Should People Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues?

[thereisnospoon]

Statistically, union members get paid more than non-union labor in the same field - and that difference is significantly more than what they pay in union dues.

Why should someone get paid more than others in his field if he doesn't pay dues to the organization that got him those better wages?

A mistake union people make all the time. The union did not "get" the wages for the workers. The worker earns the money based on performance and skill which got the worker in the door.
Even though the labor organization negotiated the wages and bennies for it's members, if each individual member does not perform, the entire group is jeopardized. This is the system under which unions work. The group. Individuals mean nothing, but it cuts both ways.
Unfortunately, unions also go out of their way to protect mediocre workers in order to protect the group as a whole. This is just on of many reasons why unions are so unpopular.
Of course unions have the option of staying out of right to work states.

 

[syrenn]

The Union requirement is part of the job. If you are not willing to take the "bad" with the good, then you probably really don't want the job to begin with. There is no sane Union in this country that is going to allow non-union employees to do the same job as the represented employees. That's a recipe for disaster for BOTH sides.

A union requirement is PART of the job? Oh really? According to whom...the union or the employer?

Right i know..it was part of the UNION contract they sighed. How about everyone let the union contracts ....expire.

Of course any employer is going to want to employ individuals that they can hire and fire at will, treat like dog shit, use and abuse, pay less than market value to, etc.... That's a no-brainer.The reason these companies don't want the Unions is specifically for that reason.... to be able to abuse the employees at will without them having any way to fight back.

Again union interference whom an employer can hire. And who can work for an employer.


Bottom line, as a new hire....you HAVE to join the union and pay up the dues.

 

[syrenn]

Massive FAIL. Nobody has a right to work for whomever they choose. If they did, I'd be playing for the Red Sox.


PS: And I'd gladly join the union.

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if I want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... the hotel can TRY to hire me but i will be ALLOWED to work there if I do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

Uhhhh.....Employers DO hire who they want and the union cannot say who or who doesn't get hired. Employees do not join the union until AFTER they are hired as a condition of employment. And that is only in "Closed Shop" states.

The only exception are labor halls. And companies such as mine can maintain a list of names of individual contractors that are not allowed on the property for legitimate reasons.

.

A condition of employment? lol. Again... the bottom line is join the union or dont work for who YOU want and who has hired you.

What if you don't want to join the union?

 

[syrenn]

under the law, no one is required to join a union, no matter the state, is what this says?

Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)
If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.

The Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.

No one wants union thugs beating you up in the parking lot. No one wants to be harassed into joining either.


just saying

 

[thereisnospoon]

To our union supporters:

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

They don't. But if you choose to work in a "Closed Shop" Union then you have no right to complain. If you don't want to belong to a union go work somewhere else.

.

Same goes for a union attempting to or having organized the workers in a particular shop. If the state is right to work, the union has no right to force it's will on all workers. If the union does not like those conditions it can stay out of right to work states.
Sooner then you think, right to work laws will become the law in just about every state. It's inevitable. Union membership in the private sector has dwindled to about 8 or 9% depending on who you read. Compare that to the mid 60's where one third of all American workers were unionized.
This is not looking good for unions. And for America, that is a good thing.
Now, if we can get rid of those tax dollar wasting public worker unions, everybody benefits.

 

[boedicca]

under the law, no one is required to join a union, no matter the state, is what this says?

Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)
If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.

The Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.

No one wants thugs beating you up in the parking lot either.


just saying

Which "Card Check" makes a lot more likely given that it eliminates secret ballot elections and replaces them with authorization forms or cards. The Union can then make a Who Is Naughty and Who Is Nice list...and we know where that will lead.

 

[thereisnospoon]

no they shouldn't , which is why I am glad to live in a right to work state.

So why is this so popular among the left? And why hasnt anyone voted yes? If everyone agrees its a bad system then why not get rid of it? Is this so clear of a wrong that even leftists wont own up to it or attempt to defend it?

It's an excellent system. The poll question is worded improperly.

If an employer agrees to negotiate with an agency that represents the workers, then a person taking employment there has to pay dues to that agency as a condition of employment.

That's your employer's decision. That is employer's policy. You abide by it if you want to work there.

Ahh, when an answer is not available, the liberal always questions the question. Heard it many times over. "That's not the right question".
Well ya know what? It's kinda tough darts there, sporty.
Paying a fee to a labor organization is that part which funds the organization. None of us disagree. It is what the leaders of the organization do with the money is what is being questioned. Too often, union leaders will spend their members money making sure politicians sympathetic to union causes are kept in office. That even if individual members of the union object to the candidates favored by the union leadership.
Now, this may be a touchy subject regarding free speech rights, but I think unions should be banned from doing anything more than publicly supporting political candidates. No money, No parties. No free stuff. No perks. No Soft Money. Individuals who are union members or who are in union business may do all that is legal to support their candidates. Same way a business owner should do.

