If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Having seen the resounding success of similar legislation in Wisconsin and Ohio, Arizona GOP seeks to ban collective bargaining by all state, county and city employees   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 179
    More: Asinine, Republican, Wisconsin, Ohio, arizona gop, Goldwater Institute, TPMMuckraker, Jan Brewer, Nuremberg  
•       •       •

1609 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jan 2012 at 11:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-31 11:59:52 PM

jjorsett: You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.


How do overcome the free rider problem? A lot of employees will want the benefit of a union, but not want to pay for it.
 
2012-01-31 11:59:52 PM

theknuckler_33: Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

You're aware that employees pay into their pension plan the entire time they're employed right?

Not always. I realize the situation isn't black and white. Some unions pay pensions instead of the employer, then the problem is the union's problem. Let's just put it this way by way of anecdote, I know a retired cop who makes more from his pension than he ever did in salary. That's farked up beyond belief. I know anecdotes are not data, but that should never happen and if you think that situation is unique, you are kidding yourself. If anything your 'benefit' should be a fixed dollar amount when you retire. You can take it lump sum or as an annuity over the number of years of your choice. It should not be X dollars per year forever especially if the latter involves an X that is higher than your salary at retirement. farkin' A... I'd be happy with 2/3 of my salary at retirement and I fund my own retirement plan (admittedly with an average company match). To pay someone full salary (or better) in retirement is inconceivable.


It's also completely possible that the employee in question would forgo pay raises in lieu of funding their pension plan. So instead of taking the money then, they decided to defer it for retirement. How exactly is that inconceivable?
 
2012-01-31 11:59:57 PM
The only reason this would work is because republicans have already destroyed the economy with their trickle-on-you economic policies, so people are so desperate for work that they'd have to accept these conditions. Which of course is why republicans love a lousy economy. One day however, despite their best efforts, the economy will improve, and when that happens not one of these teabag states will have any state, county or city employees to kick around.
 
2012-02-01 12:00:35 AM

doyner: theknuckler_33: doyner: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

Sooooo a salary or wage is the only reasonable remuneration for an employee?

No. I get a decent match on my 401K... see my post just before this one.

Fair enough, but if state government jobs paid enough to keep up with long term health care you might have a point.


Well, now we're talking about two issues. What if we had a single payer health system? Yea, you're right, but the problems have different solutions IMO.
 
2012-02-01 12:01:30 AM

theknuckler_33: Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

You're aware that employees pay into their pension plan the entire time they're employed right?

Not always. I realize the situation isn't black and white. Some unions pay pensions instead of the employer, then the problem is the union's problem. Let's just put it this way by way of anecdote, I know a retired cop who makes more from his pension than he ever did in salary. That's farked up beyond belief. I know anecdotes are not data, but I am going to use one to shore up my point anyway and say that this example definitively proves my point. Even though I am providing no actual or verifiable information, you are stupid if you think my lone unverifiable example is the only unverifiable example. In fact, there are so many unverifiable examples that I can't find right now, nor can I even try to find, that they outweigh any possible counterargument.

 
2012-02-01 12:01:35 AM

pudding7: I guess the counter-argument would, Ok sure have your union, but we'll just fire you if you don't come to work for a week.


Don't worry, they will make that illegal, too. But, IIRC, police are also members of public unions, so they would need private security forces to go arrest the people who walk out/strike.
 
2012-02-01 12:02:27 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.


Why do you hate America?
 
2012-02-01 12:03:56 AM

theknuckler_33: Heron: the employment contract

What is this?

I'm just making the point that non-union folks don't have any employment contract.


The only way you can get a contract with an employer - a document that states what you will do and what you will get in return - is if you're in a union? That's farking news to me. Please, whatever you do, don't tell my boss that - I'm not in a union and he might decide to cut my pay.
 
2012-02-01 12:05:40 AM

Harry_Seldon: jjorsett: You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.

How do overcome the free rider problem? A lot of employees will want the benefit of a union, but not want to pay for it.


Harassment at home, work socials, and by coworkers on the job. It isn't unheard of.
 
2012-02-01 12:09:00 AM

Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

You're aware that employees pay into their pension plan the entire time they're employed right?

