I heard Jesse Jackson make this point once. I also recently went to a UU church service where the preacher was inveighing against proposed right to work legislation in other states.
This sentence in the Chicago Tribune the other day illustrates why non “right to work” states absolutely baffle me:
“The Indiana Right to Work bill makes it illegal for union membership to be required or for unions to collect dues from nonmembers.”
Required? What if I don’t like the union? What if I want to join another one?
And the real kicker for me is the ability to collect dues from nonmembers. Wtf. Who in their right mind thinks they should have the right to collect dues from people who aren’t a member of their organization? What if you’re a member of a worthless union that negotiated you out of health benefits? They can still take your union dues out of you paycheck. I would be livid!
I am a liberal. Growing up in Texas, a right to work state, I never knew much about how unions worked, but I always considered myself pro labor. Maybe “pro worker rights” is a better term because am decidedly pro right to work.
I know the Dallas Police Department has two unions that have some political power, and the post office has an influential union without collective bargaining rights. I wholeheartedly support these unions and their efforts. I would not support any effort to force people to join their union who didn’t want to be members, or take money from people even thought they decided not to join.
I also seem to be the polar opposite politically of politicians who support right to work legislation i.e Scott Walker and Mitch Daniels. I also can’t stand the anti-teacher and anti-worker bashing that comes along with it.
So does that make me anti-union? anti-labor? Can I still be a liberal?
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs labor organizations and labor-management relations in the private sector, embodies a fairly long-standing belief by Congress (the NLRA is the product of the 1935 Wagner Act and the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments, as well as some later legislation) that collective bargaining is the best way to bring about labor peace, a matter of national import in an industrial economy such as ours.
Collective bargaining displaces the bargaining authority of the individual worker. First, a bargaining unit is determined. The bargaining unit is a class of workers who have similar interests and circumstances with respect to conditions of work. Usually, it will be all the workers holding a certain family of job titles at a given facility. Whether one is included in a bargaining unit does not depend on actual or desired membership in any given union.
If a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit elect to certify a labor organization as their bargaining representative, the employer must thenceforth bargain with—and only with—that labor organization. A employee who wants different union must get the current union decertified and the new union certified. This is because, given that the employer is obligated to bargain with whatever union is certified, the law grants a reprieve from having to bargain with multiple ones.
Because a union has a duty to bargain for all bargaining unit members and not just union members, some states allow a union to collect a collective bargaining cost from all bargaining unit members. This does not obligate you to join the union and this charge is less than ordinary union dues. If you don’t care for that, well, I suppose you can always exercise your right to work at a different employer.
If your employer obligates you to wear a coat and tie to work, and you say “Well, I think that’s a waste of money, and I ain’t gonna do it,” would you be surprised if you found yourself out of a job? Similarly, if your employer and its workforce have minimized industrial strife through collective bargaining, that is a cost that comes with the territory, and there does not seem to me any reason why this expense should be any more avoidable.
One argument in favor of requiring membership or at least having nonmembers pays dues is that the union often negotiates the collective agreement which covers nonmembers. If the nonmembers who are subject to the collective agreement do not have to pay dues, they are free riding on those who do. Requiring nonmembers to pay when they’re covered by the collective agreement is a way of solving a collective action problem.
I_Know_Nothing, would you agree that a labor union ought to be able to negotiate terms with an employer to not permit hiring non-union employees? If not, exactly what rights to negotiate do you think unions SHOULD have?
That’s what right to work laws are doing. They cripple a union’s ability to actually negotiate. Even if workers organize, they won’t have the power to get anything done, because right-to-work laws prevent them from even starting negotiations. Why should only one side of a negotiation have the power to actually, you know, negotiate?
As practiced in SC and other Right-to-Work states, it is a union repellent. Our esteemed governor states that it is a marketing tool to entice businesses to relocate to SC (also known as “race to the bottom”. You will note that SC perennially ranks in the bottom quartile of states by any objective measure of social welfare you care to name. Our motto is “Thank God for Alabama.” If you make three times the average wage, or are comfortably retired, it is a nice place to live.
All Right-to-Work meant in my state(OK) was that workers in union shops don’t have to belong to the union or pay initiation fees or monthly dues.
In other words its a strategy to defund the unions, especially that funding that may be used politically or to organize other workforces.
The union still collects every cent for work assessments, health and welfare contributions or other funds that are part of the bargaining agreement from the employer that they did before Right-to-Work.
I know the right-to-work has lots of political issues aside form the purely labor one. However, a law that forces a worker to pay dues to a private organisation (however lofty its goals are) even if the worker is against not only paying but how the money was used, is not a law I can support.
Baloney. Believe me, the union that operates at the site I work at has plenty of negotiating power, despite being in a right-to-work state (Texas). True, they can’t demand that only union members be hired. But whatever terms they negotiate apply to everybody in the bargaining unit, and they’ve called effective strikes before. (Although not at my particular location.) There are plenty of people who are willing to pay the dues & join the union to support what they do, and even the non-members appreciate the improved working conditions the union has helped put in place. And management never makes any kind of rule change without considering how the union will react, and getting their signoff.
I was in a meeting with some upper-level management of the company just this week in which potential solutions to an urgent operational problem were being discussed. One idea that would have been very helpful was shot down mercilessly because the union at the site in question was certain not to allow it. (Primarily due to previous management missteps there on the issue ‘poisoning the well’.) I assure you that ‘right to work’ statutes, while they limit potential funding that unions might otherwise get, absolutely fail at neutering them the way you’re talking about.
