Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Redbeard wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Many unions in states with 'right to work' allow employees to 'opt-out' of the union, but you still have to pay dues. Your salary and benefits is still negotiated with the union, the only difference is they won't support you if there is an issue. It is basically a way to force people to be in the union.

I'm not sure you're right about this. "Right To Work" states are the ones that don't allow this to happen - the union cannot automatically collect dues from non-members. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law).

They are not 'dues'... By making them not dues, I think they meet the letter of the law. Otherwise they could force you in the union with no choice. I think by accepting the position you have to agree to the 'donation' but it is not actually a due being collected.

Yeah, not being forced to pay due to a union is the primary "benefit" of a right to work state.

Yeah, I guess you have to have 'free rider' legislation which my state has... So you don't have to join, but they still take your money.

 kronk wrote:
Yeah, not being forced to pay due to a union is the primary "benefit" of a right to work state.

I think being forced into a union anywhere is rather despicable.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Yeah, not being forced to pay due to a union is the primary "benefit" of a right to work state.

I think being forced into a union anywhere is rather despicable.

I think the point of that is that the only way unions can demand benefits is if everyone gets them, and thus people are getting the benefits without contributing. The only other solution is to make it so if you are not in a union, you get none of the benefits that the union argues for.

So why would you have to pay Union dues?

I just explained this...
Because you are befitting form the union's work.

Because the union negotiates for everyone. If you are in a business with a union, you benefit. So everyone pays, because everyone benefits.

That's the reasoning.

States can't ban unions; so they passes "right-to-work" laws saying nobody has to pay. The hope is that eventually those unions will starve and leave.

No, the Union should only negotiate for its members. Nothing beyond that.

If I don't want to pay the Union fees I shouldn't have to.


The downside is I won't have their "protection". Hmmm, sounds very mafia when you think about it.

Are you being purposely obtuse or do you not get it? I'd really like to know.
When a union argues for, lets say, better working conditions, everybody gets them. It doesn't matter whether you are union or not. why should you get the benefits without any cost?

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, the Union should only negotiate for its members. Nothing beyond that.

Except everybody benefits.

If I don't want to pay the Union fees I shouldn't have to.

To return your minimum wage answer:

If you don't like having to pay union fees, then quit and get a job where you don't have to.

The downside is I won't have their "protection". Hmmm, sounds very mafia when you think about it.

Only if you ignore everything the union actually does.

Maybe I didn't have a problem with the working conditions.


If I ever do have a problem, I'll be sure to ring the Union up. I'll come to the union when I have a problem, not a moment sooner.

conversely, I think this is how unions should operate. They should not be organizations existing in perpetuity looking to justify their own existence.

They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe I didn't have a problem with the working conditions.


If I ever do have a problem, I'll be sure to ring the Union up. I'll come to the union when I have a problem, not a moment sooner.

And why should they listen to you now?

conversely, I think this is how unions should operate. They should not be organizations existing in perpetuity looking to justify their own existence.

They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.

Hey everyone, we are cutting your pay!

*employees form union* No you are not!

Okay...no pay cut...

*union goes away* hurray

Just kidding, you are all fired.

*non-union employees* crap...

If that was the case, the employer would only fire the people who formed the union.

And IIRC there are laws in place to prevent you from firing people from unionizing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If that was the case, the employer would only fire the people who formed the union.

And IIRC there are laws in place to prevent you from firing people from unionizing.

The laws prevent you from firing people trying to unionize.

People that were former union members in a place that used to have union members have no protection.

That's why your fairyland scenario doesn't work.

The union is always there because it is extremely difficult to form and it is very easy for the shop to stop the formation.

You also haven't explained why the union should give a feth about your problem if you don't think you should give a feth about the union?

Maybe they will because I am going to join now and as a member I'm entitled to all their services.

Unions aren't like insurance. I shouldn't have to have them all the time, only when I need them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe they will because I am going to join now and as a member I'm entitled to all their services.

