Do you really think those tasks are difficult and require a significant level of training?
Yeah, that’s the other point we haven’t even gotten to. If I want a job with a particular employer, they can tell me:
-I can’t slag off the company in public.
-I can’t drink a rival brand of soda in public.
-I must purchase certain clothes to wear to my job.
-I must relocate to a certain area.
-I must obtain certain training or education prior to the job.
None of these requirements are reviewable: I can’t say, “Why should I have to be enneagram-certified to hold this job, enneagram is nonsense!” Their company, their rules. These aren’t impositions on me: if I don’t like them, I can seek employment elsewhere.
But for some reason, folks who are fine with a dress code and a soda code and all the other codes aren’t fine with an employer who tells me I must join a union as a condition of being hired. Suddenly it’s an affront to my freedom.
“The market” is not synonymous with “employers”. Employers are only one side of the equation. They do not get to unilaterally decide what a job is worth and offer that as a one time take it or leave it ultimatum to prospective employees.
The market price is set by both sides of the deal. It can be both negotiated and renegotiated. Employers have plenty of market power in this regard.
It feels like maybe the real objection is to employees acting as a class, rather than a series of individuals.
I’m having trouble believing you’re serious. Your question boils down to, “Do you really think that a job that has a 12-18 month apprenticeship requires a significant level of training?”
I mean, come on.
That’s the whole argument. If their replacement value was very high, then yes, they would deserve their current wages. However, if their wages are being protected by union membership, and could be replaced easily by other workers, do they deserve to keep their jobs?
My opinion is that existing contracts with individuals should be adhered to. However, blanket contracts meant to protect union contracts should not be renewed,
Do you really believe it takes 12-18 months to be a train platform attendant?
What the hell? Of course I do. It was cited earlier in this thread. This isn’t subject to debate.
If you have evidence that this apprenticeship is overblown or unnecessary, I suggest you offer it. Otherwise, your insinuation–that everyone involved in this process knows less about what it takes to do the job than you do–is no longer worth engaging with.
Yes. Does it have to be 12-18 months? No, could probably be 6 if condensed. Certainly way more than “half a day”, though.
Note that another route to the very same job is a Public Service degree. As in a full uni-fucking-versity degree. Apprenticeship doesn’t seem that overblown, to me.
Given that the OP rules out physical coercion against non-union workers as illegitimate, the only way wages could be effectively “protected by union membership” is if workers in general find it worthwhile to join the union (i.e. the premise that union workers “could be replaced easily by other workers” is false).
OK. Just for the sake of argument. What do you believe the platform attendant is learning in those 12-18 months.
I regret that my personal experience of 20 years of standing on London tube and UK train platforms isn’t citable. But I have not seen anything that would require more than a couple of days’ training much less 12-18 months. Please explain why “it takes 12-18 months to be a train platform attendant?” Feel free to post your earlier cite that I may have missed.
No. I’m not going to argue about this. If you want an argument about what platform attendants learn, I encourage you to start a thread on the subject. It is beyond ridiculous that I, who have no expertise on the subject, would argue the subject with someone whose expertise consists of “standing on . . . platforms,” in a thread on a completely different subject.
What about in public-sector unions where you get to enjoy the benefit of the union negotiating better pay and working conditions for you. Shouldn’t you have to pay something for that even if you don’t join?
What do you think is gained, on a societal level, by taking a bunch of jobs that support people in a middle-class lifestyle, and changing them so that they’re minimum wage jobs? What benefit do you think derives from making those people poorer?
One approach that can be taken is to have an “agency shop”. It’s got a union that bargains for all
employees, but not every employee has to belong to the union. Those who do not belong to the union have to pay fees equivalent to union dues for the portion of the fee that pays for representation of their interests by the union, but not full union dues.
Employees who don’t belong to the union thus pay for the benefits they get from the union representation, but give up any membership rights in the union, like strike votes and votes on the proposed agreement.
That is the nub of the argument.
Many businesses forbid their employees from forming unions. Do you feel that should be allowed? Or do you feel that your proposed individual right to not join a union should be balanced with an individual right to join a union?
This is a place where I’m ignorant. Is this cost audited?
Like, my dues cover a bunch of stuff:
-Member benefits like insurance and travel discounts and the like. I assume “agency fees” don’t include this.
-Access to legal representation and to HR representation – if I have an issue, I can call on someone to work with me to navigate HR, and if it’s really serious, I can speak with a union attorney to clarify my rights, and if it’s super-serious, the attorney will take on my case. Again, I assume agency fees don’t cover this.
-Agitation and contract negotiation. I don’t get contract negotiation, because my state sucks and renders void any contract with a public-sector union; but I assume that agency fees cover the cost of union staff who work for general working conditions.
Ideally, the union would create a clear per-worker budget that separates out all these costs, and it would be audited independently, and those who don’t wish to join a union would only pay for the audited services that everyone receives.
Do I have it right?
The way it was done pre-Janus decision that I’m familiar with was that all teachers were charged $X for union work as the Union was responsible under law for representing every teacher in negotiations whether a member or not. Other things like ability to file a grievance or access to union-member benefits from outside companies did not cost the union anything. Then you had a separate fee of $Y for union members (sometimes optional) that covered the expense for political action. Thus a non-member paid for the benefits of the public-sector union they received but did not have to pay for the union’s political speech. And it worked out great until SCOTUS issued the Janus decision telling people that they can get the benefits of the union for free while telling the union to go fuck themselves and how they are the worst things ever created.
So, we have 1,000 people with good paying jobs, and 9,000 people who would like to have one of those good paying jobs, but can’t right now because a) there’s only 1,000 of them and b) they’re not in the union.
What you would like to do is eliminate the union protection so that all 10,000 can compete openly for the jobs. This will drive down the wages to the “shit wages” category that the 9,000 have not’s are trying to get away from in the first place.
Who now has a better life? It’s not the 1,000 who lost their good paying jobs, and it’s not the 9,000 that are still working for shit pay. It’s the commuter that gains a tenth of a penny per ride and now has angry disaffected low wage high turnover ticket takers on their train.
What a victory for capitalism!