Moderator: admin
tomsalwasser wrote:Perhaps you've been reading lately about right to work laws, most recently in Michigan. These laws forbid labor unions from requiring workers to join the union as a condition of employment. Are unions so desperate that they need to force people to join? Looking forward to getting an ear full from both sides on this issue.
The data shows that when adjusted for cost of living and paying union dues, workers in non-right-to-work states make more money. Unemployment rates are much lower in right-to-work states.Gene Howe wrote:Fred, for me it was a matter of principle. Any person with a reasonable amount of common sense and intellectual acuity is capable of discussing his/her working conditions and salary with his employer or employer's representative. The coercive tactics of unions are abhorrent and an affront to any rational thinker.
Union membership does not always (if ever) equal more money in the employee's pocket, over time. Especially when dues and strikes are figured in. A safe assumption would be that a non-union worker in a right to work state would realize a good bit more in his pocket over his working life.
I applaud MI for giving employees the right to make choices that reflect their values and self interests.
dforeman wrote:I kind of get that this is a sticky subject here. Personally, I can see both the positive and negatives of Unions. Both subjects already being addressed here in safety of working conditions vs the ability to keep the job moving and working efficiently.
I actually belong to two Unions. One by choice and the other, well, not so much.
A couple of years ago, our governor signed an agreement with the State Employee's Collective Bargaining Unit (essentially the State of Maryland Employees Union) requiring that all employees (regardless of membership or not) pay dues. So, we get funds deducted from our pay whether we like it or not. Now a little in their defense, they do negotiate yearly with the governor on the budget concerning pay rates and such. But, for the most part that is really all they do.
I am also a member of the MPMO (Motion Pictures Machine Operators Local) which is part of the IATSE (International Association of Theatrical Stagehands Ensemble). I've worked on and off part time for many years now in a lot of the theatre chains around the Baltimore Area. Initially I had no intentions of joining but several years ago I was kind of screwed over by the theatre chain I worked for at the time. The local stepped in and negotiated an agreement on my behalf, so I wound up joining. But anyway, that still does not relieve the employee of competence or individual responsibility to do the work. They will work with you and help you when needed but they will also not hesitate to remove/replace you if you can't fulfill the obligations of the position or the employer (it makes the local look bad). The other thing I do like about the IATSE is that they will also strive to educate and certify their membership (certain equipment and tasks legally require certified operators) at the union’s expense. The way they perceive this is the more capable the membership is in full filling the work needed locally the better Baltimore looks as a place to do business and supply labor (sort of like having a subcontractor/temp service for each city throughout the US). And thus, removes the burden of training by the employers. Or, possibly travel if they have to ship labor in from other locations around the country. So, in essence you get something back from the local for payment of your dues (training, certification, job negotiation, and sometimes even health coverage or pension benefits). My point being, in this case you actually get something in return for being a union member and paying dues (not a guarantee that a screw up or incompetence will not get you fired).
dusty wrote:Like everything else in life, you cannot lump all unions experiences together and you cannot lump all non-union experiences together.
Furthermore, the characteristics of a union in a steel town are different than those of a union in a cow town.
dusty wrote:Is that good or bad?
In your examples - do these make for good economic conditions or do they inappropriately drive up costs?
When I went to Cleveland, OH, in 1967, some places of employment you had to be a member of the union. And, you had to pay union dues. As a condition of employment, you had to sign paperwork as a member of the union. Not sure that all places were that way, but in the auto industry, the castings where my step-mom worked and at W. W. Sly Mfg. I had to agree to union membership, dues and rules. Since then, much has changed, but for 18 months, until the great LBJ gave me a full paid trip to Nam, that's the way it was for all that I worked with and new in the industry. Barbers could not work in that city without being members of a union. Like Ed expressed earlier, it has both good and bad.paulmcohen wrote:I don't believe anyone is forced to join the union, in non-right-to-work states you are force to pay union dues even if you don't belong.
