Abso-fucking-lutely. I’m surprised you even feel that it would be a question. Taxes are government extorting money from it’s citizens at the point of a gun:If you don’t pay, you go to jail.
Yea, I get it. You’re willfully deluding yourself about what exactly a union does. That’s OK. I know you have to toe the union line. I was just hoping you’d be honest about it, that’s all.
No, it’s about people pissing and moaning about workers working together toward self-betterment and self-preservation in a dog-eat-dog world.
Professional associations, hospital associations, the automotive industry, the beef industry, the cable television industry, any group of companies or organizations within a common industry know that oftentimes working together can maximize their returns-- even though these companies or organizations can be in competition with each other on a day-to-day basis.
US beef sales are down? Well, beef suppliers will pool resources (pay dues) to a larger organization to help boost sales through various means (lobbying, marketing, etc.).
Sattelite TV infringing upon cable sales? Well, cable TV providers will form an assoication, pool their resources (pay dues) to help boost subscriptions through various means (lobbying…)
The cost of health care is rising? Well, hospitals will come together to form an association, pool their resources (pay dues) to help them keep operation costs low, and still provide adequate care.
Employers aren’t offering adequate benefits packages; aren’t paying adequate wages; aren’t adjusting wages to the cost of living; or aren’t maintaining adequate staffing levels? Well, workers will come together to form an association, pool their resources (pay dues) to help improve their standard of living.
Faceless multi-million dollar companies will go to any length, often criminally and immorally (polluting, contracting sweat-shop labor, etc), to improve their bottom line. And too many people don’t give two shits; often saying, ‘That’s business.’
On the other hand, workers picket, sticking together, and you guys damn them as money-grubbing extortionists.
In a dog-eat-dog world, if you aren’t working together, you’re getting chomped. If workers in a common industry stick together, they’ll improve conditions for themselves industry-wide. Similarly, if workers over all industries stick together, they’ll improve conditions everywhere.
For the common good of those paying them. Same as dues.
More than likely the workers did initiate that point in the contract. Your point is? 'Cuz I’ll bet my left nut there’s lots of other stuff that they wanted in there that management would not agree to. On the flip side, there’s stuff the workers didn’t want in any given contract that management did. It’s called negotiation. Ya get some, ya concede some.
I worked for a newspaper in SE Michigan that required proof that you were covered by some other insurance before they would let you opt out of theirs. Even if I chose to go without healthcare, I was forced to pay the amount that management decided (we weren’t union).
If you don’t like union dues, don’t take the job.
Why is paying union dues any different from any other condition of employment? Most people have to show up for work at a certain time, do certain things, pass certain tests. In my job I have to wear certain clothes, which I have to pay for myself. I have to belong to a certain professional oprganization. I have to take WHMIS training. Why is saying “joining the union is a condition of working here” any different from any one of a hundred other conditions of employment?
If you don’t like it, work elsewhere. Same as if you don’t like the hours, the pay, or the duties. It’s a free country.
Because it has absolutely nothing to do with a worker’s willingness, ability or entheusiasm for the job. It’s not even a condition set forth by the employeer, all of this kum by ya “management and labor negotiated a contract together” bullshit that unions like to spout aside. Unions forced themselves in, and once they got in, they weren’t going out. Riddle me this: If unions are such a great thing for workers, why make joining them manditory? Why are the three words that chill a hardcore unionist’s heart “right to work”? I’ll tell you why. If workers weren’t forced to join the union, an awful lot of them wouldn’t, and then the union would fold. If a union can’t stand on it’s own (attract enough VOLUNTARY members because of what it offers) than it has no legitimate reason for existing.
Sure. Freedom of choice. That’s an American solution, and an elegant one. Too bad Unions deny that to all to many workers because they require membership in order to secure employment. If you want to work in many industries, in many locations, you go union or you don’t work.
Toe what fucking line? Who says I have to do anything. If I didn’t stand behind the mission of the people I work for, I wouldn’t work here.
