First of all, your sentence kind of contradicts itself. If unions weren’t required to do it, who would?
Second, this is hardly only about laws. Workers aren’t treated well because the law requires it. They’re treated well because they demanded it, and now expect it.
Are you under the impression that all wages and such are mandated by law?
We have a minimum wage, and requirements for certain payment of overtime and such. But very little of what workers have is mandated by law.
Well, maybe lately, but that’s BECAUSE UNIONS HAVE DECLINED.
Yes. I’d much rather see unions do it in negotiations. The law should strengthen unions, not just mandate a minimum wage.
Oh, that reminds me - who said laws can’t be repealed? The Republicans have weakened employment laws when they can, and they’re going to keep trying. Who will stand up for workers in Congress?
Even if you only consider wages, I believe union workers still generally make better wages than non-union ones, more than their dues.
Actually, it doesn’t. Union benefits were nifty and they were applied via law and regulation to everyone, not just unions.
Perhaps, but most of the benefits that unions negotiated for are now enshrined in law and regulation.
[quote=“lance_strongarm, post:121, topic:681073”]
Are you under the impression that all wages and such are mandated by law?
[/quote[
No, I’m under the impression that most benefits (FMLA, NFLPA, 401k laws, IRA laws, ACA, etc etc etc) are regulated. As a simplistic example I previously used: You work over 40 hours, you get paid 1.5x your standard rate. An employer can’t just stop doing this because they manage to break a union out of their facility.
For pay, yes. You can pay anything to your employees above MW. Want to pay a hamburger flipper $227 per hour? Do it. The benefits are what we’ve regulated into existence.
Not lately. And it’s not because unions have declined, it’s because the benefits that unions used to negotiate for were seen as something that should be universal to ALL workers, not just the ones that are unionized.
I disagree. We should strengthen all workers, everywhere. Unions can get to be just as corrupt and useless to the workers as employers are. Why should we add an additional step to dealing with a potentially jerk employer with a potentially jerk union? Especially in situations where unions pull funds from the employers, they can become just as interested in their cash flow as the business they are supposedly fighting against.
Voters should. If they don’t, there’s no reason to expect any additional success from lobbying groups for them.
And, to try your own tack, who says laws can’t be changed to make unions illegal?
I haven’t seen studies on this. Can you provide a cite?
Well, if the labor movement has achieved all of its substantial goals, and worker’s rights are an accepted and unchallenged part of our national fabric, what are the Republican’s so het up about? What moves them to such extraordinary machinations as to directly interfere?
You conveniently forgot the GOP threats and thuggist anti-union tactics that contributed to that outcome. Or maybe you think Obama should have spoken up against the GOP prior to the vote in an effort to influence them?
Maybe not exactly up to the standards of a criminal case, maybe more like a civil case. Anyways, I’m absolutely 100% against these sort of “at will” employment that allows the employer total power over firings. To me, employment should be more equal, a reason meeting some agreed-upon government standard should be met in order for the employer to terminate the employee. It should not be a capricious, shallow reason, but one that both establishes the employer as a authority that doesn’t abuse its power and the employer as the societal stand-in that represents some aspect of the common man.
In your example, if the employer has reason to believe it, they should lay out the case and get an arbitration. It could be a fairly low standard depending on the type of thing that the employee is being accused of. Sometimes, disruption caused by an accusation could be so damning that it is hard to move past. But I do not want the employer to simply be able to lie and say that a person is untrustworthy, criminal, or whatevers and fire them.
So? Regulation isn’t the same thing. There’s nothing that says you have to be provided a 401K, for instance, just regulations about how they are provided.
Got any more examples?
Such as? What benefits are workers required by law to get? Other than the overtime.
Yes - and why is that?
Because unions won them. And then employers had to either provide them to their union workers, or provide them to their NON-union workers to keep out unions or keep workers from quitting to get union jobs.
It is simply true. The more examples would be: FMLA (guaranteed time off in cases of medical or family necessity); federal holiday pay (guaranteed holiday pay when you are working a holiday), retirement account guarantees.
Except that it is. In a union shop, you don’t have to participate in a 401K either. The enshrinement into law and regulation means that you can, if you so chose, get your own 401K/IRA regardless of where you worked, whether or not you have a union backing. And some unions don’t require that the employer contribute to a 401K.
The required ones would be overtime, medical leave, overtime and holiday pay, and similar. For the full gambit, I never said they are required, but they are available to any employee.
I disagree. If they weren’t legislated and employers on the whole chose to do so, then I would agree with you. They became law because people wanted them without having to negotiate at every job to get them.
It’s not like workers went ‘hmm, what’s a retirement benefit? <10 years pass) Oh, those! Like those union people have! Let’s write a law!.’ The unions just used intimidating tactics to get them first when most workers wanted them and people worked through their congresscritters to get them.
