Force of law. In non-right to work states, one can be required to join a union in order to work. There is no equivalent to the other side - that is, there is no state in the Union where it is illegal to join a union.
It isn’t an argument against unions; it is an argument against greed and short-sightedness. And I don’t see any argument in favor of protectionism - GM would not have been saved by tariffs on imported cars. It might have been if the UAW were somewhat less breath-takingly greedy and stupid.
My only experience with unions was when I worked for Kroger, and one of their grocery chains, Ralphs’s, decided to go on strike because due to the failing economy, management wanted workers to pay $1.13 a week for their healthcare. Previously they were getting it for free. They went on strike for months. We hired many scabs that made way more than they did (with no benefits, of course) and many people from my office flew down to California to run the stores. Eventually management capitulated. At the time I was paying $20 a week in healthcare premiums, so they didn’t get any sympathy from me.
If that’s what you meant, why did you use the term “union greed”, which implies that it is a special type of greed, different and separate from any other types of greed?
If what you meant was “greed and short-sightedness on the part the worker’s union”, surely you would have used that term and not the semantically loaded term that you did use, wouldn’t you? I mean, why tar all unions with an endemic greed when you have, at best, one example you are calling out?
It’s exactly that kind of thing that has helped to trash unions in the public’s mind. You’ve provided a great example of how words, and the care with which they are chosen, can affect people’s perceptions in subtle but important ways.
A union is unnecessary. I have worked for probably 20 companies in my life (including jobs in school) and was never part of a union. Yet, I was always able to get raises. I just had to find a way to outperform. I think the first raise I ever got, working for the county no less, was from a $1.95 top $2.05. And that was because I was always on time, did what was asked of me, did it well, and was very pleasant about it. I’ve had to ask for and negotiate every salary I’ve had as an adult. I knew I wanted to make more money and that I would be asking for it, and when I did that I’d better have a really good argument. So, for the year prior to asking I made sure I did what I could to stand out in a positive way. And that’s both as a laborer for a small company after I graduated college and as an executive. The company wants my services for the smallest amount of money they can pay me. (Rightly so.) I want to be paid the most I can. So, I have to find a way to be more valuable to them. In today’s world, it works perfectly. Unions get in the way of that. If I were in a union job I would not have been able to make as much as I did as fast. And I would not have had the incentive to improve my skill set the degree to which I did over the years. And I find that an immoral force.
You’re required to do all sorts of things to get some jobs; I don’t see why joining the union shouldn’t be something the employer can make you do as well.
To work at my non-unionized workplace, you are required to show up at a certain time, abide by a strict code of ethical conduct you’re forced to sign, agree to non-competition and nondisclosure agreements, dress a certain way, not use a cellphone while driving to or from work, abide by voluminous numbers of company rules, pay into the retirement plan, pay into the disability insurance plan, and on and on. What’s special about being required to join the union?
If a union and an employer freely negotiate a closed shop agreement into their contract, who’re you to tell them to do otherwise? If you don’t like it, work elsewhere.
Not the employer requiring it - the state requiring it. That’s coercion, because you can go work somewhere else. You have no choice but to obey the law.
ETA - would you object if the state forbade unions? Further, would you object if the company made it a condition of employment that you didn’t join a union?
The logic is that if you worked at a union place and got union benefits, but were not forced to join a union, few would. They could save the cost of union dues and derive all the gains that they provide.
Given a choice between management and unions, I’d choose the unions 100% of the time
Some unions may be corrupt, but some management are as well. I’d rather have some affect on the outcome than plead mercy with CEOs to please give me enough to feed my family
Remember, this country once was the perfect management paradise. Little to no regulations, monopolies, exploitation, no protections, union-busting. For all the people who think unions should not exist or have less power, have fun being a laborer circa the 1920’s. I will NEVER believe that was a better time.
Management needs less power because they have more money and the means of production. Unions, no matter how bad, are not as bad as management
As opposed to I am to unions today, that would not be my stance a hundred years ago. The position that I think many people have is that unions are not needed today. Why you wold judge what we need today by looking at 1920 is puzzling. There are scads of laws on the books that protect the workers now. We now have OSHA, as well, for workplace safety. 1920 was a different world.
Yes but the problem isn’t the unions. The problem is that we need some mechanism to prevent politicization of the bureaucracy and the way we do it crates job security for bureaucrats. As far as I can tell, the union has done little more than get federal employees a free trainpass.
What you’re missing, magellan, is that it’s politically active labor that gave us the 40hr work week & OSHA, & gives us continued access to them today. It’s disingenuous for the economic right to pretend that the laws we have obviate the need for labor unions. The right also seeks to demolish OSHA & abolish the minimum wage. Many workers now are working two jobs, & a few are forced to work mandatory overtime. And even present law has proven actively hostile to the ability of organized labor to incorporate themselves into management (Taft-Hartley), thus ensuring that labor unions remain outsiders, where they can be framed as non-productive & hostile to business itself.
This is sloppy phrasing, and it’s inaccurate. There is no state where you can be required to join a union in order to work. There are some states where you can be required to join a union in order to work at particular places, but that’s an entirely different beast. And there are other states where it is illegal, for example, for teachers to strike. Where I live, the teacher’s union is little more than a glorified lobbying firm. I pay union dues partly out of a belief in the importance of unions and partly because they provide me with liability insurance, something I figure I’d be an idiot as a male teacher to go without, but certainly not because I consider it a financial investment.
The nouveau “Constitutional” movement is quite vocal about abolishing all agencies created by Congressional statute to serve domestic goods. Apparently Article II, Section 2 is a little too subtle:
I was once a member of a union (Dockwaorker’s Union)-which I HAD to join (if I wanted the job).I was a summer job at a marina. In my experience, the union existed mainly to protect the jobs of incompetent employees.
An example:I was teamed up with an older guy, who was an alcoholic-he would return from lunch drunk, and could not be trusted with power tools. The management wanted to fire the bum, but the union kept protecting him.
I was young, and a good worker-which was why I was “teamed” with this useless drunk. Pretty soon I realized that I was doing HIS work as well as mine-and I grew to resent it. Finally, I told the union steward to take this guy away-or I would quit-they found “job” where this bum could sleep all afternoon.
So, in this case, the union protected a man who essentially stole his salary from his employer.
Unions blow!