I ain’t getting rich doing what I do. Lord knows I don’t have time for a social life doing what I do. Lord knows it ain’t for the prestige or fame. And Lord knows there are many neighborhoods a skinny white boy from suburban Detroit shouldn’t be in after dark, but I’m there anyways.
So remind me, then, why I would willfully delude myself about what a union exactly does? Keyword there being ‘willing.’ Or where you just being a snide asshole with a flip remark?
You’re ab-sol-fucking-lutely right. Any organization, whether it be an organization of workers, a church, a club, a professional association, or whatever, would fold without resources to keep it running. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. But those ‘right-to-work’ workers who don’t want to pay dues would also lose the benefits the organized workers secured if the union is dissolved.
FYI, in Missouri, a right-to-work state, of the state workers who organized a union in recent years, ~90% now pay dues. When an organization is run right, people understand the benefits of membership, and are willing to pony up. And if it’s not run right, people either won’t join, or they’ll work to reform.
If a union secures higher wages and benefits for their workers, what kind of moron would you have to be to take lower wages to work, when you can just join the union and get higher wages instead?
Of course unions that fail to secure better wages for workers (grocery store union, I’m looking at you… taking dues from a 16 year old cheesesteak making minimum wage… for shame!) can go take a long walk off a short pier.
So, did the 10% that didn’t pay lose their jobs? Is there a requirement to pay dues to the union in order to get the job? If people want to pay willingly, that’s great. If people don’t want to pay and are being denied jobs, that’s unconscionable.
The last union shop I worked at (ABF) I was told that to have the job I was required to pay $300 after a month and $30 every month after that to the union for the right to work there. When I asked what kind of benefit I would get out of my money, they told me that there would be none whatsoever. That was my kickback to the union so they would let me work there. It would not make me a member of the union, they would not lift a finger for me, it was nothing but a payoff. And before you say that the union was responsible for negotiating the high wages and good working conditions at that place I can tell you that the conditions were not that good (not any better than Fed-Ex Ground), and the wages in my case were not appreciably better than other non-union places I could have gone. The difference between them and another place was that they required you to pay the kickback to the Teamsters.
So, tell me again about how the unions don’t practice extortion. They thrive on it. Pay, or go. If that’s not extortion I don’t know what is.
Wd: Taxes are government extorting money from it’s citizens at the point of a gun
Oh, I see. Well, in that rather emotional and hyperbolic sense of “extortion”, sure, union dues are “extorted”. So are turnpike tolls and heaps of other costs that we calmer folks regard as “contractual”.
Cheesesteak: Of course unions that fail to secure better wages for workers […] can go take a long walk off a short pier.
Well, can any anti-union poster here explain to me exactly how unions can secure better wages for workers except by denying companies access to non-union labor?
Airman, what you were paying was called an “agency fee,” and it was significantly less than what your union co-workers were paying in dues. The “agency fee” is determined by the state and approximates the per-capita cost of administering the contract in your shop.
A “right to work” state means, more or less, that state law forbids the inclusion of contract language requiring union membership as a condition of employment. So you can work there without being a member of a union. More importantly, you get all the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement without having to lift a finger to defend it.
Want to file a grievance? You can!
Came in a minute and a half late? You won’t get fired on the spot!
Want to wear a button or anything else that identifies you as a supporter/opponent of something! You can!
Employer-subsidized healthcare? It can be yours!
Never mind the fact that these are contract rights that were bargained for, perhaps struck for, benefits that people lose their jobs fighting to secure. You get all of them. For MUCH LESS. AND, you also get the right to deride your unionized co-workers for battling for all these things for your ungrateful ass. How lucky you are.
Maybe, next time all of you who get weekends off, or Social Security, or time-and-a-half for overtime, or family leave, should just thank a union man and keep on walking.
Izzat so? Let’s go through your list. What value do I get for my kickback?
Anybody can file a grievance with their employers. If I did, would the union protect me from getting fired? Absolutely not. I was told that explicitly.
Wanna bet?
Again, wanna bet? I was given the dress code, and the word “unadorned” was on it.
