Shove it up your collectively bargained asses

[Dead_Badger]

@blowero

Those two situations are not analagous.

Yes, they are. When an organisation has a sole control of the supply of a good or service, it is a monopoly, and they are invariably bad, because the organisation’s incentive to provide a good service is essentially removed. I see no difference between Microsoft using their stranglehold on the OS business to force PC builders not to use any other OS, and a union using its stranglehold on the supply of a type of labour to force a company not to use any other source of labour. There is nothing magic about labour that means it can’t be monopolised, nor anything that means it must be monopolised to gain a good market position.

Uh, they’re called “people”. There always tend to be people willing to work under substandard conditions. Think about it - unless we have 100% employment in this country, there will always be people looking for work.

Yes, my point is not that these people don’t exist, but that you seem to be assuming they are stupid, and must be protected from themselves. As I said before, if the union offers them an advantage, they will have every opportunity to join it of their own volition, and need not be forced. Speaking of which…

They are joining the union of their own volition. They have the choice of accepting a union job, or looking for a non-union job. If they don’t want to have a union job, then they need not apply for a union job. There are plenty of crappy, non-union jobs available. (For that matter, there are good non-union jobs too.)

Well, given this paragraph, it’s quite possible that we’re talking past each other. I don’t have a problem with mutually negotiated union exclusivity agreements (assuming neither the union nor the company is under coercion), my problem is when the union becomes so powerful that it attempts to enforce unionisation on an entire industry or location. The example in the OP was a union starting street demonstrations simply because a company had the temerity to come in to town and not give them exclusivity. This, to my mind, is coercion - “give us exclusivity, or we’ll fuck up your play”. They’re trying to squeeze non-union workers out of the entire city of Toronto. You can’t join a union of your own volition if there is no other way to get a job.

I think many labor unions in existence need to be reformed, and often are existing not for the workers, but for the union itself. But that doesn’t mean that organized labor is intrinsically evil. It is in fact indispensable in many cases.

I never said organised labour was intrinsically evil, nor do I think such a thing. I completely agree with your last statement, as well as your first. I really don’t think we’re all that far from agreement here; you just think I’m making a broader point about unions than I am.

And if you allow workers to reap the benefits of a union job, without having to participate in the process that creates those benefits, you destroy the entire process.

This I disagree with, and it is handily disproved by the existence of thousands of unions working in and with companies that do not have exclusivity agreements. In a former broadcasting job, I had the choice of joining one of two unions, or none. I chose the latter, since it was a short-term job I had little attachment to. The unions existed quite happily in spite of my non-participation. They negotiated perfectly happily with management, and achieved a lot of their bargaining goals. There was no need for me to be forced to join them.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@SkipMagic

Missouri is not currently a right-to-work state. Neighboring Kansas is, so maybe you were thinking of another state?

You’re right. Mea culpa. That applies to private sector only.

But state employees are considered ‘right-to-work,’ and are not required to join the union. Which is a moot point now because the new governor just took away the state employees’ right to collectively bargain anyway. But I digress.

@Standup Karmic

I’m sorry for you. It must be difficult to face every day on this planet with such a dismal view of your fellow human beings. You do understand that it is human beings who own companies, yes?

Kinda like I’m sorry for you. Cuz you do realize it’s human beings that run unions?

The “company’s” purpose is to make money. The union’s purpose is to hold the company accountable and make sure the workers are treated right.

I’ve seen it happen more times than should be allowed where the CEO or head of the company gets a 20, 50 or even a 100 percent pay increase in a year, or gives only his relatives in the company a year-end bonus, while the employees are told there’s just no money in the budget for them this year. Is this sort of thing illegal? Of course not; but that’s little consolation to people who get no pay adjustment and have their insurance go up to boot. But, yes there is a human being behind these decisions, but flawed creatures that we are, sometimes when no one holds us accountable, we act less than honorably.

And that’s just an example of pay; there are plenty more examples I could give you involving staffing levels, favoritism, health and safety, etc. where the human beings in management give the employees the shaft with the intent of saving a few bucks, or making their own lives easier. All because no one’s holding them accountable.

[vivalostwages]

Accountability is what collectively bargained agreements are about, at least in part. Believe me, college districts do not just grant rights or benefits or COLA, nor do they even follow the Education Code which is already in place, just out of the “goodness of their hearts.” Hence, negotiations.

  I'll say this one last time:   There are good unions and bad ones, locals with integrity and some without, some which need to stay and others which need to be decertified or changed to another affiliation.  There are AFT, CTA, CWA, IBEW, SEIU, Teamsters, and many others.  They cannot all be lumped under one name, nor can they all be labeled as wrong or obsolete.

[Dead_Badger]

@Happy Lendervedder

The “company’s” purpose is to make money. The union’s purpose is to hold the company accountable and make sure the workers are treated right.