Not always. I realize the situation isn't black and white. Some unions pay pensions instead of the employer, then the problem is the union's problem. Let's just put it this way by way of anecdote, I know a retired cop who makes more from his pension than he ever did in salary. That's farked up beyond belief. I know anecdotes are not data, but that should never happen and if you think that situation is unique, you are kidding yourself. If anything your 'benefit' should be a fixed dollar amount when you retire. You can take it lump sum or as an annuity over the number of years of your choice. It should not be X dollars per year forever especially if the latter involves an X that is higher than your salary at retirement. farkin' A... I'd be happy with 2/3 of my salary at retirement and I fund my own retirement plan (admittedly with an average company match). To pay someone full salary (or better) in retirement is inconceivable.

It's also completely possible that the employee in question would forgo pay raises in lieu of funding their pension plan. So instead of taking the money then, they decided to defer it for retirement. How exactly is that inconceivable?


Well, it is conceivable if the number of years you make that kind of payout was limited.
 
2012-02-01 12:10:15 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.


Actually, it would make it legal to fire all workers who take a part of a walk out. Reagan did to the air traffic controllers. Sure, crashes and near misses increased after firing the air traffic controllers, but, really, anybody who's anybody flies private, so it all worked out.
 
2012-02-01 12:11:17 AM

Karac: theknuckler_33: Heron: the employment contract

What is this?

I'm just making the point that non-union folks don't have any employment contract.

The only way you can get a contract with an employer - a document that states what you will do and what you will get in return - is if you're in a union? That's farking news to me. Please, whatever you do, don't tell my boss that - I'm not in a union and he might decide to cut my pay.


Sorry. Most non-union folks don't have any employment contract.

Better?
 
2012-02-01 12:12:23 AM

Karac: theknuckler_33: Heron: the employment contract

What is this?

I'm just making the point that non-union folks don't have any employment contract.

The only way you can get a contract with an employer - a document that states what you will do and what you will get in return - is if you're in a union? That's farking news to me. Please, whatever you do, don't tell my boss that - I'm not in a union and he might decide to cut my pay.


I hope you are doing well as a contractor.
 
2012-02-01 12:15:08 AM
jjorsett: You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.

Wouldn't it be the company's payroll dept doing the deduction? Why would they turn around and give the money to the state only to have the state distribute it to the union?
 
2012-02-01 12:16:44 AM

onibara: you are stupid if you think my lone unverifiable example is the only unverifiable example.


You're right. Pensions (and healthcare benefits) paid for life have nothing to do with the financial problems facing companies or the government that employ unions. Nothing at all. That's a far more logical position to take. What the hell was I thinking.
 
2012-02-01 12:16:44 AM
Hey Middle Class

cdn2.screenjunkies.com

The hunt is on, and you're the prey
 
2012-02-01 12:17:20 AM

RoxtarRyan: Don't worry, they will make that illegal, too. But, IIRC, police are also members of public unions, so they would need private security forces to go arrest the people who walk out/strike.


Luckily, AZ has a bill in the works that would create an armed volunteer posse. So when the police and fire departments get disbanded, they can replace them with the elderly and unemployable rage monkeys who fantasize about shooting Mexicans.
 
2012-02-01 12:17:30 AM

Silvara: Arizona is a "right to work" state - which basically equals "right to fire". There are no unions in AZ, and if workers strike, they can just be fired. At least that's how it was when I was there.


No, that's not right.

This is what "right to work" means:

In all 52 states, at organizations where a union represents the workers, the union cannot require the employer to only higher union workers (this is called a "closed shop"). If a non-union worker takes a job at a company that has a union, the worker can be required to join the union within 30 days (you'll have to pay dues, but you can request that your dues be only used for activities directly related to bargaining with the employer, so none of the money can go to things like the union's PAC).

In right to work states, new non-union workers cannot be required to join the union after accepting employment. Thus, workers have the "right to work" regardless of it they join the union or not.

So why is this an issue?

If a union exists within the organization, it bargains for all the employees at the organization, including the non-union employees. This results in "free-riding" -- the union does all the heavy lifting, negotiating better wages which benefit the non-union employees who are not paying dues to the union. And if you think you're better off without a union at all, remember, at its core unions are about collectively bargaining -- employers are not going to negotiate with each individual worker, but they will negotiate with a worker who speaks for everyone.
 
2012-02-01 12:19:17 AM

theknuckler_33: onibara: you are stupid if you think my lone unverifiable example is the only unverifiable example.

You're right. Pensions (and healthcare benefits) paid for life have nothing to do with the financial problems facing companies or the government that employ unions. Nothing at all. That's a far more logical position to take. What the hell was I thinking.


The for-profit nature of the injury and illness of others is the problem
 
2012-02-01 12:19:51 AM

RoxtarRyan: pudding7: I guess the counter-argument would, Ok sure have your union, but we'll just fire you if you don't come to work for a week.

