You’ve made this assertion twice yet not backed it up with any concrete examples. Please do so.
Why should workers have to pay for that pressure through reduced or stagnant wages and slashed benefits? How are they going to defend against that, if not through unions?
Antinor, fair enough. I think you’re completely mistaken and the “I’ve got mine” attitude won’t be of any help in these times of economic insecurity, however. And the selective display of solidarity is too divisive.
22 states have right to work laws, if the rest would do so as well then it wouldn’t be a problem.
For example,
Unless I’m reading this wrong, it essentially says that there can be a union but that each employee gets to choose if they join or not. How would that not meet my desire to not be in a union and also allow my co-workers that chose to join the option to do so?
Exactly what do you want me to back up?
By electing politicians who are against free trade and indiscriminent immigration?. How do you expect domestic manufacturers with union contracts compete with foreign low wage manufacturers ?
Do all your clothes bear union labels ?
Let’s take a good look at the effects of these so-called “right to work” laws for a moment.
Firstly, these laws are the result of efforts by such pro-business organizations as the Chamber of Commerce - hardly a worker-sympathetic bunch.
Secondly, many of these laws carry a “free rider” clause, which state that unions must represent workers whether they pay dues or not - in short, forcing unions to provide something for nothing. It may not bring down an entire union but it could financially run individual locals, effectively eliminating union representation in individual shops.
Thirdly, such laws have a detrimental effect on wages and earnings, to say nothing of unionization rates in the states that have them. I’m taking some raw data on 2007 median incomes by state from the US Census Bureau, averaging for the entire nation, then comparing it with the average of the 22 states that have these laws and the average of the 28 states that don’t. Result:
National Average Median Income: $60,447
Average Median Income RTW: $56,390
Average Median Income Other 28: $64,889
The average median income is $8,500 higher in states without these laws than in states with them, and $4,400 higher than the national average.
What about unionization rates? There are two ways we can look at this: percentage of the workforce that holds union membership, and percentage of workforce that don’t but are represented by unions or similar association (this includes workers that fall under the ‘free rider’ clause mentioned above). 2007 data taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Union membership
National Average: 11.16%
Average RTW: 6.67%
Average O28: 14.87%
Represented by unions
National Average: 12.53%
Average RTW: 8.05%
Average O28: 15.69%
Given the wider desire of workers to join unions I cited in a previous post, it’s obvious that states that have ‘right to work’ laws on the books are even less supportive of a worker’s ability to choose than states that don’t. Essentially, it boils down to this: The system that allows individual workers to opt out because “I got mine” also makes it harder for their fellow workers to get theirs.
Additionally, right to work laws that allow individual workers to opt out leave those workers at a distinct disadvantage: they have to negotiate on their own with a company that’s bigger, better organized, and more well-funded than they are. It forces them to choose between making a stand and losing a source of income for who knows how long. Unions may not be as big, as organized, or as well-funded as the companies, but they have one big advantage: the power to stop work, and the ultimate source of the company’s profit, until workers’ demands are met.
Don’t be coy. You’ve said twice that Detroit’s current woes are the result of unions. Prove it.
No, but I wish they did - no matter what country they came from or who made it, immigrant or native-born. Besides, there are other equally meaningful things one can do that show support for unions.
This I would certainly not support. If you want to be represented you should join.
Then a balance needs to be found so that both sides can have what they want. There has to be a way that those that want represented can be and those that don’t want to be can opt out.
Then those workers that find that their conditions aren’t working for them can join the union if they feel it would help.
Them’s the breaks, friend. The right to work laws aren’t a project of the unions; they’re a project of the bosses and they obviously tacked on riders to make union organizing more difficult.
The unions want to represent you. The bosses don’t want unions to represent you. If you don’t want a union to represent you, you’re giving the bosses what they want as well. It’s that simple. There’s no balance between them.
Why, then, if some 58% of workers want to join unions, are only 12% actual union members? Why, again, if 58% of workers overall want to join a union, does South Carolina - a right to work state supposedly protecting workers’ free choice - only have a 4% overall unionization rate? They can’t join the union just like that, because the right to work laws have seen to it that they can’t.
Don’t be silly.
Up till the economic crisis the only companies that have been in serious trouble are those companies that are saddled with the UAW on their backs.
The non union auto companies in the US are booming. They pay comparable wages and benefits. Their workers don’t worry about keeping their jobs. If you don’t believe me, check it out
Or you mean cheaper ways one can “show” support for unions.Ya ya, its okay for someone else to bear the cost of unions in the marketplace, but when it comes to your own wallet, you are satisfied to sacrifice the garment workers.
What do you drive. A Toyota ?
