshrined in those documents.

The problem is that you are still arguing a red-herring.

The right of the workers to organize is NOT under attack.

If the workers feel they need the union, they will join voluntarily.

If they do not, it is immoral and unethical to force them to join.

[prisonchaplain]

Could you explain just what that means? Because if they must be in the union-that-isn't-protecting-them to have the job, all I can imagine is they have to leave the job.

If a union is not doing its job in representing the workers then they have the right to vote to eject the union. When this happens the union is said to be broken. In other words, unions come in at the invitation of the the workers, and they may be asked to leave by those same workers.

To me this is the key difference I have with Selek: I argue that workers should decide as a group what to do. This gives them power. For example, workers at Coors Beer (sorry, but it's a famous example) voted to reject the union. They did this over and over again for decades. Teamsters urged members to boycott Coors, but since the factory paid its workers equivalent wages and benefits, and morale was good, they saw no need to join a union.

Likewise, worker groups can indeed reject union representation. My only argument is that they should do this as a group. They is no individual right to work enshrined in our freedom documents. When I join a company, I expect that I will have to cooperate with my colleagues. Union shops are an extension of that. When the unions become corrupt, or fail to do their work, or become overly politicized, then workers can eject them. However, let that be a decision of the worker group as a whole.

Edited December 14, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[Backroads]

To me this is the key difference I have with Selek: I argue that workers should decide as a group what to do. This gives them power. For example, workers at Coors Beer (sorry, but it's a famous example) voted to reject the union. They did this over and over again for decades. Teamsters urged members to boycott Coors, but since the factory paid its workers equivalent wages and benefits, and morale was good, they saw no need to join a union.

Likewise, worker groups can indeed reject union representation. My only argument is that they should do this as a group. They is no individual right to work enshrined in our freedom documents. When I join a company, I expect that I will have to cooperate with my colleagues. Union shops are an extension of that. When the unions become corrupt, or fail to do their work, or become overly politicized, then workers can eject them. However, let that be a decision of the worker group as a whole.

I think I can agree with this view. I'm very much in the view of "do what you want" view, which makes it difficult for me to strongly side with one side on this debate: I figure if people want a union, that's their right. If they don't want a union, that's their right. I can definitely agree with the "you don't like the rule of joining the union, leave" view, though I'm still concerned about what one does when there are simply no other options.

[selek]

Since you seem to be much about definitions today, I offer the following:

A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

One more thing:

Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

Membership in a union as a condition of employment (and where one does not wish to be a union member) undermines the "free choice of employment" clause.

It should also be noted that:

Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.

Finally, it is arguable that compulsary union dues are a fee that members must pay in order to secure a job.

What is the moral difference between a fee paid to secure a job and a fee paid to secure a ballot?

Edited December 14, 2012 by selek

[prisonchaplain]

Selek, things are trending your way. If management is wise, it will consider high employee morale as an important factor in running their companies. Then the need for unions will continue to fade away. However, if management gets greedy, and endeavors to suppress wages and benefits, always arguing that we compete with poor nations, then organized labor will rebound. I still argue that workers should decide on union representation through a vote, not individually. However, if I were an owner, I'd want to run my shop like Coors, and not have to deal with them.