Don't worry, they will make that illegal, too. But, IIRC, police are also members of public unions, so they would need private security forces to go arrest the people who walk out/strike.


Except that if the Cryptkeeper is following Scooter's lead, AZ's union-busting law will exempt cops (and possibly also firefighters). And unlike WI, the most famous cop in the desert would not only NOT lift a finger in opposition of such a law but he'd crack down on anyone who does like a ton of bricks.

After all, unions support liberals and liberals don't like Sheriff Joe.
 
2012-02-01 12:19:57 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.


Except the people legislating it have the power to authorize ways to defeat protests, and have the military strength to easily crush strikes. If people form a union in secret and go on strike, they could easily kill a few important people to scare the others back to work. If that doesn't work, they'd kill everyone in the strike, and say it was a terrorist group planning to blow up the building, and that would be the end of that. No one will miss "a bunch of terrorists".
The people have already lost. We shouldn't go through with the assisted suicide that going on strike or joining unions when it's illegal would be.
 
2012-02-01 12:22:51 AM

doyner: theknuckler_33: onibara: you are stupid if you think my lone unverifiable example is the only unverifiable example.

You're right. Pensions (and healthcare benefits) paid for life have nothing to do with the financial problems facing companies or the government that employ unions. Nothing at all. That's a far more logical position to take. What the hell was I thinking.

The for-profit nature of the injury and illness of others is the problem


It is certainly a big part of it. I've already expressed my support for a single-payer system above. You've got no argument from me on that. I just think that there ALSO should be no lifetime annuity paid for pensions or social security. Say "Hey, when you retire, you'll have X you can take as a lump sum or Y you can receive on a monthly basis for Z years. After that, you are cut off, but you still have healthcare at least!"
 
2012-02-01 12:24:16 AM

theknuckler_33: doyner: theknuckler_33: onibara: you are stupid if you think my lone unverifiable example is the only unverifiable example.

You're right. Pensions (and healthcare benefits) paid for life have nothing to do with the financial problems facing companies or the government that employ unions. Nothing at all. That's a far more logical position to take. What the hell was I thinking.

The for-profit nature of the injury and illness of others is the problem

It is certainly a big part of it. I've already expressed my support for a single-payer system above. You've got no argument from me on that. I just think that there ALSO should be no lifetime annuity paid for pensions or social security. Say "Hey, when you retire, you'll have X you can take as a lump sum or Y you can receive on a monthly basis for Z years. After that, you are cut off, but you still have healthcare at least!"


That's not an unreasonable position
 
2012-02-01 12:26:56 AM

thornhill: Silvara: Arizona is a "right to work" state - which basically equals "right to fire". There are no unions in AZ, and if workers strike, they can just be fired. At least that's how it was when I was there.

No, that's not right.

This is what "right to work" means:

In all 52 states, at organizations where a union represents the workers, the union cannot require the employer to only higher union workers (this is called a "closed shop"). If a non-union worker takes a job at a company that has a union, the worker can be required to join the union within 30 days (you'll have to pay dues, but you can request that your dues be only used for activities directly related to bargaining with the employer, so none of the money can go to things like the union's PAC).

In right to work states, new non-union workers cannot be required to join the union after accepting employment. Thus, workers have the "right to work" regardless of it they join the union or not.

So why is this an issue?

If a union exists within the organization, it bargains for all the employees at the organization, including the non-union employees. This results in "free-riding" -- the union does all the heavy lifting, negotiating better wages which benefit the non-union employees who are not paying dues to the union. And if you think you're better off without a union at all, remember, at its core unions are about collectively bargaining -- employers are not going to negotiate with each individual worker, but they will negotiate with a worker who speaks for everyone.


you are worried about free riders?
if you are gonna lie about why you give a shiat, try not to be so transparently disingenuous.
a huge part of liberal political calculation is based on catering to free riders.
 
2012-02-01 12:28:38 AM
You know what would be better? If they made ASRS (Arizona State Retirement System) optional instead.

ASRS is a ponzi scheme like Social Security... They force an 11% deduction on my wife's paycheck, but unlike a 401k or IRA, she doesn't directly benefit from what she puts in. When she retires she gets a pension that equals an average of her last 3 years salary. Oh and as more people retire, they keep raising the rate, unlike SSI. It was 9% a few years ago.
 
2012-02-01 12:33:55 AM

theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.