Right, because being an elected union official, paying dues, trying to keep it going, all that don’t mean squat. :rolleyes: And a single TIME article with a single assertion, not backed up by ANY references or hard data, ain’t gonna cut it here. Show me numbers. Show me research. Show me ANYTHING that indicates you’ve put some thought into your arguments and aren’t just parroting lines from somewhere else.
I’m a bit late to this party. I’ll be first to admit that I know little about labor issues. I’ve never been in a union. I don’t think any of my friends or direct family is in one. Most of what I know is from a little bit of direct personal experience, talking with friends with family members in unions, and from media coverage, all of which have been overall negative. That said, I read these topics with great interest. Thanks everyone who has posted links to external cites, although it’s a bit disheartening that every survey seems to be published by a body with a preconceived notion that is being pushed.
But to the point:
I am deeply suspicious of the Employee Free Choice Act, and also since it’s being discussed in recent posts, of being forced into a union when I don’t want to be in one.
Starting with right-to work, I had the opportunity to join a union at my First Real Job. This would have gained me nothing other than lost pay. Oh yes, the union wanted my money. They wouldn’t tell me how much though. It was all really shady, and they kept bugging me, asking me to sign a paper saying I’d abide by all the rules and regulations (which they didn’t have on hand to show me) and that they could take some of my paycheck. No thanks. Just because a union may be good for some workers doesn’t mean it’s good for all, and I shouldn’t be forced to fund it.
Note that the only pressure and bothering and decreased quality-of-life that I received was from the union. There was never a peep from “management”.
In a later job in a different state, some folks wanted to start a union. Again, they were aggressive and generally detrimental to my quality of life, yet “management” was silent. How was I able to shut them up and regain some sanity? By signing up with them! If the Emplyee Free Choice Act had been in place, I would have lost this option. I would have either had to leave myself open to union harassment or risk pushing us over the 50% limit and finding myself in a union I didn’t want.
What would I have gained from this act? Nothing. But I would have lost options.
Then help find a way to fix it. I support your right to organize, why don’t you support my right to not be part of it?
Then I guess that puts me on the bosses side, because I’ve never wanted a union to represent me.
I don’t know why. Can you show me a section from the law that stops or inhibits them from doing so?
That really bugged me as well, it should have been upfront instead of me having to ask the rep how much. (2% of my salary is what it would have been)
That as well. I tried to get an opinion from someone besides the union rep and my supervisor would only say that she was not able to give an opinion one way or the other. I can honestly say that I have no clue how our direct managers felt about it. Though it did seem like upper management was in support of it, we hear all the time about the partnership between the unions and management.
Actually means plenty. You are biased for the idea that unions are a panacea for workers since you make your living off the workers.
I give you an article from an unbiased , neutral and well respected news organization and you rebut by challenging their integrity ? Empty headedness I’d say.
I wouldn’t say they’re doing spectacularly. They’re certainly cutting production and jobs. But they have the ability to cut jobs, which can help a company from going under when it has to scale back severely in a time when people aren’t buying.
Honda will “trim its North American output by 18,000 vehicles from its previously planned 1.43 million for this fiscal year”. Not a huge number.
“Looser work rules are allowing German automaker BMW AG to lay off up to 733 employees at its Greer, S.C., plant by the end of the year. And Toyota Motor Corp said Wednesday it plans to let go at least 250 people at a Georgetown, Ky., factory in the first quarter of 2009”
The big 3 can’t do that though, AFAIK.
That all said, VW, Toyota, and Kia are all building factories in the South, so it seems they’re expecting to ramp up production in the US.
My cites, which unfortunately are probably not free articles from the WSJ:
Honda to Cut Production November 21
South Could Gain as Detroit Struggles November 20
Who said the position was paid?
No, I’m challenging yours. Instead of giving concrete support for your argument, you simply use another unsupported statement. That dog won’t hunt.
I think that would be like asking you to support a state’s right not to recognize gay marriage. I did a little thinking about your justification for supporting gay marriage but not union rights and it seems to me that you’re looking in the wrong place for the dividing line. It’s not about forcing gays who don’t want to marry to do so (nor has it ever been); it’s forcing the people who oppose gay marriage, and organize to amend state constitutions to reflect that, to accept the fact that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as everyone else. But then I really don’t know your position on the issue - do you support gay marriage being granted at the federal level, or do you support the individual states being allowed to choose to recognize them or not?
I notice that this sentence was seemingly overlooked by Flying Dutchman.
In all your blaming the union for the losses of the Big 3, some pertinent facts are not being discussed.
Management at the Big 3 signed those contracts with the union. They did so voluntarily. They knew that they would be paying pensions, health care, etc. to retirees. Then they failed to stay atop the market, failed at engineering decent cars, failed at engineering decent parts for their cars, and failed at constructing business models that accurately reflected the changing needs and wants of consumers.
