One of my two experiences with potential union membership was in Texas, a RtW state. I did not join the union because I didn’t plan on staying on the job very long and because I found the union’s recruitment efforts to be borderline harassment. However, had I planned on sticking around, I probably would have joined anyway, sketchy behavior aside. As it were, my terms of employment were different from those of union members, although I was effectively “protected” by certain clauses in the union contracts that ended up being irrelevant. For instance, there was a limit on how many sessions within a certain time period that union members could be asked to work, which meant I wouldn’t be asked to work either, but the union members unanimously voted to wave the clause the two times it came up.
The RtWness of Texas certainly didn’t have much impact on union participation; > 95% (probably 98 or 99%) of employees were members. However, these was not janitorial staff; it was a group of people with special skills that gave them extra bargaining power. It makes me wonder about the makeup of unions in RtW and non-RtW states. I suspect that it’s disproportionately more difficult for e.g. grocery shelf-stockers to organize in a RtW state than it is for welders. I’m not sure how to begin researching this. Perhaps a relevant statistic would be the percentage of union members who are “unskilled” in RtW vs non-RtW states.
I’m not sure how related this is to the topic at hand, but what about laws allowing or disallowing contracts that require a business to only do business with other union shops? Is this relevant to RtW statutes?
Not a very good analogy. Before walking away from the job, you could negotiate with the employer: “How about if I agree to stay in my cubicle, where no one can see me in my T-shirt? How about if I agree to wear a tie only - and you supply the tie? Perhaps I could work from home on days when the bigwig customers are due to visit?” Depending on your job performance, many employers would be willing to talk. Whereas you have negligible scope for negotiating a variance from an agency shop agreement.
This difference is this: a employer might negotiate or the employer might say, “Sorry, no. This is a dealbreaker and not open to discussion. Either you do it or you find another place to work.”
Now, you might think being a hardliner is a smart policy or a poorly thought-out one, but I doubt you’d say: The government needs to pass a law that forces an employer to adopt a specific policy regarding whether they’ll permit any exceptions to the dress code!
But that’s what RtW does—it forecloses on a possible condition of work that an employer and its work force might freely adopt (i.e., whether they’ll be an agency shop) and instead substitutes the legislature’s judgment on the matter.
Yes, it has only been since the late 70s or so the U.S. labor-management relations have been seen as essentially antagonistic. For instance, although in Mackay Radio the SCOTUS gave its blessing to companies replacing striking workers with permanent replacements in the 1930s, most companies refrained from doing so. Labor peace was a goal desired by both labor and management, and it was understood that there would be disagreements, compromises, and moving on. Just as a company would have with any supplier of a factor input. This was not seen as an existential threat.
The PATCO strike really represented a turning point. But suffice it to say, for many years, labor-management relations were more collegial. A host of changes have altered this: declining labor density, globalization and free trade agreements, many others.
But your wonderment is telling. Wouldn’t you think it’s a little obvious that labor peace is a net benefit both to the workers, the employers, and the country as a whole? And that each of these three have an interest in bringing it about?
Absolutely, and well it should. It is anti-competitive at its core to mandate that unions be given the power to negotiate wages that they couldn’t get if they had to compete with non-union labor. If management gets together to fix prices, it’s collusion and very much illegal. If labor does it, it’s called collective bargaining.
And all consumers pay for it so a handful of semi-skilled workers can be overpaid.
Are you talking about prices, or wages? It’s not collusion for managers to set worker wages at whatever arbitrary value they want. Management and labor are equally important to a company, but management typically gets the benefit of organization and workers don’t.
“Free market” includes the right to organize. How can you justify enacting legal restrictions to organized labor without similar restrictions for management?
It is (sort of) if we’re talking about position that call for experience and/or advanced skills.
But in the low/no skill, dime-a-dozen jobs you mentioned yourself ; and all the more so when unemployment is high and many people are willing to do just about anything for any price ; why would an employer *ever *hire a unionized worker if he’s not required to do so ? Troublemakers, the lot of them. Always whining about safety this and hazard that, overtime, pensions and health care ! Can’t compete with that lot dragging everybody down. A good worker is a worker who does 16 hours a day, double on the weekend, and all for a bowl of rice !
It’s far from obvious that the best long-term way for an employer to obtain labor peace is to enter into an exclusive agreement with a union. Or that the price of peace under such an arrangement will be attractive.
Note that it’s scarcely hard to find examples of labor violence in which a union is involved.
I generally agree here. All the otherwise free marketeers and freedom of contract types seem to stop short of permitting a company from contracting with a union to only hire members of that union if that is what the union can negotiate.
Of Course but it is also perfectly possible to sign reach an agreement with a union that does not close the shop.
[quote=“WillFarnaby, post:19, topic:610918”]
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.{/quote]
More accurately you can’t force the employer to make union membership a condition of employment.
YOu know that union members elect their union leaders right?
Why wouldn’t those 500 efficient workers leave and go work someplace that will pay them what they are worth?
Just as an aside you know the federal government is an “open shop” right?
So is the notion that companies are somehow unfairly compelled to agree to a union shop.
The answer is no. The fact is, however, that right-to-work legislation is invariably bundled with a bunch of other provisions, such as “at will” employment statutes.
This argument baffles me. Why would the union negotiate on behalf of nonmembers? Let the union negotiate on behalf of the union members, and let the company offer whatever other deal it wants to nonmembers. If the union is doing a good job, and getting their members a better deal than the nonmembers are getting, then all the nonmembers will choose to join (and pay dues) of their own free will. And if the union isn’t getting a better deal for their members than for nonmembers, then the union is unnecessary, and it won’t matter if it dies.
