Unions and right to work

[selek]

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 agree.

I still argue that workers should decide on union representation through a vote, not individually.

This is the crux of our disagreement.

I don't believe that what the Constitution describes as "inalienable" rights should be sacrificed in the name of collectivism simply because a bare plurality of my peers demand it.

I certainly don't think that private organizations such as unions should be able to negotiate sweetheart deals through which their monopoly is enforced by the power of the State.

I am put in mind of the screaming and carrying on which accompanied Haliburton winning a "no-bid" contract by dint of being the only company available actually capable of carrying out the contract.

That was denounced as monopolistic (arguably correct), unfair, and un-American.

Can you imagine the outcry had Halburton (as part of their sweetheart deal) succeeded in getting a law passed which outlawed any other companies joining the field in direct competition to them?

Can you imagine the outcry if it turned out that Haliburton had donated lavishly to the re-election coffers of the very legislators who passed such a law?

What, then, is the moral difference between our theoretical Haliburton and the unions using money collected dues money to elect politicians who pass "closed shop" laws?

In both cases, it is a special interest manipulating the system to advance their own financial interest and to cement their domination of a specific field of endeavor.

However, if I were an owner, I'd want to run my shop like Coors, and not have to deal with them.

I agree. Edited December 15, 2012 by selek

[prisonchaplain]

Rather than viewing labor unions as monopolies, I see them as groups of workers hiring a specialized law firm on retainer. After all, much of law has to do with avoiding the courtroom by coming to an amicable agreement or plea bargain.

[Just_A_Guy]

Rather than viewing labor unions as monopolies, I see them as groups of workers hiring a specialized law firm on retainer. After all, much of law has to do with avoiding the courtroom by coming to an amicable agreement or plea bargain.

Yeah, but I have a fiduciary duty to my clients and if my bull-headed tactics hurt my clients, I'm fully liable for whatever monetary damages they suffer.

Moreover: I'm not the only game in town, my clients know it, and my clients know that they won't see a couple of goons on their doorsteps (or face a public shaming campaign against them) if they decide they no longer need my services.

I think the earlier statement (was it from Anatess?) was absolutely right: if unions and workers are not one and the same, then workers simply won't be able to stand up against both the union and management at once. It's like a fox and a farmer's wife arguing about what's in the best interest of the Christmas turkey.

[talisyn]

See, mom, I told you this one would take off

Rather than viewing labor unions as monopolies, I see them as groups of workers hiring a specialized law firm on retainer. After all, much of law has to do with avoiding the courtroom by coming to an amicable agreement or plea bargain.

PC, this is actually a lot closer to what a union is suppose to do than a lot of what has been discussed in this thread. People talk and talk about collective bargaining and contracts, but it is much more basic and personal than that.

A union member has a right, because of dues paid, to a knowledge base of state, federal, and local laws governing wages, work conditions, et al. Yes, everyone should know their rights and be able to argue for them effectively. But sometimes it's easy to forget laws when you're under pressure. Like when you are called into your supervisor's office and questioned about something (anything) dealing with your job, and your supervisor just happens to be going through a bitter divorce/15 year old daughter just announced her pregnancy/some idiot plowed into his/her new car right before work/horrible toothache it's a welcome relief to be able to say 'I think we should ask the Shop steward about this question'. The time it takes to get the union rep into the office is usually spent dialing down the tension, and a 3rd party who is not involved in the situation but is authorized by both company and employees to arbitrate can be extremely effective in making everyone see everyone's point.

I'm glad everyone here is so smart and cool that they don't need that kind of help. I, personally, have seen grown men and women leave their supervisor's office in tears because of unfair business practices. I have seen people specifically targeted for removal of position for nothing more than the boss wants someone else in that job. This has happened at both my current job and when I worked for the Evil Empire. The difference being, at the Evil Empire they could only go up the store chain of command, and those individuals were quick to point out 'at-will employment'. But where I work now a good steward will be sure to mention all those pesky laws like the ones regarding unemployment for unfair termination (even in Idaho) and often that helps cooler heads prevail. A good steward will also be sure to point out the decades of great production, the awesome cost-saving ideas a few months ago, and low absentee rate. Same Right to Work state, often times different results.