That's cute. You remind me of the people that don't like to purchase Fire Protection membership and then cry when their house burns down as the Fire Department watches even though they are willing to pay their annual fee "right now!!!!".

Unions aren't like insurance.

Except they are.

Unless you think you should get $20 of legal services for your problem.

I shouldn't have to have them all the time, only when I need them.

It's like you have an internal firewall in your brain or something.

Your first step into the building and the pay and benefits the first minute you clock in, all those are benefits you got because of that particular union.

And again, nobody is forcing you join a union.

You can always work somewhere else.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, the Union should only negotiate for its members. Nothing beyond that.

Except everybody benefits.

That was not true in my case where they were negotiating that people at my 'class' of position would take pay cuts to justify pay raises for the other positions. They were not looking out for people who were in the 25+ position classification but still represented by the union.

If you are a union which mixes skilled professionals with unskilled manual labor, your duty is to represent all your members, not just the majority of them.

nkelsch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, the Union should only negotiate for its members. Nothing beyond that.

Except everybody benefits.

That was not true in my case where they were negotiating that people at my 'class' of position would take pay cuts to justify pay raises for the other positions. They were not looking out for people who were in the 25+ position classification but still represented by the union.

If you are a union which mixes skilled professionals with unskilled manual labor, your duty is to represent all your members, not just the majority of them.

You would still get non-pay benefits though. Vacation, insurance, union-representation in disputes, etc.

We had a similar issue though when I worked with the ambulance. The EMT-Bs and the Paramedics were in the same union. Each year only one of us would get a raise and the other one was the concession.

In your situation it seems like the kind of scenario where you would end up with multiple unions representing distinct people, although it sounds like there are not enough of you to have that power.

 d-usa wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, the Union should only negotiate for its members. Nothing beyond that.

Except everybody benefits.

That was not true in my case where they were negotiating that people at my 'class' of position would take pay cuts to justify pay raises for the other positions. They were not looking out for people who were in the 25+ position classification but still represented by the union.

If you are a union which mixes skilled professionals with unskilled manual labor, your duty is to represent all your members, not just the majority of them.

You would still get non-pay benefits though. Vacation, insurance, union-representation in disputes, etc.

We had a similar issue though when I worked with the ambulance. The EMT-Bs and the Paramedics were in the same union. Each year only one of us would get a raise and the other one was the concession.

In your situation it seems like the kind of scenario where you would end up with multiple unions representing distinct people, although it sounds like there are not enough of you to have that power.

It was education, so Teachers and support staff have different unions, and they are lines drawn based upon those who work with kids as 'professionals' IE: teachers, and then everyone else.

The big issue was the union would basically never support the high level skilled members of the union as it wasn't worth the time. So even being in the union, it was always an issue. We actually had two employees both get called up for the reserves literally at the same time in the late 90's and one was a building service (janitor) and the other was a media technician (television producer, technology expert) and both needed support to not lose their jobs and have a right to have a temporary person put there so they can get their jobs when they come back. They supported the building service person and wouldn't represent the media service technician. So the building service who could literally work ANYWHERE in the county was guaranteed his job back at the same school, but the highly specialized technician with specific TV media experience which applied to a small number of schools would come back from reserves with a chance that he would not even have a job and no chance to get his current school or position back.

And it all came down to pay grade and effort expended. I was told multiple times directly, and openly by the school's union rep if I ever needed help, I was on my own and that they wouldn't even bring my issue up with the higher ups because I 'make enough money to not need representation'. Basically get your own lawyer and cover yourself. I understand if 'representation' was a fixed resource, but in this particular issue, it seemed like they could have fought for both employees on the same 'dime' especially since it was literally happening all over the country at the time.

If you accept that the union should let those who have the means to protect themselves 'fend for themselves' then the system works. I never really needed representation, but the sad thing is the union drives quality employees away from the industry and that harms kids since the industry is 'educating kids'. I feel it was a bad that there was such an adversarial attitude towards professionals in the union opposed to trying to be inclusive for the good of kids and retaining the best that industry had to offer. I know lots of people who work at schools because they take pride in the kids, and that is hard when people are resentful and adversarial due to pay-grade which in my experience was a direct result of union management.

