Are Unions Good or Bad?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@rat_avatar

Go back a few pages, I already provided cites on teacher performance in ridged pay school districts.

There is no incentive to perform in the ridged pay structure of a union, working harder does not improve your career path.

But if you think that closed shops are not a way of forcing membership any payments to the union we will never agree, if they take your ability to work and earn money away it is forced.

There is only one other page in this discussion. You are wrong about the number of pages in this thread, just as you are wrong about being forced to join a union or pay union dues.

[

Section 8(a)3 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) says that it is “an unfair labor practice for an employer by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment . . . to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.” By itself, that would make union security clauses illegal. However, Section 8(a)3 goes on to say, “provided, that nothing in this Act . . . shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization . . . to require as a condition of employment membership therein.” In other words, employers cannot encourage membership in a union; they can only compel it. Such is the stuff of laws designed to serve special interests.

The proviso of Section 8(a)3 would seem to make union security clauses that require membership legal. Not so, says the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1963 case NLRB v. General Motors Corp., the Court said that required membership is limited to its “financial core.” That means that the only thing a union can require of the workers it represents is the payment of union dues and initiation fees. No other obligations of membership in good standing can be imposed. In the 1985 case Pattern Makers’ League v. NLRB, the Court said that any union member in good standing could resign membership at any time for any purpose without giving any notice and become a dues-paying represented worker. Finally, in the 1988 case Communication Workers of America v. Beck, the Court said that a worker could be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues and initiation fees used for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures. No worker can be compelled to pay dues for such things as politics, lobbying, and union organizing.

](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-membership/)

Face it, you are wrong. You can (and should) be made to pay for the services a union offers which you utilize, but you cannot be made to join a union or pay for services you decline to use.

Again: why is that wrong? You keep evading that question.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@rat_avatar

Google closed shop, union shop and agency shop

Have a good night I’m done responding to you until you take the effort to learn even the basics of working in union shops.

I am a union member and a union steward, with over 15 years experience in same. I daresay I have more experience and more knowledge than you of labor laws and union rules, contracts, and rights.

Thus far, you’ve given no cites for anything. All you’ve done is tried to get me to do your work for you.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Cite?

ETA: AFAIK, this is entirely false. I’m not aware of anywhere in the US where a non-member can be legally forced to pay union dues.

You may be right in the strict definition of “paying dues”, but (in some places) being forced to pay around 90% of the dues under so-called Fair Share laws doesn’t seem to be any different to me.

[villa]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I am a union member and a union steward, with over 15 years experience in same. I daresay I have more experience and more knowledge than you of labor laws and union rules, contracts, and rights.

Thus far, you’ve given no cites for anything. All you’ve done is tried to get me to do your work for you.

Of course, by saying this, you have made it inevitable the anti-union people will dismiss everything you say as a self serving lie.

[rat_avatar]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I am a union member and a union steward, with over 15 years experience in same. I daresay I have more experience and more knowledge than you of labor laws and union rules, contracts, and rights.

Thus far, you’ve given no cites for anything. All you’ve done is tried to get me to do your work for you.

A union steward who has no concept of a union security provision? I find that highly unlikely.

Redirect Notice

Art 1.B.1 on Page 1
That tell me how that is not forced.

[gonzomax]

Unions have only had bad press since newspapers killed unions. there is never a positive story about unions. This generation is growing up hating unions . It is training. They do not know how much of their benefits and working conditions are directly a result of unions fighting for them.
I am old enough, that I know what price union people paid to get your benefits and pay.
Unions have no access to the press. The news stations only run bad stories. People grow up nowadays and never hear anything good about unions. This generation just has a feeling that unions are bad. But they really can not defend it. They just know they have to be bad, because that is all they ever heard.

[rat_avatar]

@rat_avatar

A union steward who has no concept of a union security provision? I find that highly unlikely.

Redirect Notice
Art 1.B.1 on Page 1
That tell me how that is not forced.

Although if I may give you a cite on unions causing mediocrity I would like to reference this thread where a Union steward with 15 years of experience had no concept of a “union shop”.
Here is a text contract with a “your fired if you quit the union” bit

http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/laborrel/contracts/uaw/contract/a29.html

They are common.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@gonzomax

Unions have only had bad press since newspapers killed unions. there is never a positive story about unions. This generation is growing up hating unions . It is training. They do not know how much of their benefits and working conditions are directly a result of unions fighting for them.
I am old enough, that I know what price union people paid to get your benefits and pay.
Unions have no access to the press. The news stations only run bad stories. People grow up nowadays and never hear anything good about unions. This generation just has a feeling that unions are bad. But they really can not defend it. They just know they have to be bad, because that is all they ever heard.

Unions need to stage very large demonstrations, like they did in Wisconsin.

And they need to do it in front of the news media stations, where the media cannot ignore them.

Then they also need to stage nationwide strikes. A nationwide teachers union strike and nurses strike could bring the nation to its knees. There simply isn’t enough qualified people in the public or private sector to replace them, and won’t be enough for years to come, even if everyone rushes in to train for it now. Then the UFW should join in. That’ll put a crimp in the food supply.

Unions can’t get their message out because they typically won’t unite and fight back in any meaningful way.

I remember Lech Walesa. That guy had a pair. He went up against the Soviets, who had zero problem with putting a bullet in the heads of strikers. What pair do we got?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@rat_avatar

A union steward who has no concept of a union security provision? I find that highly unlikely.

Redirect Notice
Art 1.B.1 on Page 1
That tell me how that is not forced.

