Good thing the marginal cost the union incurred by my employment was zero. I do see that had I had a grievance, they would have had to provide the same representation they provide to a member.* Given my current understanding of the laws, I would support striking that. Of course that’s a federal** matter; the entire body of law here is a mess.
*I do wonder if they managed to classify me differently. It’s possible our arrangement wasn’t legit.
**I’m using this “Swype” keyboard on my phone, and when I tried to type “federal” it displayed “rectal” instead, which I find appropriate.
AFAIK, lawyers are required to be dues-paying member of a Bar Association to practice law in Michigan. Is this requirement now rescinded?
Closed shops result from covenants agreed to by employers. Conservatives generally endorse contract sanctity; why the exception here? I think anti-trust regulations are the basis for Michigan abrogating these freely-made contracts; why aren’t conservatives interested in enforcing anti-trust regulations against monopoly businesses?
Only a small fraction of Michiganians are in a union; that’s why I wonder what general opinion polls show. I hope non-union people who support Republican union busting recall the words of Martin Niemöller
This precise question was raised earlier in this thread. In post #6, RickJay asks it, and I respond as follows:
Zerial, in post #155, makes essentially the same point, and I respond again as follows:
Were you unable to view those posts on your system?
I believe, when Niemöller speaks of “coming” for the trade unionists, he is speaking of a much more dire fate than trade unionists being told that they can no longer force other people to be trade unionists.
State bar associations are quasi-government bodies which establish qualifications for the practice of law, regulate member activities, act as advocacy groups for the practice of law and law generally, and some other stuff. They do perform some union-like functions, but they’re not unions.
Theoretically, lawyers could unionize (Foley, Hoag & Eliot, 229 NLRB 456 (1977)) but in practice they don’t.
As Bricker pointed out, collective bargaining agreements aren’t “freely made contracts”, exactly, since employers can be coerced by the threat of a strike.
To be crystal clear, a strike itself is not coercion – employees have every right to collectively say, “If you don’t agree to our demands, we refuse to work.” The coercion arises because the employer does not always have the legal right to then say, “If you don’t work, you’re fired.” The workers can thus strike while thier jobs are legally protected; it’s that aspect of striking that creates coercion and voids the concept of a contract freely entered into.
If you remove those kinds of protections from the law, then I would absolutely agree to scuttle this latest Michigan law.
That’s called an agency shop. This practice is illegal in RTW states. Here’s the Alabama statute:
This seems typical of other RTW states’ statutes on the matter.
I Made French Toast For You linked to a poll in post #76, which indicated 58% support in Michigan.
Bearing in mind that 88.6% of American workers are not in unions, and 82.6% of Michiganders, one could frame the matter as “Democrats fighting for special privileges for their pet special-interest groups that are a reliable voter base, to the detriment of the general working public.” But that sort of knee-jerk partisanship does not contribute much to the discussion, does it?
Seconded. What’s needed is broad reform of federal labor law. Until that occurs, the only options for states are to suffer under the unbalanced federal laws, or pass a RTW law under the Taft-Hartley Act. Neither option is a good one. This is very clearly a lesser-of-two-evils situation. Considering Michigan’s economic problems, it is perfectly understandable for them to go the RTW route.
Then, Bo, and Lobohan, who has been belabouring this point, union advocates should be asking for unions to have the right to represent only those workers who are members, not that unions be obligated to represent every worker, and that every worker be obligated to pay unions. A union should have to convince workers that it is in their best interests to join it, and workers should have the right not to do so if they think it isn’t.
Or, one could point out that unions are a necessary, if flawed, reaction to the depredations and oppression of the monied classes, which forms the pet special interest grouping of the Republican Party. But that sort of knee jerk partisanship doesn’t add to the discussion, so I won’t, in much the same way you didn’t.
See, when lawyers do it, it’s different. Interestingly, the fees here in Georgia that lawyers pay to practice law are MUCH lower than the fees paid by plumbers and electricians. Why? Cause when lawyers do it, it’s DIFFERENT. Cause they typically write the laws, one way and another.
Unions don’t want to face competition any more than businesses do. They want to be free to compete, but not to be competed with. In this area, unions start a step ahead, with their antitrust exemption.
It’s up to the rest of us, people not in a given union or employed by a given business, to fight for a fair competitive marketplace.
Ok, I got my one partison shot in to your two. Shall we call it even?
Georgia bar dues (assuming you don’t pay the “suggested” $250 donation to legal services, or enroll in any of the specialty sections) are $415 every year. A Georgia electrician’s license is free for the first two years and costs $75 to renew. Lawyers also have to pay their bar dues every year regardless of whether they’re practicing in that state or not (though the inactive fee is $295).
While lawyers certainly write the bar membership assessment rules, other professional licensing fees are generally set by administrative bodies (the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, in this case) rather than lawyers.
Lest someone argue that the exam fee should be counted, it costs $374 to take the Georgia Bar exam (assuming you are already admitted to practice somewhere else).
Given that union membership rates in the US have never been higher than 29% as far as I can research, and are currently around 18%, I don’t think the anti-trust exemption is really all that relevant.
Oh, it is. The exemption, coupled with the certification process in the NLRA, allows them to monopolize industries. There’s a reason there’s a Ford, GM, and Chrysler, but only one United Auto Workers. Unions representing less than a majority of workers cannot be certified under the NLRA, and thus the employer is not legally obligated to bargain with them. For the employee, you have, at most, two choices: union, or non-union. Not which union.
It seems to me, again, if the existing unions were all that terrible for both sides, it’d be a simple enough matter to evangelize a new one. The fact that doesn’t happen indicates to me that the UAW is good enough for the majority of employees who are interested in unionizing.
Sure, but you can make that arguement about any monopoly. If the old AT&T had been truely awful at providing telephone service, a plucky upstart could have knocked them off their perch. In practical terms, however, when the union, or AT&T, is permitted to act in restraint of trade and abuse their monopoly position, the level of awfulness required is much higher than it would be with free competition, to the point where monopoly can persist indefinitely.
Note that both UAW and AT&T needed government intervention to achieve their monopoly.
And it’s cold comfort to someone in a minority faction of a union. If you dislike your employer, there are plenty to choose from in every industry. If you dislike your union, but can’t get 51% of your fellows to join you, your only options are to stay in a union that doesn’t represent your interests, quit the union, or quit the industry.
Heavens! And yet so many Americans are unaware of the dreadful threat posed by the union thugs relentless grasp for power! The eight hour day, child labor laws, Social Security, the list of horrors goes on and on!
Let us take a moment for gratitude to the Republican Party, which stands as a bulwark against such socialist plots and schemes! One Mississippi, two Mississippi…OK, that’s more than enough.