Yes it can. After 90 days. For a price not notably better than what I could have gottewn on my own. Fat lot of good that does me.
What’s the word I’m looking for? Hmmm, let me see…oh yeah, that’s it. BULLSHIT. I was offered none of those things. I was offered the right to pay the Teamsters a full four days of pay to start. Yeah, that’s a great deal.
Or perhaps we can thank a union man for striking and leaving our kids in the lurch for weeks on end. Or perhaps we can thank a union man for losing our baggage intentionally. Or perhaps we can thank a union man for cancelling an entire sports season. Or maybe we can thank him for keeping some of us out of jobs we are ideally suited for. Yeah, that last one is really good PR for the unions. I can see the headline now:
“Veteran, Experienced Operator Shut Out By Union”
“He wasn’t one of us”, union says.
Go ahead and strike for that 25 cent raise to $25 per hour and those extra personal days. I’m sure the single mother/waitress making $3 plus tips will love you for it.
Dude, that sucks. That union sucked. But it’s unfair to paint all organized workers as extortionist thugs. Anyone that really knows anything about the ins and outs of organized labor will tell you that not all unions are perfect. They’re only as good as the people that belong to them. If any organization is comprised of thugs, it’s going to be a thug organization. If it’s comprised of dedicated hard-working people, it’ll reflect as much. And if you really felt there were malfeasances going on at that Local, why didn’t you do something about it? Like report it to the Labor Board? That’s what it’s there for.
Kinda like military people thrive on killing babies and burning civilian villages. :rolleyes:
Life must be so simple for people who paint with big fucking brushes.
And that retort is well deserved, and one that I expect from people on the SDMB. Thank you for putting me in my place.
However, that doesn’t change my opinion about unions in general. I’m about as likely to be favorable to unions as Palestinians are to Israelis. All of my personal experiences have been bad, and I’m sure that clouds my opinion some. I am willing to say that the truth lies somewhere in between the two positions that we have staked out.
Fair enough. And for that post, you just earned a few Happy Points. Redeemable anytime for uncooked fusilli pasta.
The exchange rate is outrageous, but damn, it’s good pasta.
Have you ever been in a union? I have (not now, though) and it most certainly WAS a condition set down by the employer. It was right there in black and white on their letterhead. That’s how it worked; a closed shop is a part of the deal between the employer and the union. One of the concessions is that the employer agrees to hire only people who join the union and to dismiss or refuse to hire anyone who refuses.
So that they’re in better negotiating position. Sorry, but that’s no secret.
[QUOTE]
Why are the three words that chill a hardcore unionist’s heart “right to work”?[/.QUOTE]
Because you don’t have a right to work at a particular employer, and it’s frankly pretty stupid to say you do. What God-given commandment says my company should be forced to hire you even if you refuse to meet a rather common and conventional condition of employment? Where in law does it say you have a right to work at XYZ Corp?
You certainly have the freedom to find employment where you will, but employers should have the freedom to tell you to go fuck yourself if you won’t agree to work on their terms. Same as showing up on time, meeting the dress code, and going to “diversity” training or other lame conditions of employment.
The members ARE all voluntary. Nobody’s forcing you to work there. If you don’t want to join the union, don’t work there. It’s that straightfoward.
Sorry, but some decision are omnibus decisions and you don’t get to pick and choose. If you want to get married you gete stuck with your in-laws. Sucks, but that’s the decision you made. If you want to have a car you don’t just get the freedom and convenience, you also get the fuel costs and the repairs. If you want to work at Employer X, your choice may be to work there and join X Local 123, or not work there and not join. Life’s full of those decisions. I’m not saying everyone will be happy with them, but I’d rather let unions and employers agree to closed shops than let jerks force themselves on employers in contravention of the freedom of association. If the union sucks, let the workers decertify it.