For a bit of illustration, look at the insurance provided by employers. As an anecdote, I went from one employer that paid everything after $25 for normal visits and $100 for ER visits to one with an HDHP. The $25/100 employer required that you return receipts to their insurance company for payment rendered plus a copy of the visit invoice before they would cut a check. It really, really sucked.
The HDHP employer that followed that one simply said “After $6,000 (In network), everything run through insurance is paid 100% by us, and after $8,000 Out of network.” My current employer does the HDHP with an HSA that they also contribute to.
That is what happens when employers compete. Everyone does things slightly differently that suits their financial needs and situations. What is provided by law is available everywhere and in much the same form. The variances are largely on a state level - California, for instance, has VERY worker friendly laws on the books. Over 8 is 1.5, over 40 is 1.5, sixth work day of the week is 1.5, and seventh workday is 2.0x. And so forth.
Quite simply, what you think a “union” should do for workers, you should have done for everyone. My view is extreme, but the benefits should be neigh-identical (or, at the very least, based on the employee pay) and employers should only competed against each other for workers via wage. But, like I said, my view is extreme.
I have to check this out more carefully, but it looks like both union and non-union had similar pay scales that fluctuate based on their own factors, some of which might be the extra union benefit costs, as indicated by the unions dropping like a rock earlier in the recession than non-unions. When I have some time, I’ll research BLS statistics that look at longer than a 10 year span to see how the differences fared in other recessions.
No, it is not true that ALL benefits are codified into law. Most are not. For instance, FMLA gives you time off - but not PAID time off. That’s a benefit your employer gives you.
There is no such federal pay gaurantee, except for certain government contractors. It doesn’t apply to the rest of us.
Retirement account garauntees? That’s nice, but is there a law requiring those accounts to exist in the first place? No.
But there’s no legal requirement that an employer offer a 401K, or a pension, at all. And an IRA doesn’t include employer matching.
Since most employee benefits are not legislated, that can’t be true.
Um, you realize that millions of people have ABSOLUTELY NO employer-provided insurance at all, right?
Quite a big “variance.”
I agree!
So how you going to get all those laws passed, and protected? You’ll need to form a large, united group of workers to lobby for it. Hmmm.
Now VW says they may not build any more plants in southern states due to the way the vote came out. Nice going, rednecks. You killed off thousands of future jobs.
No. But no union requires that you get paid when you take time off for maternity/other leave, either. So…what’s the argument here?
You are right, I confused state laws with the FLSA. My bad.
No, but as I said there is a law saying you can go get your own whenever you feel like it. Certain accounts will even let you take a tax break upto contribution limits for using them. As I also said: Some unions don’t require retirement contributions from their workers’ employers. So how is a union better than a random employer in this regard? They aren’t.
Tell me, what union benefits can’t be obtained by a non-union employee?
Yes. And now, we have legislated the ACA into existence. While I disagree with the ACA for many reasons I won’t go into, this now means that you can go get insurance without having to be on a union, for ostensibly affordable prices.
Remember what I said?
The actual labor force isn’t organized. Unions are and unions want things that are best for their organizations, not necessarily what is best for the workers.
Example? Union exclusivity. Unions rarely work alongside other unions and want all union workers at a company to be represented by that union. If they were beholden to selective pressures of their membership, I’d probably be far more tolerant of them. But I was a member of several unions and I’ve managed union employees and I haven’t seen much that they have done that have had a direct benefit to the employees. Outside of medical benefits, historically, I also haven’t seen any benefit that they did better at.
You claimed that workers don’t need unions because everything is codified into law. That’s not true.
Wow! You can go out and get a retirement account of your own? So what? That’s not an employer benefit at all.
You don’t see the difference between paying 100% of your retirement costs in an account vs. your employer paying for part of the costs?
That’s not a fair question. Unions make it more likely that an employee can obtain a benefit, by strengthening that workers’ bargaining position.
But if you were in a union, you might get the employer to pay for it instead. Under ACA, YOU have to pay for it!
Unions ARE the workers. They want what is best for their members. And by doing that, they often end up helping non-union workers too, because they set the standard.
Huh? That’s simply not true. What are you talking about?
Wow. You should have dug deeper.
Perhaps your union had already won good benefits, and was simply in protection mode. Without the union, those benefits might decline.
As we’ve established, you greatly overestimate what workers are entitled to by law. Perhaps you should have read the contract more closely.
They include better pay, more access to (and cheaper out of pocket) health insurance, more paid vacation and sick leave, and better retirement benefits.
Except for a minimum wage (which the union advantage far exceeds anyway), NONE of the above are required by law to be provided to workers.
No, I claimed and repeatedly corrected you on this. We have taken the benefits that unions claimed in the past and given the opportunity to all workers.
And, yet, not all unions require employers to do so. So, it’s obviously not a “union benefit” going by your own metric, either.
