Clearly you’re used to throwing out ridiculous, pithy, empty posts like this, and not making rational, evidence-based arguments. So unless I see otherwise, I’m not interested in engaging you, except perhaps to point out that your comments are ridiculous, pithy and empty.
That’s not typical though. Most unions represent the same class of workers in a given company.
On the other hand, what were you afraid of? That the power of having 480 other people working on your behalf would somehow make you worse off? Why? You probably would have gotten better pay and benefits out of it. Unless there were job conditions you were worried about changing, and those concerns could be voiced to the union, I’m not sure why you’d fear it. And why do you think you should be only represented by those you know and work with in the same place? Perhaps these others did roughly the same work you did - not knowing who they are doesn’t mean they have nothing in common, just that you worked independently.
Some people are blind. They refuse to face facts and insist on staying with their ideology even in the face of the most blatant contrary evidence. Unions ruined this country.
And you’re doing it again!
And AGAIN.
Look, pal, your posts are extremely weak in the critical thinking area. I’m not surprised by this. And now that I have some experience in this area, I’m not surprised that my attempts to explain it to you are doomed to fail too. I found the scientific reason for that:
So I’m not even going to try. It’s hopeless.
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
And you continue to prove my point.
Bye.
Nothing says “I’m not going to talk to you” like saying “I’m not going to talk to you” four times in a row.
Regards,
Shodan
True. Which is why companies could opt to deal exclusively with a union.
It should be up to the employer to decide if they want to pay someone more, the same, or less than its union employees. The state has no legitimate role to play here. If the union believes its members should get better treatment than non member workers, they should make that a point of negotiation come contract time.
That decision should be made by the worker on an individual basis. Neither you, your ideological brethren, nor the state has any right to make a decision for a worker, even if you believe you are helping this person by infringing on his liberty.
Not having any idea who those other people were or what they did was a huge concern. Since neither I nor anyone of my co-workers had a clue who they were, we had no way of knowing if it would be of benefit to us or not. We were basically being asked to vote something in with very limited information. As I’m pretty sure I mentioned before, why on earth would I vote to join a union without any concrete information about how it would be of benefit. Might or probably getting better pay or benefits isn’t nearly good enough for me, I want definitely not maybe before I agree to hand over a percentage of my income.
Wow, that seems strange to me: you would rather definitely have no say in your work conditions or pay than have a say in them. Do you feel the same way about being a citizen of the United States? I mean, will you renounce your citizenship since you can’t know what your tax dollars will be used for and whether they will be used for your benefit? And if you were unsure, why didn’t you seek out more information? It seems that you made a decision that was decidedly not in your own best interest rather than take a chance on a decision that might not be in your own best interest.
Which seems ridiculous to me. You do know that even if the organizing effort had been successful, you still would have had negotiations (which you would have had input on) and would have had to vote to accept any proposed contract, right? Unions don’t just make deals and tell their members what they are, after all; members have to approve the contracts.
That’s heavy. I can dig it.
The King has no depth perception. Mind officially blown!
But the people, dig it, are *totally blind! *They can’t see, YEAH!, preach it, Brother.
I’m with you.
You didn’t, like, just go find out who they were? You voted without good information?
I think you missed my point badly. Hope I am more clear:
That’s what I’m saying. I’m assuming that an employer would choose to pay someone less if it could. Why wouldn’t it?
I’m not saying they’d be required to pay them less, just that it would happen. What employer would give more money to an employee than it has to?
I agree. I was talking about how “right to work” would no longer be necessary. You would simply choose between joining a union or not, but if not, you’d get whatever the employer chose to pay you, not what the contract required.
I’m saying that if we only covered union members with union contracts, rather than all the workers in that job category, the non-union members might understand what they’re missing.
I spoke to the reps numerous times and never got straight answers. (not to mention several direct lies, like how we might not get paid for overtime without them. I guess they’ve never heard of CA state law) Apparently we were part of a job category that none of us had ever heard of and these other people (whatever they did) were in other parts of LA, but I wasn’t told who they actually were. I love how you assume that I had no say, especially since I was one of the people that wrote policy and procedure documents, or that being in a union is in my best interests when there is no proof that it would have been. It may be in the best interest of some people or some industries, but I was given no good evidence that it would’ve been for us. As to the ridiculous argument that I would consider renouncing my citizenship, I really see no point in even offering an answer for that.
Yes, I’m aware of how contract negotiations work. I’ve followed the development of a number of union contracts as well as reading the finished product.
Technically, I didn’t vote. I just didn’t sign the card. I also did a lot of research on my own. I really kind of wish our managers had been allowed to give an opinion. I got the feeling they were in support of it happening but of course weren’t allowed to say anything. To be honest, the way the reps acted was a large part of it as well. I really was tired of having my work interrupted repeatedly because they wanted to talk to us, having them go to peoples homes after being asked not to, not answering questions except in vague terms, etc.
As I’ve said before, I don’t assume all unions or organizing efforts are like the one I went through, but I do know that it was handled very poorly. It is not always a rosy picture and shouldn’t be thought of as always a good thing.
My limited experience with unions was similar. Completely inappropriate recruiting behavior combined with an alarming lack of information* made their failure no surprise, despite zero managerial interference.
*Really Hard Questions like “How much will this cost me?” and “These ‘Rules’ I would be agreeing to, what are they?” could not be answered.
I’ve been watching this debate from a distance, but I’ve got my own two cents to put in.
Right now, I and the people in my department are being fucked over by the current union contract, which went into effect in 2011. The contract set into stone the hourly wage (11.50 an hour, with a 1.00 an hour shift differential for second-shift workers). The ratio of salaried employees to hourly employees was set at 40-60, and hourly employees do not get employer-paid benefits. There was no provision made for raises, even for COLA. Morale is in the shitter because there is nothing that management can offer aside from happy-fun bullshit like dress-down days and the occasional pot luck lunch. The next contract is scheduled to take effect next year, so it’ll be fun to see what changes are coming down, but I’ve been advised by some old-timers not to hold my breath.
Oh, and now that I’ve had coffee, I guess I can get to my point.
My point is that, yes, the union can represent greater numbers of workers who can then negotiate the terms they think they can get. The flip side is that the result can be a contract that is set in stone and therefore not agile enough to be able to take economic changes into consideration. For example, my agency’s business close to doubled over the past year or so as our industry changed. However, because the contract and memorandum of understanding that covers my department did not allow for flexibility in wages or benefits, people are leaving for jobs at private-sector employers who can offer these things.
Suffice it to say that if things don’t improve, I’m tearing up my union card. I won’t be able to afford the dues anymore.
What was your wage pre-contract?