You have a pretty strange definition of 'pretty farked up'.
 
2012-02-01 12:34:43 AM
and state employees cannot be made into at will employees. because they are employed by the governemnt they have an interest in retaining their jobs that vests after they make it through the probationary period and after which they cannot be terminated without due process. scotus rules.
 
2012-02-01 12:40:45 AM

Alphax: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

You have a pretty strange definition of 'pretty farked up'.


3.bp.blogspot.com

In fairness, I have amended that opinion in later posts. Perhaps you'll find it more reasonable? I've been drinking tonight in celebration of the Florida primary lulz, so my posts haven't been the paragons of clarity that they usually are.
 
2012-02-01 12:40:48 AM

relcec: thornhill: Silvara: Arizona is a "right to work" state - which basically equals "right to fire". There are no unions in AZ, and if workers strike, they can just be fired. At least that's how it was when I was there.

No, that's not right.

This is what "right to work" means:

In all 52 states, at organizations where a union represents the workers, the union cannot require the employer to only higher union workers (this is called a "closed shop"). If a non-union worker takes a job at a company that has a union, the worker can be required to join the union within 30 days (you'll have to pay dues, but you can request that your dues be only used for activities directly related to bargaining with the employer, so none of the money can go to things like the union's PAC).

In right to work states, new non-union workers cannot be required to join the union after accepting employment. Thus, workers have the "right to work" regardless of it they join the union or not.

So why is this an issue?

If a union exists within the organization, it bargains for all the employees at the organization, including the non-union employees. This results in "free-riding" -- the union does all the heavy lifting, negotiating better wages which benefit the non-union employees who are not paying dues to the union. And if you think you're better off without a union at all, remember, at its core unions are about collectively bargaining -- employers are not going to negotiate with each individual worker, but they will negotiate with a worker who speaks for everyone.

you are worried about free riders?
if you are gonna lie about why you give a shiat, try not to be so transparently disingenuous.
a huge part of liberal political calculation is based on catering to free riders.


I have no clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.

Free riders weaken the unions because they deprive them of funds. Collective bargaining requires money. The workers need a place to meet to discuss their contract -- someone has to pay for that hall rental. They may need to conduct some kind of study to better advocate their point about health safety at the factory.
 
2012-02-01 12:47:28 AM
Who's engaged in class warfare?
 
2012-02-01 12:47:31 AM
One of the items enforced by the teachers union in Wisconsin was the medical insurance. The contract stipulated that it MUST be purchased from a specific insurance company -- which happened to be the most expensive insurance provider in the entire state. They didn't provide better medical coverage, just way more expensive coverage. School districts saved millions as a result. I don't understand how a union can logically argue that the coverage must be purchased from one specific provider. Sure, working out exactly what kind of coverage would be provided under contract makes sense, but the school district should have been free to put it up for bid.

I can't wait until they break the teachers' union here in California. The prison guard union needs an ass-kicking, too.
 
2012-02-01 12:49:36 AM
Yes! Let's go back to those wonderful days when Lochner was the rule of the land, and the employers and employees could contract freely at the employer's will and if the employee didn't like it he could just up and leave and take his unskilled labor to another employer!

And if the employer made a phone call to the employer up the road and said "Hey, don't hire Joe Schmoe, he's trouble!" without old Joe knowing about it, then Joe shouldn't have any recourse, because that's the way the free market should work, amirite?
 
2012-02-01 12:50:31 AM

Harry_Seldon: jjorsett: You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.

How do overcome the free rider problem? A lot of employees will want the benefit of a union, but not want to pay for it.


That's the union's problem to solve. Either provide your with a service valuable enough that they will pay for it or maybe the organization isn't worth keeping around. Don't force everyone to associate simply because you can't figure out how to keep people from mooching. Freedom to associate entails freedom to not associate and if I don't want to be in a union, I shouldn't be forced to do so.
 
2012-02-01 12:52:52 AM

thornhill:

Free riders weaken the unions because they deprive them of funds. Collective bargaining requires money. The workers need a place to meet to discuss their contract -- someone has to pay for that hall rental. They may need to conduct some kind of study to better advocate their point about health safety at the factory....


Then the workers should be charged more for the "work" the union does.

why do unions feel entitled to other peoples money and resources? Need a room? rent it like everyone else. don't got enough money? then pass the hat around to your members for them to pay. stop with this entitlement mentality already.
 
2012-02-01 12:53:53 AM

CaspianXth: Harry_Seldon: jjorsett: You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.