I do see the difference. However, I would rather let people decide for themselves with the money the employer contributes to a retirement account as a salary addition instead. So instead of $15/hour and pay matching to a retirement account, pay them $17/hour and let them decide what’s best with their additional hourly pittance. So, they can either contribute the $4/hour ($2 of theirs plus $2 employer matching) to retirement, or still only contribute $2 and buy extra beers at the pub every week. Why? Because if the employee doesn’t take advantage of the contributions they are often uncompensated for that benefit.
I will note that there IS a strong union preference among the older unions (eg UAW) that requires retirement contributions that the union then manages, but that’s a different animal.
That’s a completely fair question. Most of the benefits union workers obtained in the early days, such as working conditions that didn’t kill you (OSHA/MSHA), retirement payments (401K/IRA), overtime pay (FLSA), and now medical insurance (ACA) are mostly no longer on the table for unions to bargain for. Health benefits, you can bargain for awhile longer, but it won’t be long before that’s axed.
So I repose it: What additional benefits does a union provide that a non-union employee can’t get?
Yes, but if companies paid in simple wage rather than wage + benefits, you’d be able to instantly tell if a job was okay for you.
Let’s put it this way: WalMart at $12 an hour or Trader Joe’s at $12 an hour? Well, they both pay the same, so let’s go work at WalMart! Oh…wait. Trader Joe’s offers benefits that WalMart doesn’t. So, at Trader Joe’s, we can make an actual pay of $22.50 an hour based on the benefit contributions and at WalMart we can make $15.50 an hour based on benefit contributions. Well, WalMart is a bad choice.
Benefits helps companies distort the playing field against labor. Most of the time, you don’t get more than a generalized sense of what benefits a company offers before you get a job offer. For instance, both WalMart and Trader Joe’s offers Medical Insurance. I think we all know that that’s about where the similarity ends.
As I said, I disagree.
That’s actually perfectly true. I was a member of a union that the workers wanted out of and they couldn’t get out of because the union has a clause in it’s contract: To work at said employer, you had to be a member of that union.
The union wasn’t looking out for it’s members, it was looking out for itself.
The minute a union goes into “protection mode” against it’s own members, it’s no longer advocating for them.
I overestimated one piece of federal law and not state law. My apologies. But that’s why this should be standard for all workers instead of hoping that state law and union negotiations work out for people.
No. There a plenty of worker benefits that aren’t codified into law. Pay levels beyond a minimum wage. Paid vacations and sick time. Paid health care. Paid retirement. None of these things are required by law.
I didn’t say that. I said unions can often get them for their workers when the law doesn’t.
What the hell are you talking about?
This isn’t about the details. It’s about whether you get ANYTHING at all.
And I answer again - A union employee has a better chance of getting higher pay, paid vacation and sick time, paid retirement and paid health insurance. Today, the law allows an employer to pay NO retirement, NO health insurance (for some workers), NO paid time off.
This isn’t about whether you get cash vs. benefits.
If both Walmart and Trader Joe’s offer $12 an hour and no benefits, they’re both bad choices. And there’s nothign stopping them from doing that. No law says they have to offer more. A union could help though.
And?
Nope. That is illegal in the U.S., so it can’t be true. You had to pay a fee to the union, perhaps, but you didn’t have to join. But I’m not sure what your point is - workers could simply hold an election to decertify the union.
The union IS its members. The members elect the leadership. So you should have gotten new leaders.
You misunderstood. I meant it was protecting it’s workers gains that it got in the past.
All of those things are available with and without a union, though.
So why should only union workers get them? Why shouldn’t all employers have equal obligations?
And a lot of places give you things, even places that have never had a union.
So, in other words, they get a higher pay and roughly equivalent benefits to the average non union company. Additionally, while you can go to work for WalMart and get zero benefits, you can also go to work for a company that gives more benefits than a union.
This is scare mongering. “You should have a union because if you don’t you might at some point in the future be shot at by the owners of your work place. It might slide that far, man.”
It is a useful alternatives to unions.
So could a law.
You do realize that your union contract can specifically say that a decertification vote is against your contract and remove you from both the union and the place you work once someone reports you trying to organize a decertification vote, right? And the only other way to remove a union is to get a company to withdraw recognition, which has to happen within a certain time frame.
And I have been in several jobs where if I didn’t join the union, I wasn’t allowed to be employed. It’s certainly not illegal for the union to do this.
This is naive. Congress is elected by the people and yet they do things that are wildly unpopular, like the ACA and NSA surveillance.
Once, again, this is scare mongering. Why, without us, your doting union, you’ll be in chains and whipped daily!
You have wildly overstated the importance of unions.
It’s false logic to make that statement. You can’t invoke the legacy all the good unions have done without making the same claim to all the bad they’ve done.
or they never may need a union ever. Unions don’t need to exist for the sake of existence. They could all disappear today and be created again in the future.