 

[daveman]

under the law, no one is required to join a union, no matter the state, is what this says?

Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

No one wants thugs beating you up in the parking lot either.


just saying

Which "Card Check" makes a lot more likely given that it eliminates secret ballot elections and replaces them with authorization forms or cards. The Union can then make a Who Is Naughty and Who Is Nice list...and we know where that will lead.

Card Check is about as unAmerican as it gets.

 

[Cuyo]

Should People Be Forced To Join A Union And Pay Dues As A Condition Of Their Right To Work?





.

Uhhhh.... No.

Thank goodness, nobody is ever forced to join a union.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Strawman OP.

Nobody has ever been forced to join a union.

Generally where an employer has contracted to negotiate with a union you can be required to pay agency fees, but you can't be forced to join the uniion or forced to pay the portion of union dues that would go to activities such as political lobbying.

In New York they generally offer you that opt out opportunity a the time of your hiring.

No company ever "invited" a union rep to their business to negotiate a deal with a union. Usually the union people make a demand to see the employer and if that demand is denied the union then made the business owner's life miserable.
Once the sides were seated at the table, the union people basically threatened the business with a shut down. See ,back 40 or 50 years ago unions had not only the support of their members, but the support of people in the community. So a union boss could waltz into the business owner's office and tell him point blank, "If you do not play ball with us, I will make sure no buys your product and no one will apply for a job here."....The union to business owner relationship has always been adversarial.
Fast forward to now. People for the most part either do not care about or for unions. Some of those despise them. Most importantly the community support has disappeared. Unions no longer have the clout they once did. Unions have become largely irrelevant.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Right to work where? Your question makes no sense.

No, you just don't get it.

I have to make up my own interpretation since you refuse to elaborate.

Non-union workers have more right to work because there are more non-union jobs in America.

Ok? Feel better?

Wrong. There has always been more non union work than union.
Right to work laws were passed for two reasons. One is to protect workers from being compelled to join an organization against their will. Two for businesses to not be compelled to enter into agreements with another business( unions) against their will.
It's that simple. All this stuff about government interfering with the process and preventing unions from organizing labor is a lot of "who shot John".....

 

[manifold]

If your choice is to join the union or you CANT work for the business you want to work for because they are a "union shop" That is forcing you to join the union.

..or not work for whom you chose to work for.

Hotels in SF are like that. You either JOIN the union (regardless if you want to or not)... or you don't GET to work for the hotel.

Massive FAIL. Nobody has a right to work for whomever they choose. If they did, I'd be playing for the Red Sox.


PS: And I'd gladly join the union.

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if I want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... the hotel can TRY to hire me but i will be ALLOWED to work there if I do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

I understand exactly what you are saying. Appently you still don't get it. The EMPLOYERS relinquished their right to HIRE whomever they choose when the signed the contract with the union. Do you not believe they have the right to freely enter contracts?

 

[Anachronism]

Right i know..it was part of the UNION contract they sighed. How about everyone let the union contracts ....expire.

The problem with that is the NLRB. Once you've agreed that the positions are Union positions, you cannot just decide they aren't anymore. The company would have to allow the contracts to expire (at which point they would no longer have a workforce) and then go to court and show WHY they shouldn't be required to continue to honor their past agreements that the positions WERE Union. Either that or get the workers to agree to de-Unionize, which is not an easy thing to do.

Again union interference whom an employer can hire. And who can work for an employer.

Bottom line, as a new hire....you HAVE to join the union and pay up the dues.

Pretty much.


Now realize, I'm not going to sit here and claim that the Union is always Great and the Company is always Evil. Unionizing is not for everyone or every job. However, in many cases it's the only way to ensure that the Company doesn't abuse the workforce. Again, it's not the be-all and end-all of the world, but I know that right now I'm very happy to be a Union member rather than still on the management side of this company. If we hadn't gone Union in December of 2007 I wouldn't have a job. Not because I can't do it, but because they could get someone to do it half as well for a third of the cost in Syracuse, NY.

 

[manifold]

But if you WANT the job....but don't want to join the union. Guess what...the UNION wont LET you work.

Another massive FAIL. You seem to be on a roll. The company contracted with the union, granting the union exclusive rights as their supplier of labor. It's really that simple. If the company contracted with Staples to be their exclusive supplier of paper, is that a violation of W.B Mason's rights? No. The same principle applies.

LMAO! Yes you area missive FAIL.

Ask any employer if they want to get rid of the unions and hire whom they want, 100% of them will oust the unions.

Sure, that's why when their contracts expire, the point when they can legally do exactly what you think they ALL want to do, they almost ALL do the exact opposite.