How do overcome the free rider problem? A lot of employees will want the benefit of a union, but not want to pay for it.

That's the union's problem to solve. Either provide your workers with a service valuable enough that they will pay for it or maybe the organization isn't worth keeping around. Don't force everyone to associate simply because you can't figure out how to keep people from mooching. Freedom to associate entails freedom to not associate and if I don't want to be in a union, I shouldn't be forced to do so.


FTFM
 
2012-02-01 12:54:31 AM

CaspianXth: That's the union's problem to solve. Either provide your with a service valuable enough that they will pay for it or maybe the organization isn't worth keeping around.


Or they can go work for a company that doesn't have a union.
 
2012-02-01 12:56:20 AM

CaspianXth: Harry_Seldon: jjorsett: You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.

How do overcome the free rider problem? A lot of employees will want the benefit of a union, but not want to pay for it.

That's the union's problem to solve. Either provide your with a service valuable enough that they will pay for it or maybe the organization isn't worth keeping around. Don't force everyone to associate simply because you can't figure out how to keep people from mooching. Freedom to associate entails freedom to not associate and if I don't want to be in a union, I shouldn't be forced to do so.


That won't work.
Unions know better than their members and they require blind obedience and a check. It is just a better organized version of the nanny state.
 
2012-02-01 12:57:51 AM

tenpoundsofcheese:
That won't work.
corporations know better than their members and they require blind obedience and a check. It is just a better organized version of the nanny state.


>>>>

FTFY
 
2012-02-01 12:58:09 AM
Remember Komrades,

Kollektiv Kapital > Kollektiv Labor
 
2012-02-01 12:59:31 AM

CaspianXth: Harry_Seldon: jjorsett: You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.

How do overcome the free rider problem? A lot of employees will want the benefit of a union, but not want to pay for it.

That's the union's problem to solve. Either provide your with a service valuable enough that they will pay for it or maybe the organization isn't worth keeping around. Don't force everyone to associate simply because you can't figure out how to keep people from mooching. Freedom to associate entails freedom to not associate and if I don't want to be in a union, I shouldn't be forced to do so.


But that really isn't the stated goal. The goal is largely to reduce political competition.
 
2012-02-01 12:59:35 AM

CaspianXth: Harry_Seldon: jjorsett: You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.

How do overcome the free rider problem? A lot of employees will want the benefit of a union, but not want to pay for it.

That's the union's problem to solve. Either provide your with a service valuable enough that they will pay for it or maybe the organization isn't worth keeping around. Don't force everyone to associate simply because you can't figure out how to keep people from mooching. Freedom to associate entails freedom to not associate and if I don't want to be in a union, I shouldn't be forced to do so.


The issue is that the union has to collectively bargain for everyone at a company, including the non-union workers -- it cannot just bargain for its members.

Right to work undermines the the power of the union because the non-union workers get to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining without having to pay any dues.

Right to work would be much more fair if the union was not required to represent the non-union workers -- that any wage and benefits increase they achieve would only apply to the union members.

Thus, right to work is a backdoor way of depriving unions of money -- it forces unions to represent non-union, non-dues paying workers.
 
2012-02-01 01:00:18 AM

Fart_Machine: CaspianXth: That's the union's problem to solve. Either provide your with a service valuable enough that they will pay for it or maybe the organization isn't worth keeping around.

Or they can go work for a company that doesn't have a union.


That sounds like a Free MarketTM remedy to me!
 
2012-02-01 01:04:33 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: thornhill:

Free riders weaken the unions because they deprive them of funds. Collective bargaining requires money. The workers need a place to meet to discuss their contract -- someone has to pay for that hall rental. They may need to conduct some kind of study to better advocate their point about health safety at the factory....

Then the workers should be charged more for the "work" the union does.

why do unions feel entitled to other peoples money and resources? Need a room? rent it like everyone else. don't got enough money? then pass the hat around to your members for them to pay. stop with this entitlement mentality already.


Because by law the unions have to represent the non-union workers -- whatever salary and benefits improvements they achieve extends to all workers at an organization, including the non-union ones.

As I stated in response to someone else, right to work is a backdoor way to depriving unions of money by forcing them to represent non-dues paying workers. If there are 500 workers in a plant but only 300 in the union, the union still has to have infrastructure and organization for all 500 workers. As a result, the money the 300 dues paying members provide is diluted by the 200 non-dues paying -- and the law mandates this.
 