Now, I'm not saying that every time a shop steward is called in the employee is saved lol. A lot of times the employee either did do something or did not prevent an event, that deserves a warning or termination. But a lot of times they didn't. A good union will be able to help both the employees and company.

This is long, and I apologize. It's hard to think and type clearly after a 12 hr shift while nursing a 2 yr old monkey who likes to poke her toes up my nose But I hope it helps to explain that people are the same as they were back in the dawn of the Industrial Age when almost everyone now says 'unions were needed then...' , and I believe that until Christ comes in all His glory there will be those willing to exploit people's desires to feed and clothe and shelter their families (and take them to Disneyland. Nothing wrong with working for a middle-class life).

*cough*evilempire*cough*

[kathysmike]

This whole thread has me pulled in so many directions, seeing how the unions work today the corruption and what it now has the two tiered pay system new employees paid a much lower wage than those doing the same job with any seniority. Why would a new employee want to pay dues and get a lower wage for the same work as the guy next to them.

I then began to remember the stories I have heard regarding my Great Grand Father and his Coalminer organizers in the Blair Mountaint Logan County Union Organizers. Not to rehash a lot of history, in the end my Great Grand Father was Killed by Company Guard for his Union activities he was ran into accompany building by a company car driven by company guard.

My Family has a long history with being pro union, when unions were young, I understand and appreciate their selfless gifts for the causes. I have been pro union for most of my life. Now as the unions struggle with it should be able to represent their membership strongly and each member equally it should not matter if they are retiree, a member with 20 years on the job a new hired employee. All these employee should be given the same receive the same benifets from their union membership.

[prisonchaplain]

Yeah, but I have a fiduciary duty to my clients and if my bull-headed tactics hurt my clients, I'm fully liable for whatever monetary damages they suffer.

Moreover: I'm not the only game in town, my clients know it, and my clients know that they won't see a couple of goons on their doorsteps (or face a public shaming campaign against them) if they decide they no longer need my services.

I think the earlier statement (was it from Anatess?) was absolutely right: if unions and workers are not one and the same, then workers simply won't be able to stand up against both the union and management at once. It's like a fox and a farmer's wife arguing about what's in the best interest of the Christmas turkey.

Union thuggery and management thuggery...these were commonplace and severe at one time. I'm sure there are still anecdotes that abound. However, my analogy is not unreasonable, because when clients have a law firm on retainer they have pretty much placed their stakes with the one firm--at least for a season. In most cases unions survive because they please their clients, not because of being physically intimidated by the unions.

I just spoke to my mother about this and she said that even 20 years ago union members at the large company she worked at could not harass those who crossed pickets, or they would get in real trouble. So, it seems that many places have worked out the balance.

Edited December 16, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

Union thuggery and management thuggery...these were commonplace and severe at one time. I'm sure there are still anecdotes that abound. However, my analogy is not unreasonable, because when clients have a law firm on retainer they have pretty much placed their stakes with the one firm--at least for a season. In most cases unions survive because they please their clients, not because of being physically intimidated by the unions.

I just spoke to my mother about this and she said that even 20 years ago union members at the large company she worked at could not harass those who crossed pickets, or they would get in real trouble. So, it seems that many places have worked out the balance.

There are a number of things that should be obvious.

One concerns freedom and choice. In an area where many jobs are dependent on a single company (or source) there is likely to be abuses by anyone with abilities to gain a position of power. This is expressed in a famous LDS scripture

D&C 121:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

If there are abuses it is because too much authority is being unjustly assumed and taken. As I implied in a previous post, unions loose all credibility (even if most union members are credible) when members of that union commit abuses and are not reproved and punished by the union. Unlike a business that must have profit to exist a union must champion fairness and social benefit to exist - in any act of reprisal or bullying takes place the union undermines is very purpose for existence - which is to prevent unjust treatment of any worker.

Just like a democracy cannot tolerate minority discrimination to any of it citizens and maintain justice; a union cannot tolerate any mistreatment or any threat to any worker doing their job and have any creditable or even a reason to exist.

A union that seeks special consideration for its members is no better than a government that seeks special considerations for isolated minority or majority citizens of a political party temporally in power.

The Traveler

Edited December 17, 2012 by Traveler