What is right to work vs unions

So I started thed the union vs. non union thread, From the Kelloggs thread. Union guys making 28 bucks an hour.

What does right to work really mean?
I am a union sheet metal worker and everybody I work with is too. We pay dues, for the most part we al went through our apprenticeship and became journeyman.


I dont get it. Nobody is forced to join our union.

Can somebody explain the big ordeal please

reply to post by tinner07


Some States and or companies Require Union membership as a condition of Employment.

In some states, you can be deemed to be part of a union merely by doing a certain job. For example, Minnesota is trying to unionize childcare workers. Under the definitions, someone could wind up being unionized without realizing it or even knowing there was a vote. All of a sudden, they're unionized and owe dues. In a right to work state, they don't have to be a part of the union. In a union state, if you belong to a unionized profession, you pretty much have to be a part of the union in order to work in that profession.

Now, maybe this wouldn't be such a big issue except that a lot of dues go to things like electioneering. I remember when I was a teacher and belonged to the teachers' union. It was during the Bush/Kerry election. My union dues, without my permission, paid for people to operate call centers where live people would call me and pretty much tell me how to vote. I'll bet you can guess for whom I was to vote. It was always phrased "Your union has determined who the best candidate to vote for ..." Then there were all the mailers telling me to "Vote for Kerry because your job depends on it!"

My dues money went to pay for all of that.

Meanwhile, I was teaching in a failing inner city school with a corrupt bureaucracy where every teachers' meeting was nothing more than a union gripe session about how "they" couldn't make us do this or that against our contracts.

None of it did anything to make the situation any better for the students.

So I ask you ... At what point did having unionized teachers improve anything for the kids who were being failed?

reply to post by ketsuko


What a clever strategy. Control the opposition and give it a name called a union. Then control the Union. Illusion of freedom or collective bargaining. Thems "powers that be" sure have us figured out!

reply to post by tinner07


Actually, I think the correct term for the conversation you're seeking is "right-to-work" vs. "union shop."

There's pretty good explanations of both concepts on Wiki and I'll post them here for your convenience.

en.wikipedia.org...

A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.[1] Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general.

en.wikipedia.org...

A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States 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. "Right-to-work" laws do not, as the short phrase might suggest, aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers,[1] or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.

I'm a retired union worker and if you ask me, the "right-to-work" laws were never really intended to give workers any new "rights," other than the right to reap the benefits offered by union membership without paying their fair share of the cost to operate the union, including those cost incurred when negotiating their benefits.

In actuality, it's just one of the many tactics utilized by the GOP and union critics to chip away at union funding, thereby impeding their ability to function effectively. As far as they're concerned, any legislation that can be utilized to weaken unions is worth enacting.

It gets even worse than that. Check out this ATS thread discussing how the Tennessee legislators are threatening to take away tax incentives from the Volkswagen plant if it's workers vote to unionize. Apparently, it doesn't even matter that the company supports the idea of going union.

Nothing like openly forbidding good paying jobs for the people they represent!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When the same union represents the employees at the big three auto manufacturers, how is that not a conflict of interest?

How can you not say there is potential conflict of interest of interest anytime the union is larger/much more powerful than the entity they're bargaining against?

And how can you defend public workers' unions? In that case, you have a large group of people who vote, their dues go into electioneering to elect candidates who will sit across from their reps to negotiate their contracts, and the terms of those contracts will determine their wages and the dues that will in part fund electioneering for the next campaign ... who provides the wages? Oh, the taxpayer. Who never gets any seat at the table? Oh, the taxpayer ... How is that fair?

Evenin',

Perhaps this may shed some light on things...







-Peace-

Flatfish
reply to post by tinner07

 

I'm a retired union worker and if you ask me, the "right-to-work" laws were never really intended to give workers any new "rights," other than the right to reap the benefits offered by union membership without paying their fair share of the cost to operate the union, including those cost incurred when negotiating their benefits.

I can understand why you would see it that way. I don't. I have always been philosophically opposed to unions and resented a workplace that required me to join. Some workplaces have union contracts that require them to FIRE WORKERS WHO REFUSE TO JOIN.

THAT'S what "right to work" is all about, to prevent unions from dictating that an employee be terminated if he does not join the union. In some shops the negotiation has resulted in workers who refuse to join being forced to give an equivalent amount to charity. The idea, of course, is as you stated that the union negotiates on their behalf, therefore they should pay. the problem with this approach is either that the union does NOT negotiate on behalf of the employee, or does a poor job. In cases of a NEW employee, the union definitely negotiates NOT in favor of the new employee, because the union is all in favor of seniority being a guiding principle on who gets laid off. The new employee is in absolutely the worst position ever vis-à-vis the union and the employer.

Further, unions are more interested in dues than in negotiating. They will fight for an "automatic payroll withdrawal" tooth and nail because they know getting employees to pay them is difficult. In fact, I have seen unions withdraw from negotiating for employees simply because the bargaining unions was not big enough. In other words, it wasn't worth the union's trouble. Unions with pension funds are particularly susceptible to graft and corruption, as the many scandals over the years involving them and organized crime are sufficient testimony.