2012-02-01 01:09:10 AM
hehehehe backdoor hehehehe
 
2012-02-01 01:16:32 AM
On average, someone who belongs to a union makes 15 percent higher wages than a nonunion member in the same industry with the same level of education.

...the impact of RTW laws is to lower average income by about $1,500 a year and to decrease the odds of getting health insurance or a pension through your job-for both union and nonunion workers. But while RTW succeeds in cutting wages, it fails to boost job growth.

Surveys of manufacturers confirm that RTW is not a significant draw; in 2010 manufacturers ranked it sixteenth among factors affecting location decisions. For higher-tech, higher-wage employers, nine of the ten most-favored states are non-RTW, led by archliberal Massachusetts.

By giving up unions and lowering wages, workers increase their desirability in the eyes of manufacturers. This is the corporate lobby's idea of economic policy: have people in every state compete for the lowest wages and crappiest benefits. Some location will inevitably win out, but in the end everyone's wages will be lower and the number of jobs in the country will be exactly the same as before. If you wonder how income inequality got so extreme, look no further.

Link (new window)

thinkprogress.org

Sweden, where 85-90 percent of the population is unionized, is both a prosperous country and one of the most economically equal societies - and that's in a nation that doesn't even have a national minimum wage. Link (new window)
 
2012-02-01 01:18:58 AM

thornhill: The issue is that the union has to collectively bargain for everyone at a company, including the non-union workers -- it cannot just bargain for its members.

Right to work undermines the the power of the union because the non-union workers get to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining without having to pay any dues.

Right to work would be much more fair if the union was not required to represent the non-union workers -- that any wage and benefits increase they achieve would only apply to the union members.

Thus, right to work is a backdoor way of depriving unions of money -- it forces unions to represent non-union, non-dues paying workers.


The free-rider problem is a red herring that wasn't even valid in the 1920s when the mob came up with it to justify legally forcing people into their rackets and you know it, stop being disingenuous. The cause of what you're describing is work-pay equity laws, blaming right to work is complete bullshiat.

//Seriously, that shiat is on par with "the Mexicans are taking our jobs" in the big book of completely nonsensical labor policy arguments.
 
2012-02-01 01:20:35 AM

pudding7: I'm pretty liberal, but I'm anti-government employee union. For private businesses and unions, there is almost always an alternative to doing business with them. If Vons or Ralphs employees go on strike, I can shop at Trader Joes.

If the DMV people go on strike, I have no alternative.


I don't know the specifics of the Arizona contracts, but most collective bargaining contracts for public organizations have a no-strike clause. Hell, I work for a private corporation, and my union contract has a no-strike clause.

For some reason, people who think "union" automatically think "strike," even though a strike is the absolute last resort for a union and does no one in the union a whole lot of good. The strike isn't the only weapon in a union's arsenal and it definitely isn't the first one whipped out when things aren't going the union's way. However, because strikes draw so much public attention, it's usually the only thing non-union employees ever see union employees doing.

Unions give employees access to resources that individual employees might not have. They also make stronger advocates for employee rights than individuals. An employer is a lot less likely to jerk an employee around when that employee is backed by a deep-pockets national organization with its own team of lawyers and negotiators.
 
2012-02-01 01:23:56 AM
Dear Arizona:

Thanks.

Regards,
Texas.
 
2012-02-01 01:31:57 AM

theknuckler_33: Well, it is conceivable if the number of years you make that kind of payout was limited.


The amount you make depends upon how long you served with the company. Nowadays the average employee is with a company for four years so the 40-year employee is becoming a thing of the past.
 
2012-02-01 01:33:02 AM

Leishu: pudding7: I'm pretty liberal, but I'm anti-government employee union. For private businesses and unions, there is almost always an alternative to doing business with them. If Vons or Ralphs employees go on strike, I can shop at Trader Joes.

If the DMV people go on strike, I have no alternative.

So they should have no recourse when decent working conditions are not provided or their rights are not respected?

Remember, the fact that YOU have no other option also means that, often, THEY have no other option. This makes collective bargaining that much more important, as a single organization tends to have a monopoly or near-monopoly on their form of employment.


There is a vastly different power dynamic in the public versus private sector. In the private sector, I agree with the sentiment that the management is just as culpable for signing retarded contracts. But what the hell is the government supposed to do when teachers threaten to not allow schools they have decided are a right for all. I agree there needs to be a way to handle labour disputes, forced mediation, maybe? I don't know, I'm not a big follower of labour laws in general, but it's clearly a different situation and needs a hell of a lot more thought than "NO, YOU!".
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report