No. I might argue about what sorts of conditions should exist for the receipt of welfare, such as a continual requirement to seek work, but never argue that the program itself is poor social policy.
This statement is meaningless. A signed contract could well be the result of duress. The presence of a signed contract is of no value whatsoever in determining whether it was procured under duress.
The difference is that the “terrible pressure” you speak of is legal, and simply a consequence of the relative positions of employer and employee.
The unions’ legitimate pressure is: “Hey, try to replace 500 of use at once.”
The unions’ illegal pressure – their duress – is, “Hey, 500 of us are going trash your offices.”
Found the answer here: A permanent replacement means the striking worker must wait for a new vacancy before being put back on the payroll. I take it his place in line for the new vacancy is protected somehow (though I don’t know how they’d determine in what order all the striking workers get ‘dibs’ for new vacancies).
No, all that means is when you strike, you claim that in addition to whatever economic benefit or concession you’re seeking from the strike, you also also claim you’re protesting some unfair labor practice as well – like discouraging strikes. Workers on strike for protesting “unfair labor practices” may not be fired and replaced by permanent substitutes. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 158.)
Oops, you are right - this link doesn’t explain permanent replacements.
It is not legal to fire strikers, but it is legal to replace them with someone who can keep the job as long as they want it (a “permanent replacement”). So that’s almost the same thing.
Maybe that’s not the most relevant point to make. I’m starting to see the reasoning, I think.
Don’t think about it (I say to myself) as involving a non-workplace-specific entity called “labor,” rather, think of it as an interaction between two groups of people–the union members that work at a company, and the other people that work at that company. The other people can hurt the union members by firing them. Union members can hurt the other people by striking. And that’s a situation in which both parties have the power necessary for negotiations to be meaningfully free.
But if striking workers can be summarily replaced, then union members’ ability to hurt the other people is reduced by a very great degree. And now negotations are no longer nearly as meaningfully free. One side holds too many more cards than the other.
If I wish to date Helen Hunt, she has many more cards than I do. (And Mrs. Bricker also has more cards than I.) I am woefully in third place in this negotiation.
But I assume you do not support legislation requiring Ms. Hunt to free up this Friday night for me.
It is not a matter of (predictable) import to anyone’s future but your own whether you or anyone else dates Helen Hunt.
I’m trying my best to think in terms, not of fairness or unfairness, or in terms of who’s got a right to what, but rather, in terms of what kind of system tends to ensure the kind of economic freedom that allows for creativity to effect systemwide changes which people generally approve of in hindsight. (A bunch of words meant to give a somewhat precise definition of what I would mean by “progress”.)
My personal experiences with unions haven’t been great.
When I was young and getting a summer job, I was choosing between a retail store and a grocery store. The grocery store workers were unionized, and it was explained that I’d have to join the union. The grocery store paid better, but after the union dues, it paid worse. I couldn’t figure out why I would want to join a union for a summer job. It appeared to me that the union was just siphoning off money from the kids who had summer jobs for the benefit of full-time union members. Of course, I wouldn’t have cared about that if it had actually resulted in more money in my pocket. I took the retail job.
In the supermarket strikes in California in 2003, a striking employee attempted to intimidate me into not going into a store.
At work, I sometimes go to college career days with the recruiters. We used to have a cool booth with lighting and other neat attention-grabbing features. Then one year we switched to a boring simple one. I asked the recruiter, and she said that it wasn’t worth paying the unionized employees extra to set up and tear down the old one (she could do it in about 10 minutes, but wasn’t allowed), and it definitely wasn’t worth the extra hour waiting for them to do so at the end of the day.
A friend of mine was a Jr. High school teacher. She was complaining about a problem she had at work that had been ongoing, and that she’d gotten her union involved in. She was very pro-union in this case. But what she really wanted to do was move back home and work in Ohio. To do that, she’d have to give up all her seniority in the union, which would mean a huge pay cut. She didn’t see that all the union services that she liked were stuck with this system where nobody cared how good a teacher she was; just how long she’d been a teacher (in this particular union). Go somewhere else, and you get to start over at the bottom.
I absolutely support workers’ rights to organize, bargain collectively, etc. But the public-facing aspects of that are sometimes pretty bad, and I personally would never want to be in a job where seniority was the dominant factor in payment, promotion, etc.
It is a matter important for society at large the degree to which people like you and people like employers at GM are on equal or unequal footing when it comes to employment contract negotations.
It’s not a matter important for society at large the degree to which people like you and people like Helen hunt are on equal or unequal footing when it comes to sexual contract negotations.
(In case you missed by my edit: I’m trying my best to think in terms, not of fairness or unfairness, or in terms of who’s got a right to what, but rather, in terms of what kind of system tends to ensure the kind of economic freedom that allows for creativity to effect systemwide changes which people generally approve of in hindsight. (A bunch of words meant to give a somewhat precise definition of what I would mean by “progress”.) )
Alas, when I stated my personal union narrative, and the slow sinking of my admiration for my OWN union, Lance’s response was to suggest I could quit my job if I did not like the union. I quite enjoyed my job. My employer treated me as a valuable asset. Hey, I thought it was the big bad heartless employer who was supposed to tell me “If you don’t like it, you can quit.” I could quit my job, but I could not quit the union without quitting my job. Lance’s other suggestion was for me to run for an office within the union. In other words, quit my job. The union officials are full time salaried positions.
This is another reason the union narrative has become negative. Artfully provided by Lance. “If you don’t like it (the union), you can always quit you job.” Isn’t this the awful bully-like stance that the unions were meant to oppose?
I don’t agree with you. I think society’s view – the one that inspired this thread, the one where the positive narrative about unions is spiraling downward and replaced by a negative one – is the direct result of seeing these kinds attempts to force a certain vision of “fairness” into place. Fairness translates often to seniority rather than merit.
The only sustainable fairness, in my view, is the one that comes with true freedom: where both the employee and employer are free to bargain or walk away. A good employee will have the upper hand; a mediocre employee will not. That’s not “fair” – it means the best, most talented employees do well.