Unions are also extremely coercive. Just try to NOT JOIN and see what happens to you. You're lucky of you don't get your tires slashed. Historically, people who refuse to join unions are ostracized, sometimes physically assaulted. The same is true during strikes. Strikes are illegal, but try crossing a picket line. If you get spit upon that is the least of your worries.

The idea that unions are merely a coming together of workers to address inequities in the workplace is a fanciful notion at best. Unions are the CAUSE of as many inequities as they claim are made against themselves, and in many cases downright crooked and corrupt.

ketsuko

Now, maybe this wouldn't be such a big issue except that a lot of dues go to things like electioneering. I remember when I was a teacher and belonged to the teachers' union. It was during the Bush/Kerry election. My union dues, without my permission, paid for people to operate call centers where live people would call me and pretty much tell me how to vote. I'll bet you can guess for whom I was to vote. It was always phrased "Your union has determined who the best candidate to vote for ..." Then there were all the mailers telling me to "Vote for Kerry because your job depends on it!"

My dues money went to pay for all of that.

If your dues money was spent for political purposes, one of two things occurred. Either you agreed to having it spent that way or, you were unaware that you had the right to demand a refund for any of your dues that were spent in such a manner.

Ever heard of your "Beck Rights?" Not as in Glenn Beck, but as in the 1988 landmark Supreme Court decision in "Communications Workers v. Beck." It's worth a google.

In my union, all monies spent for political purposes were collected on a voluntary basis and totally separate from union dues. We had a voluntary "check-off" form where you could designate, (if you so choose) how much you wanted to donate and you had the right to revoke that designation at any time, so "Beck Rights" were never an issue.

Anyway, sounds to me like you just failed to exercise your rights during the Bush v. Kerry campaign.

Today, the entire landscape for spending union dues for political activity has expanded. Brought on by none other than the Citizens United decision which opened the floodgates allowing unlimited money to dominate our elections and buy our legislators.

ketsuko
When the same union represents the employees at the big three auto manufacturers, how is that not a conflict of interest?

How can you not say there is potential conflict of interest of interest anytime the union is larger/much more powerful than the entity they're bargaining against?

And how can you defend public workers' unions? In that case, you have a large group of people who vote, their dues go into electioneering to elect candidates who will sit across from their reps to negotiate their contracts, and the terms of those contracts will determine their wages and the dues that will in part fund electioneering for the next campaign ... who provides the wages? Oh, the taxpayer. Who never gets any seat at the table? Oh, the taxpayer ... How is that fair?

The explanation as to why it's not a conflict of interest is rather easy. The unions are only building the cars they do not design them and they do not make the decisions as to what kind of cars they make. And how is the unions contributing to politicians any different than the corporations that donate to politicians? If you are against the unions donating are you against the companies as well?

tinner07
So I started thed the union vs. non union thread, From the Kelloggs thread. Union guys making 28 bucks an hour.

What does right to work really mean?
I am a union sheet metal worker and everybody I work with is too. We pay dues, for the most part we al went through our apprenticeship and became journeyman.


I dont get it. Nobody is forced to join our union.

Can somebody explain the big ordeal please

That's the problem. In some states you are FORCED to join a union. You have no say, you have no choice, you have no option.

Right to work states have unions, they simply have no FORCED unions.

They tend to have been much better at recovering from the recession as well. Wages are not low paying jobs. SC Boeing workers make comparable pay to their unionized brethren from other states .. and pay no union dues.

Forced union: civil employment 2.35% increase
Right to work: civil employment 4.75% increase
nilrr.org...

www.theatlantic.com... 8/279866/

Well, I know what has worked best for me, but other's mileage may vary.

As for which is best for the economy, I don't believe either side's story. For every source you can find that says the RTW states pay equal wages, there is another source saying they earn much less. Personally I don't believe either set of numbers because they will have been massaged by professionals to support the preferred ideology rather than report reality.

But I will say this. If you are a non-union worker in a right to work state you should be required to show evidence that you have personally negotiated every wage and benefit item yourself. And there better be records of the negotiations. Unions are required to keep these records and report them to the DOL, so should everyone else.

And no, saying "I want what they have" is not negotiating.

reply to post by Montana


That is kinda dumb. I talk to a owner/foreman/builder, we agree on the price. How am I supposed to keep a record of that? Record all my conversations?

Montana
Well, I know what has worked best for me, but other's mileage may vary.

As for which is best for the economy, I don't believe either side's story. For every source you can find that says the RTW states pay equal wages, there is another source saying they earn much less. Personally I don't believe either set of numbers because they will have been massaged by professionals to support the preferred ideology rather than report reality.

But I will say this. If you are a non-union worker in a right to work state you should be required to show evidence that you have personally negotiated every wage and benefit item yourself. And there better be records of the negotiations. Unions are required to keep these records and report them to the DOL, so should everyone else.

And no, saying "I want what they have" is not negotiating.

Show me the sources saying union states are doing better than RTW states recovering from the recession.