The problem is that there is really no "fend for yourself" option AFAIK. From what I know, at least in my state, you can't force people to join the union but the union can't refuse to negotiate for or represent the non-union employees.

My problem is with the idea of "I don't have to pay the union anything but if I decide to need them I should be able to join them today and they should have to spend money on me that I didn't want to give them when I got a free ride".

Our union covers everything from Janitors to MDs, but we don't have to worry about them negotiating pay since it is set by law. Same with a lot of benefits for Title 38 employees. So our union gets to focus in stuff like parental leave, vacation requests, promotions, how leave is used, stuff that affects everyone. So thankfully I don't have the problem you have.

Sounds like you got a raw deal, but I don't think that undermines the basic benefits of unions for unskilled labour. I find it odd that, as skilled labour, you were expected to be in a union at all.

Even factoring in the union dues, unskilled labour in Right to Work states make less than the same in union states. It is to the workers benefit to be in a union, even if they're so short-sighted as to not understand what they get from it.

But, of course, corporations aren't interested in the workers anymore, only the shareholders, so when they can relocate to right-to-work states, they do. And that ends up costing jobs in the union states. The workers in the Right to Work states essentially say that they'd rather have lower-paying jobs in their state than higher paying jobs in someone else's state.

Just another example of how the powerful interests manage to divide labour against itself for their own good.

 Redbeard wrote:
Sounds like you got a raw deal, but I don't think that undermines the basic benefits of unions for unskilled labour. I find it odd that, as skilled labour, you were expected to be in a union at all.

You can't work for public education pretty much anywhere in the US without being represented by a union from what I can tell. Except administrators, they have no union.

 Grey Templar wrote:


They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.

Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." Time passes. "Oh snap! We're under attack! Collect and train a defense force on the double!"

Clearly there are issues with this correlation, but it's unrealistic to expect an organization to be effective if it has to completely demobilize/remobilize constantly.

 Red_Zeke wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.

Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." Time passes. "Oh snap! We're under attack! Collect and train a defense force on the double!"

Clearly there are issues with this correlation, but it's unrealistic to expect an organization to be effective if it has to completely demobilize/remobilize constantly.

That's actually a great example, I'll have to use that .

 Red_Zeke wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.

Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." Time passes. "Oh snap! We're under attack! Collect and train a defense force on the double!"

Clearly there are issues with this correlation, but it's unrealistic to expect an organization to be effective if it has to completely demobilize/remobilize constantly.

I actually had to Exalt that

 Red_Zeke wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.

Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." .

While this is still a good example, this is actually exactly how it worked at the time the Constitution was written. There is a much stronger constitutional ground for the United States Postal Service than there is for a permanent standing US army - the founders were quite distrustful of a armed force.

It's so obviously not workable in modern society I think we all politely look the other way on that, though.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Are you being purposely obtuse or do you not get it? I'd really like to know.

I hope the subsequent discussion answered that question to your satisfaction.

 Jihadin wrote:
Penalty rates?

I was surprised that people in the US had no idea aboutr penalty rate- especially you nkelsch :/

Penalty rates are just renumeration for working gak time. It all comes off the 5 day week so all businesses are trying to kill it. Work saturday 1.25% work sunday 1.75% and so on, depending on how good your union is. I've worked a lot of time in hospitality and penalty rates should be mandatory, the life you give up to get gak wages should be paid for.

Shift differential is what it's called at every job I have had. Sounds like some regional differences in terminology there.

Bullockist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Penalty rates?

I was surprised that people in the US had no idea aboutr penalty rate- especially you nkelsch :/

Penalty rates are just renumeration for working gak time. It all comes off the 5 day week so all businesses are trying to kill it. Work saturday 1.25% work sunday 1.75% and so on, depending on how good your union is. I've worked a lot of time in hospitality and penalty rates should be mandatory, the life you give up to get gak wages should be paid for.

This sounds very similar to Overtime and Time and a half.