No. I think an employer should hire someone, and that someone can choose to join a union based on what the union has to offer. If I’m happy with my job, why would I want to join a union? It also seems to me that having one obligatory union takes away competition for union members and you can have a situation where the union bargains for higher wages/better benefits for certain positions and not others.
Before I knew what collective bargaining was(I grew up in Texas, a right to work state) I always thought unions were a way to petition management en masse with an implicit threat to strike en masse if not satisfied; also to provide financial support to workers on strike, petition governments for legislation, and probably a few others I can’t think of right now. So I guess that’s my tentative position on what unions should be, though I’m obviously not a expert.
Keep in mind I’ve never been in or worked anywhere that had unionized labor, but I’ve been under the impression that many unions in right to work states do have a major influence, as pointed out by SCSimmons.
I’m actually the opposite. I oppose the right to work legislation, but I don’t like the pro-union stuff that comes with it. A closed shop, assuming no violence or other coercion, is something an employer agrees to. Assuming that the closed shop is such a bad thing, another employer will fight against that point and therefore, theoretically, gain the good workers that don’t want to work in a closed shop. Free market baby.
As it happens, this is precisely the state of the law. States that permit agency shops (where all bargaining unit members must contribute to the union’s costs of negotiating a collective bargaining agreements) do not require membership in the union. The non-member pays for the benefit he/she receives and does not pay the higher rate of dues charged to members.
To say “I don’t even want to contribute to cost of negotiating the CBA” is like saying “I don’t care about health care coverage and don’t want to pay the mandatory employee contribution.” You may not like it, but those are the terms of employment. If you dislike agency shops or mandatory employee health insurance contributions, you are free in these United States to exercise your “right to work” at an employer who does not have those features.
Similarly, an employer can require its workers to adhere to a dress code or obtain a uniform at the workers’ expense. So I am curious, if an employer and a majority of its workforce come to the conclusion that collective bargaining is the best way to further their interest in smooth labor-management relations, why do you believe this (in constrast to health insurance or dress codes) must be left to every employee’s individual discretion?
How would this work? Several different unions would negotiate with an employer and then the employees would vote on the best contract? Why would any employer negotiate an agreement that might not be ratified (indeed, all but one of them, and possibly none of them, would be ratified—wouldn’t any employer think that’s a giant waste of time?)
Unions can be decertified and new unions can be certified. Employees can find out any given unions past negotiating performance. There doesn’t seem to be much cause for concern about competition.
This closely mirrors my personal experience in Alabama.
The trade unions,boilermakers, electricians, carpenters and others have done a really nice job of putting out a higher quality of work to compensate for their higher cost of doing the job. Also many employers prefer them to their nonunion counterparts because of the mandantory saftey training they receive.
Although it sure is not perfect I think the compatition has been mostly a good thing.
Contrast this to Detroit which is in a union forced state and the huge overhead costs that would have put all the automakers (Ford being the exception) out of business if not for the bailout.
The right to negotiate wages and conditions for their members.
That’s ridiculous. It is perfectly possible to negotiate wages and conditions and so forth without having a monopoly - non-union workers do it all the time.
It’s certainly desirable for one side to negotiate when the other side has no option to go elsewhere, but it doesn’t mean it’s fair, or that negotiations can’t occur without it. It would be like saying a company telling its union members that they are not allowed to work anywhere else.
“Hi, Mr. Salesman. I am thinking of buying a car. How much is that one over there?”
“I am not going to tell you.”
“What?”
"I am not going to tell you. First you have to promise not to buy from anyone else. Then we can negotiate a price and options. But no negotiation is possible until you assure me that you are definitely going to buy from me, and nobody else.
Is it your understanding the NLRA requires employers to accept any collective bargaining agreement dictated to them by a union? Because if that is your undersatnding, and it certainly seems like it is given the bolded language above, you have badly misapprehended what the employer’s obligations are under the law.
No “right to work” is the “right to choose not to organize”. You can still organize, you just can’t force other employees to organize with you.
In my experience, unions are great for people who have no other means of negotiating a better salary or benefits. If you don’t wish to do the work you were hired to do, it’s ok. Your union will get you that raise along with everyone else. For example, at my place of employment, all that is required is that you are in your work area. Supervisors are forbidden by the union contract to request that you work. The union’s primary objective is to have as many workers on site as possible. They live off their dues.
The problem here is that there is no incentive to work. Say you have 1000 workers in the union. They are protected by the union from working. Really, those 1000 workers are doing the work of 500 workers. This means the money that could be used to go out and get 500 efficient workers is spread out amongst 1000 workers.
Say you are in a group of 5 workers. You turn out 10 units a week. The others turn out 10 a week combined. You are worth more to the company than the others. You can walk into your boss’s office and demand a raise with the threat of taking your 10 units a week with you. In a union shop, you can’t do this. All they can do is give you the same raise as everyone else.
No, we were talking about Mosier’s idea that unions cannot possibly negotiate until companies guarantee not to hire non-union members. That’s why I quoted Mosier asking how unions could negotiate without the company’s guarantee not to hire non-union members.
That’s the point of the car sales analogy. The car is the job, the car dealership is the union, and the customer is the company.
I didn’t think it was that hard to follow.
So, do you believe that no negotiations can occur until one side has a monopoly?
I would hope you recognize that this is an absurd position. Pretty much every non-union worker in the USA has negotiated a salary and benefits without a monopoly. I’m not a member of a union, and I have managed it.
But WillFarnaby’s point is correct - unions are mostly for unskilled or semi-skilled labor, who cannot negotiate from a position of strength, when the labor market with no specialized skills is a dime-a-dozen. That wasn’t always the case, but it is now (except in the public sector).
But the basic notion that unions have no power to negotiate unless they can rule out the competition is pretty silly.