Keep Flail'n and Fail'n dummy, it's just gets more and more amusing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No. I think unions are nothing more than organized thugs and originally did much to help the work force in America but these days are the biggest reason the country is going down the tubes.

The going down the tubes you're referring to is that fact that our unions are losing what they gained (that 'much to help the work force' you refer to) to foreign work forces because those workers are forced to work under conditions that existed prior to when our labor unions, in the past,

won their battles to get rid of those conditions.

The country is not going down the tubes from the conservative perspective. It is merely going to where conservatives want it to go...

...to being a place where the mass of the working class works at low wages, with few benefits, and little job security,

where corporations/employers are the supreme authority over workers, to the detriment of workers' rights, protections, and privileges,

and to where the government is generally aligned as an ally to business/corporate/employer/ownership interests, to the detriment of wage earners, workers, labor, etc.

That's a pat response form all union supporters. That without unions, the country will go back to sweat shops and company stores.
And government? Right now the federal government is run by liberals. I see them doing nothing to broaden union/labor power or even support the union cause. Except that is, during campaign season.
BTW, the employer owns the jobs not the workers. So in effect the employer IS the supreme authority. The employer has absolute authority within the bounds of law and good consciousness over his business and his employees.
There are laws rules and regulations in place that protect workers so therefore a middle man such as a union is no longer needed.
In these litigious and voyeuristic times with social media, cameras on our cell phones and recording devices any one who steps out of line can be placed under immediate and mass public scrutiny. No employer would dare risk losing his business by breaching the law because the next thing they know, a video is on YouTube, posts on Facebook and other social media and of course a process server greeting the employer in the supermarket check out line with "Joe Smith?...Yes..... "You have been served".
What's the number one response from employers as to why they won't fire a worker before they get all their ducks in a row?.."I do not want to get sued"..
This is not to imply there are not abuses of labor by management. There are. Enough to warrant the existence of an intermediary which only costs the business owner higher labor costs and places a wall between the worker and employer? No.

 

[syrenn]

Massive FAIL. Nobody has a right to work for whomever they choose. If they did, I'd be playing for the Red Sox.


PS: And I'd gladly join the union.

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if I want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... the hotel can TRY to hire me but i will be ALLOWED to work there if I do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

I understand exactly what you are saying. Appently you still don't get it. The EMPLOYERS relinquished their right to HIRE whomever they choose when the signed the contract with the union. Do you not believe they have the right to freely enter contracts?

I love that... relinquished their right to hire.

Try the were forced to do that.

NO business or employer freely enters any contract with any union. Do try again.

 

[syrenn]

Another massive FAIL. You seem to be on a roll. The company contracted with the union, granting the union exclusive rights as their supplier of labor. It's really that simple. If the company contracted with Staples to be their exclusive supplier of paper, is that a violation of W.B Mason's rights? No. The same principle applies.

LMAO! Yes you area missive FAIL.

Ask any employer if they want to get rid of the unions and hire whom they want, 100% of them will oust the unions.

Sure, that's why when their contracts expire, the point when they can legally do exactly what you think they ALL want to do, they almost ALL do the exact opposite.

Keep Flail'n and Fail'n dummy, it's just gets more and more amusing.

And i guess you miss the part when the contract ends the battle begins?

I agree you are very amusing.

 

[manifold]

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if I want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... the hotel can TRY to hire me but i will be ALLOWED to work there if I do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

I understand exactly what you are saying. Appently you still don't get it. The EMPLOYERS relinquished their right to HIRE whomever they choose when the signed the contract with the union. Do you not believe they have the right to freely enter contracts?

I love that... relinquished their right to hire.

Try the were forced to do that.

NO business or employer freely enters any contract with any union. Do try again.

Sure, they had a gun to their head I suppose.

 

[Ravi]

Massive FAIL. Nobody has a right to work for whomever they choose. If they did, I'd be playing for the Red Sox.


PS: And I'd gladly join the union.

Then lets put it another way. since you cant comprehend what i am saying... EMPLOYERS cannot HIRE whomever they want IF it is a union shop. The UNION says who can and cannot be hired based on who is a member or not.

So if I want to work for the hotel and the hotel wants me to work for them... the hotel can TRY to hire me but i will be ALLOWED to work there if I do not want to join the union and pay dues.

Massive fail, yes you are.

I understand exactly what you are saying. Appently you still don't get it. The EMPLOYERS relinquished their right to HIRE whomever they choose when the signed the contract with the union. Do you not believe they have the right to freely enter contracts?

They can still hire whomever they choose. But of course the person they wish to hire can turn down the job as a protest against joining a union.

 

[JBeukema]

Did Dave ever come out and stick with a single position?