It is not the union line worker’s job to do those things. That was management’s job, and management failed.
The average line worker, OTOH, continued to do the job for which they were hired: constructing automobiles based on their employer’s plans.
It isn’t right nor fair nor just to blame the costs incurred by management on the union workers. Management signed the contracts. If they were unfair, they should not have signed them.
[/hijack]
As for the EFCA, many posters again seem to have no idea what a union does. I am reading anecdotes from some of you without reference to particular unions. Was it the UAW that tried to strong arm you? IATSE? UNITE? ATU? CWA? What year was it? Union organizing has changed a lot in the last 40 years, and a story from 1975 might not find many similiar points with one from 2005.
Let me tell you my side of the union story.
I had an opportunity to join IATSE 631 in Orlando when I lived there in the early '90s. I told the BA that I would not become a dues-paying member until they showed me that they could help me make a better living than I could make on my own. Because of the work rules, the large # of people working through the local, and their seniority system, I never made more than a few thousand dollars a year through the local. I was able to get more work through my own contacts, and so I never became a paid member of that local.
I had no problem paying them the 2% “work referral” fee paid by all non-members, as the wages I made on union jobs were typically 10% higher than other similiar work I did in the area. I was still making more per hour, with benefits, than I did at my non-union, non-benefit work, so the 2% wasn’t an issue. It was just that the quantity of work that I was able to secure through the union wasn’t enough for me to join.
When I moved to Las Vegas, I signed up to work through the local here. I was also working non-union jobs, but when the union called me, I took the job. Wages through the union were 25% higher than freelance wages, and I had benefits (health care, vacation pay, annuity, pension, etc.). Working conditions were also better: more attention to safety (my line of work can include some fairly dangerous activities), coffee breaks, 1 hour lunches, and OT after 8 hours worked in a day (2x after 12 hours). It didn’t take me long to become a proud member of the local.
I currently pay about 2.5% of my wages to the union. In return, they handle grievances, they handle contract negotiations (which I can vote against, as a member, if I feel the contract is not in our best interest), they offer training classes, and we offer to employers the best qualified work force in our industry in our area. We all like what we do for a living, we show up happy and eager, and we do our best to make sure that all our clients & employers get happy, qualified, motivated people working for them.
No non-union workforce can match what we do, and we do it for the same cost as a non-union workforce. Yes, you read that right. We know what our employers charge their clients for our services, and we know what non-union employers in our area charge for similiar services and they are identical. Any company will charge what the market will bear, and seek to pay his workers as little as possible: that is what employers do to maximize profit. The difference is, our contracts are signed by employers who know that with us they will have the best possible product, thus ensuring that they get repeat business. Our employers are willing to pay us a higher wage because they know that they expertise they get in return cannot be matched.
A good union is a beautiful thing.
I took a look at South Carolina’s right to work statutes and you’re right - there’s nothing in them that says workers can’t join unions. What is there, however, are laws that take away a union’s ability to be an effective force for defending and protecting workers’ rights. Take, for example, § 41-7-70:
Firstly, notice the “or” phrase I’ve italicized; the presence of force or violence doesn’t need to be established, it can be as peaceful as a tea party and it’s still illegal if you block scabs from getting in.
This is one of the biggest weapons a union can wield. Stopping work completely demonstrates, among other things, that without their labor no profit gets made. It’s a real demonstration of the power workers hold in their jobs and that management would do well to seriously consider their demands.
That doesn’t happen if management is able to bring in scabs to continue the work. Product rolls out, profits roll in, and the striking workers are up the creek. They either have to go find jobs elsewhere (not guaranteed to be as good) or go back to work under the bosses’ conditions. They lose, and the union loses. If the union can’t help them fight and win, why join in the first place?
The Taft-Hartley Act also outlaws secondary boycotts - in other words, other unions refusing to cross a union’s picket line during a strike. Striking workers need all the solidarity they can get; any opportunity for the company to move product and make a profit diminishes the chance of a victory. If other unions are forced, by law, to act to break a strike, how does that help the striking union members? The deck’s stacked against unions under such laws and working people can see it makes them less effective. Why join, then?
IANAL, but it seems to me that the SC statue you cite would also make nearly any demonstration illegal. If there are 8 people on a sidewalk, and I cannot get through them without weaving, it could be argued that I did not have “free use” of the sidewalk.
That would make civil rights demonstrations, marches, protests, etc. potentially in violation, and therefore illegal, too, wouldn’t it?
I wouldn’t be surprised if it had been used in that way.
Oh, and I really liked your previous post! Honestly, though, I think a better approach would be “We do quality work and we’re worth the extra cost” rather than “We do better work for the same price”. It makes it sound like the union would have its members work for lower wages if the non-union freelance price dropped.