Coming from Massachusetts I have firsthand seen how corrupt unions can be.

As far as the negotiating you refer to .. that's the stupidest idea I have ever heard. Sheer stupidity. I am offered a job. I accept it or I don't. I like my benefits or I don't. If I don't I find a new job.

Unionism is a win lose situation.
In one hand they gain/protect rights for works for a coin. On the other they bleed employers dry with increasing wages and employee incentives.

Governments kill workers to benefit the business.
Unions kill the business to benefit the workers.

Neither system works, as is very evident in Australia with the recent death of the Australian car manufacturing industry.

reply to post by tinner07


The word "union" gets thrown around a lot - and for people that don't understand the differences between private "unions" and public "unions" - and professional "unions" and union organizers that just want to collect money for non-educated workers, such as waiters and waitresses, fast-food workers, housekeeping and such (I am not undermining these non-educated jobs, just differentiating the education needed to acquire a job) -

My ex was a union sheet metal worker ---- the education he had to learn is quite difficult - not just "cutting sheets of metal" - they had to understand how to gadge how much air was circulated in a building, electrical application, ventilation requirements (a whole lot of advanced math goes into these guys/gals jobs) - an un-educated person cannot do these jobs........

The sheet metal union also negotiated overtime pay, retirement, health insurance, disability pay (have you ever seen an employee have his finger sliced off, nose sliced off, by a sharp piece of metal?) The union also oversaw education of the sheet metal workers, and monitered their abilities and advancement - like college - except you actually had to prove that you could do the work.

Who do you want doing the airducts and ventilation in your building where you work?

I used to have the SIEU work for registered nurses for the state of wisconsin - who also does fast food workers?......

Look at trumka who was supposed to look out for CDL drivers in the US (semitruck drivers - that supply all the food and gas and crap you buy at the stores everyone shops in) - who caved completely on his 9000 trips to the white house under obozo and bush and was happy to have mexican truck drivers come in and undercut all of the hard working semi-drivers in the USA.

Unions come under many different forms and for the most part - undermine the hard-working, educated masses in america - in my opinion.

Dues are just to keep the democrats in power - who are adamant in destroying the USA.

Slightly off topic ....

But unions in their present incarnation are mostly horrible. That doesn't mean there is not a place for them.

The problem is that unions serve only the workers, and will make demands so unreasonable it puts the business out of business (ala twinkies).

What we need is unions 2.0. Someone who is a neutral 3rd party that EITHER GROUP can air grievances to. The neutral arbitrator would not server either owner or empoyees, they would make a ruling based on what is FAIR to both sides.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


In my opinion, except for the trade unions who supervise education of their workers, the union is there only to funnel money to the democratic party in the USA.

Happy1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

In my opinion, except for the trade unions who supervise education of their workers, the union is there only to funnel money to the democratic party in the USA.

Just because the Unions are corrupt, does not mean there is not a need for them. That is why I suggested a 3rd party arbitration to replace unions. As you suggest, it won't happen, because Democrats love that union money.

I am a state of Michigan employee and we just recently passed right to work. I have never been in a union and up until this job I was very anti union. I opened my mind quite a bit being surrounded by radical union supporters but simple logic and observation have convinced me that unions cause many to be lazy and hate authority. I found out quickly that working too hard makes enemies fast and there is simply no incentive to do my job well since the laziest and hardest working union members are compensated the same.
That being said I don't get how those that love unions can be so dishonest when it comes to right to work. This was the only job available to feed my family so yes I was forced to join the union. The absolute only thing right to work does is gives me the option of being a member or not. As far as your freeloader argument goes that is just stupid. Unions got federal laws passed that gives them exclusivity so that means if I drop out i am forbidden to negotiate with my employer for raises or what have you. so the union has to still represent me because they demanded it be that way. I would much rather work hard, please my boss and negotiate my own terms with the boss and let everyone else earn their own raise too but the unions refuse to give up exclusivity.
Right to work is absolutely better for employees because it gives me a choice. The fact that unions hate right to work so much is very telling. They know that what they offer is not good enough to survive in a free market scenario because they HAVE to force people to join. If this wasn't true then why are they so afraid to let me decide for myself whether or not I want to do business with them?
An example of the dishonesty is that they supposedly believe that an anonymous vote for or against unionization is not good because supposedly employers will bully employees to vote no. They say that somehow nobody knowing who voted which way is unfair. Their idea of fair? Card check which basically means two hardcore union members ask each employee to sign onto the union and you are forced to explain to these guys why you don't want to join. Yeah. Somehow that will eliminate bullying people.
What is so wrong with personal responsibility and individuals earning raises by working hard and pleasing management? I simply do excellent work, educate myself every chance I get, and do my best to please the customer and the boss. I don't care about seniority because a lazy worthless fool shouldn't make more than me just because he has been here longer. If a child is able to do your job you should expect that you will be replaced instead of forever getting raises. If you are too dumb or lazy to move up the ladder and learn a skilled position then you deserve to be paid what the cheapest employee would do it for.