Well, tough. That’s just too damned bad. Because that’s the way employment and business is; if you want to work in certain fields there are certain things you have to do. If you want to work for the Canadian federal government in a capacity any higher than a clerk, you’d best speak French. If you want to be a truck driver, you’d better have Class A training. If you want to sell cars you’d better own a few suits, and don’t expect the dealer to pay for them. If you want to be a lawyer you have to join the bar association. Around here if you want to be an auto mechanic you have to have a set of certain tools. And on and on. If you don’t like those things you have to consider a change of vocation.
Absolutely. How many zillions of times have people here told others justifiably (IMHO etc) bitching about their wages or work conditions that they don’t have to work there if they don’t like it? What’s sauce for the employer goose is sauce for the union gander.
Correct. There are many reasons for this. Some are strictly competitive: better bargaining position. In other cases, union membership may guarantee an employer a certain level of expertise or skill. In any event, if a worker doesn’t like the mandatory union membership, he should quit and go work somewhere that doesn’t impose that condition.
Though we now return to the topic of the thread: several unions picketing the Blue Man Group for not having talked to the unions about coming to an agreement whereby the employees of the show will be union-only.
The action:
The complaints:
So, they want to weasel their way into an organization that so far has not expressed an interest in coming to an exclusive arrangement. For failure to come to this agreement, the unions suggest that it would be a reasonable reaction for passersby (presumably who the signs are intended for) to “Boycott Blue”. Furthermore, they are disappointed that after they used their bully tactics, none of the principals came out to talk to them. These are a bunch of fucking children!!
Wah! We wanna be part of the show! You guys are jerks for not agreeing to hire ONLY our people. Sure you’ll hire our people so long as you don’t have to agree that it’s our people only, but we’ll spin that as though you deny this opportunity to our people. You guys suck. We’re going to tell people not to go see you, since you won’t meet our demands, notwithstanding that you may not see any value or payback from acquiescing to such demands. We want to be able to tell you how you should spend your money and if you won’t listen to us, we will picket you.
I think that’s a reasonably accurate summary.
Labatt’s must be having a shitfit!
How about this for a summary:
Workers in Toronto who have a decent living wage, benefits, and the right to collectively bargain with their employer want to make sure a large, now-international stage show contracts out with companies that treat their employees accordingly, instead of going for the quick buck and finding a company that puts in a reeeeealy low bid, but doesn’t treat its employees well.
Example:
Company A (non-union): Bids $1,000, but hires only part-time employees, no benefits, and only has 3 out of 13 workers working for them that have been there longer than three months. Someone gets hurt on the job? Forget about short-term, or long-term disability! They’re on their own! Can’t work because of the injury? Sorry!
Companies B, C, D and E (all union): Can’t come close to matching the $1,000 bid because a majority of their workers are full-time with benefits, their workers are earning more money with yearly raises, and on average 75% of their workforce has been with the company for more than a year, and offers it’s injured employees disability.
This is more than being inconvenienced because some people are picketing on the sidewalk in front of you; it’s more than having to pay an extra $1 for your Blue Man Group ticket (poor baby!); and it’s more than these guys wanting to “be a part of the show.”
It’s making sure the laborers (or labourers, in this case) that work on this show, and at other shows in Toronto, are being treated fairly by their employers.
No one’s forcing Blue Man Group to go with a certain company. The union companies still have to win the bid for the contract.
And, at the end of the day, the goal of this picket isn’t about trying to force Blue Man Group to do anything, it’s not about trying to make sure these specific picketing workers get the job, it’s about trying to make sure any company that puts bids in for this type of work treats it’s laborers fairly. Because left to their own accord, nearly every company will go for the big bottom line, rather than treating its workers fairly.
Read that last paragraph again, that’s the summary of my summary.
And it’s just as accurate to state that Blue Man Group knows that the Toronto theater industry, having just seen a recent downturn, is ripe for the picking with hundreds of theater professionals out of work. They will be clamoring for jobs at 50 cents on the dollar just so they don’t get evicted into the cold Canadian winter. Now is the perfect time to open a new show, completely ignoring the unions that they’ve worked with in other cities, so that they can take full advantage of these people’s desperation and line Clear Channel’s pockets with a few extra dollars.