The company’s purpose is to make money for its shareholders. The union’s purpose is to make money for its members. Neither position is intrinsically more worthy than the other. There are good companies, bad companies, good unions, bad unions. All I would like to get across is that there’s nothing inherently lovely about unions, simply because they represent “labour”, nor anything inherently naughty about companies simply because they represent “the man” or some other such nebulous concept. Unions are just as vulnerable to venal exploitation as the next power structure. As you seem to have acknowledged, both companies and unions are run by regular people. Who’s to say who is the “little guy”? Either side having too much power is detrimental to all.

[blowero]

@Dead Badger

Yes, they are. When an organisation has a sole control of the supply of a good or service, it is a monopoly, and they are invariably bad, because the organisation’s incentive to provide a good service is essentially removed. I see no difference between Microsoft using their stranglehold on the OS business to force PC builders not to use any other OS, and a union using its stranglehold on the supply of a type of labour to force a company not to use any other source of labour.

The company is not forced to do anything. The company willingly signs a contract agreeing to hire union workers. Companies are free not to do so, and in fact, frequently do not.

There is nothing magic about labour that means it can’t be monopolised, nor anything that means it must be monopolised to gain a good market position.

Labor is not monopolized. Workers may vote to become a union shop. They are not forced to become a union shop, they vote to do so. You are perfectly free not to join a labor union if you don’t want to. The problem for you is, you want a union job without having to join a union.

Yes, my point is not that these people don’t exist, but that you seem to be assuming they are stupid, and must be protected from themselves.

Strawman. :rolleyes:

As I said before, if the union offers them an advantage, they will have every opportunity to join it of their own volition, and need not be forced.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to reap the benefits afforded by the collective bargaining process, you have to be part of the collective. There ARE situations where non-union workers work alongside union workers, and the non-union workers get paid a lot less. That’s ONE way to do it, but it’s not the only way. If you have no problem with making less money, that’s fine, but I can’t imagine anyone voluntarily accepting such a situation.

Well, given this paragraph, it’s quite possible that we’re talking past each other. I don’t have a problem with mutually negotiated union exclusivity agreements

Then we obviously ARE talking past each other. There is no other kind of agreement. Extortion is illegal; labor contracts ARE mutually negotiated. Period.

(assuming neither the union nor the company is under coercion)

Nobody’s coercing anyone in the instant situation.

, my problem is when the union becomes so powerful that it attempts to enforce unionisation on an entire industry or location. The example in the OP was a union starting street demonstrations simply because a company had the temerity to come in to town and not give them exclusivity. This, to my mind, is coercion - “give us exclusivity, or we’ll fuck up your play”. They’re trying to squeeze non-union workers out of the entire city of Toronto. You can’t join a union of your own volition if there is no other way to get a job.

But you’re just disagreeing with ONE PARTICULAR action that ONE PARTICULAR union has taken. I already said there are lots of things that particular unions do with which I disagree.

This is a FAR cry from what appeared to be a blanket statement you were making earlier, to wit:

No. You don’t have to have a monopoly to have bargaining power, just as supermarket chains don’t have to have a monopoly to make a sale. A union will succeed if it can offer benefits to both employer and employee alike. Your argument presumes the existence of a large pool of non-union people who are willing to work for the employer on the terms he offers. Who are these people? Why are they choosing to work on these terms if they’re unsatisfied with them? If they’re unsatisfied, why aren’t they joining the union of their own volition, and reducing the employer’s ability to circumvent the union? And if they are satisfied, what’s the problem, again?

My reading of this is that you don’t believe in EVER having ANY contracts that stipulate hiring all union workers, that individual should ALWAYS be free to opt out of joining the union, for ANY job.

I guess that’s not what you meant, though, since now you say you “don’t have a problem with mutually negotiated union exclusivity agreements.” I’m now at a loss as to what your point is.

you just think I’m making a broader point about unions than I am.

Perhaps you can explain what it was you meant by the above paragraph, then. It sure sounded broad to me.

This I disagree with, and it is handily disproved by the existence of thousands of unions working in and with companies that do not have exclusivity agreements. In a former broadcasting job, I had the choice of joining one of two unions, or none. I chose the latter, since it was a short-term job I had little attachment to. The unions existed quite happily in spite of my non-participation. They negotiated perfectly happily with management, and achieved a lot of their bargaining goals. There was no need for me to be forced to join them.

Well then let’s say it can circumvent the process. I don’t know your particular situation, but I do know of situations where where it’s important to have a unified bargaining force. And as I said, if you have no problem making less money than your co-workers, then fine, but it’s certainly not fair for you to benefit from the contract negotiated by the other workers who pay union dues, if you aren’t doing the same.