It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
John Oliver discusses the mechanics of union busting, why the companies who do it face so few consequences, and what it really means when your manager wants to talk to you about “your attendance.”
Right to work laws are statutes which are currently enforced in twenty-two states in the U.S. These states, which are mostly located in the western or southern portion of the United States, allow provisions of the federal Taft-Hartley Act, which impede the formation of agreements between employers and labor unions that make payment of union dues, membership or fees a matter of employment, either before or after hiring, which requires the workplace to temporarily be a closed shop (a form of union security agreement where the employer agrees to hire union members and the working employees must stay members of the union at all times in order to remain employed).
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Paschar0
I agree the problem comes in when unions become larger than the entities they represent against. You can't tell me that it's a good idea to allow one or two organizations to represent all teachers in the nation, for example, or actually allow government employees at all to unionize - the taxpayers end up entirely cut out of the loop.
And how is it a good thing when the workers at all three of the major US auto makers ended up represented by the very same labor org? There is a reason why the Japanese could outcompete them, and this is one of those reasons, just one of them, but not an inconsiderable one.
And like anything, when an organization premises itself on always making your life better, and the major needs are fought for and won, they end up in danger of becoming largely irrelevant until and unless they continue to find new ways to "fight for you" and those fights aren't always ones that need fighting. This is a problem with certain social advocacy groups too.
I suppose it's like anything - a union is a large bureaucratic structure composed of humans, much like corporations and the government. Just because it's your sonuvabitch doesn't mean it's inherently good. The people in the power structure are just as prone to being corrupt as they would be in any other similar large bureaucratic power structure and because of that, it's just as prone to all the major power abuse faults of such structures.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ketsuko
Thing is union members are apt to get higher pay rates than non-members.
They are also likely to get better sickness benefits, pension benefits, more paid holiday's
Also greater control over things like there shift times and working hours in general.
The reason being workers join together and unite to negotiate their pay and conditions with their companies rather than leaving that up to managers and the like.
I guess there are good and bad people in all walks of like ketsuko unions and there members being no different.