Again I ask: why should you not pay for using the services provided by a union?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@rat_avatar

Although if I may give you a cite on unions causing mediocrity I would like to reference this thread where a Union steward with 15 years of experience had no concept of a “union shop”.
Here is a text contract with a “your fired if you quit the union” bit

http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/laborrel/contracts/uaw/contract/a29.html

They are common.

I don’t see anywhere in the contract you linked to where it says what you says it says. Perhaps you’d be so good as to quote what you believe to be the relevant text?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

You may be right in the strict definition of “paying dues”, but (in some places) being forced to pay around 90% of the dues under so-called Fair Share laws doesn’t seem to be any different to me.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you and has said so numerous times in their decisions.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@rat_avatar

A union steward who has no concept of a union security provision? I find that highly unlikely.

Redirect Notice
Art 1.B.1 on Page 1
That tell me how that is not forced.

I forgot to mention: you need to read NLRA Sec. 8(a)3 more carefully.

Or simply pay attention to this explanation: no union can compel you to become a member. Any employer may do so, however. It’s right there in the text of the NLRA, clear as a bell. Plus I gave it to you in the cite just a bit upthread.

If an employer wants all his employees to be union members, and you don’t want to be a union member, you are free to seek employment elsewhere. You aren’t a slave. No one is forcing you to work there, just like no one forced the employer to sign that contract.

Again I say: you are wrong.

And again I ask: why shouldn’t you pay for the services a union provides, if you use those services?

[Grumman]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I don’t see anywhere in the contract you linked to where it says what you says it says. Perhaps you’d be so good as to quote what you believe to be the relevant text?

Literacy isn’t a required skill in your job? First paragraph, first sentence:

As a condition of employment, employees who are covered under this Agreement shall, beginning within thirty (30) days of employment or beginning within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement (whichever is later), either (a) execute a Union membership and payroll deduction form in order to have the appropriate fee deducted from their payroll checks; or (b) if the ASE chooses not to be a member, the ASE shall, in satisfaction of this requirement, execute a payroll deduction form to pay a service fee to the Union; or, (c) in the case of those who are Union members and do not have a payroll deduction authorization in effect, timely pay their Union dues and initiation fees directly to the Union each month, or, in the case of those who are not Union members and do not have a payroll deduction authorization in effect, timely pay their service fee directly to the Union each month, with payments due in either case by the last day of such month.

As a condition of employment, the employee will either (a) pay the union; or (b) pay the union; or (c) pay the union or pay the union.

[rat_avatar]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I forgot to mention: you need to read NLRA Sec. 8(a)3 more carefully.

Or simply pay attention to this explanation: no union can compel you to become a member. Any employer may do so, however. It’s right there in the text of the NLRA, clear as a bell. Plus I gave it to you in the cite just a bit upthread.

If an employer wants all his employees to be union members, and you don’t want to be a union member, you are free to seek employment elsewhere. You aren’t a slave. No one is forcing you to work there, just like no one forced the employer to sign that contract.

Again I say: you are wrong.

And again I ask: why shouldn’t you pay for the services a union provides, if you use those services?

What is the difference is it from the workers standpoint if it is the threat of collective action that makes an employer agree to a unions demands to force you to join a union or if it is the union who does it directly?

I do not desire their services, they are poor negotiators these days and I do not wish to support their political agenda either.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Grumman

Literacy isn’t a required skill in your job? First paragraph, first sentence:
As a condition of employment, the employee will either (a) pay the union; or (b) pay the union; or (c) pay the union or pay the union.

So you’re saying that you don’t think that an employer should be able to set the conditions of employment then?

[rat_avatar]

@Snowboarder_Bo

So you’re saying that you don’t think that an employer should be able to set the conditions of employment then?

Strawman failure

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@rat_avatar

What is the difference is it from the workers standpoint if it is the threat of collective action that makes an employer agree to a unions demands to force you to join a union or if it is the union who does it directly?

The difference is that you are wrong about who sets conditions for employment.

No one “makes” an employer agree to anything; contracts entered into under duress are not upheld legally. Employers freely choose to enter into a contract with a union. They weigh the pros and cons, and if they feel it’s in their best interest, they sign a contract with a union.

I do not desire their services, they are poor negotiators these days and I do not wish to support their political agenda either.

Then you are free to seek employment elsewhere, if you don’t like the conditions your employer sets for his employees. I’m not sure why you think it works otherwise, except that you seem to have a lot of completely non-factual ideas about unions and employment in general.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@rat_avatar

Strawman failure

No, it’s just another instance of you not understanding how things work. Employers set the working conditions for their employees. Period.

[rat_avatar]

@Snowboarder_Bo

The difference is that you are wrong about who sets conditions for employment.

No one “makes” an employer agree to anything; contracts entered into under duress are not upheld legally. Employers freely choose to enter into a contract with a union. They weigh the pros and cons, and if they feel it’s in their best interest, they sign a contract with a union.

Then you are free to seek employment elsewhere, if you don’t like the conditions your employer sets for his employees. I’m not sure why you think it works otherwise, except that you seem to have a lot of completely non-factual ideas about unions and employment in general.

I’ll remember that my local school board is not working under duress when the teacher union strikes on the first day of the school year next year.

So would be be fine with a national right to work law? Or lockouts? Did Regan do the right thing with the ATC workers?

[rat_avatar]

@Snowboarder_Bo

No, it’s just another instance of you not understanding how things work. Employers set the working conditions for their employees. Period.

If they do, why are there unions? What rational employer would enter into a collective bargained agreement if it wasn’t due to the power of the workers to demand it.