Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

[emilynghiem]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

No, it should be voluntary.
You should choose your affiliations and policies for funding and representation.

Only if you use the services rendered by a group under condition of paying for them,
then yes, you should be required to pay for the services you use.

But again, you should AGREE voluntarily to those conditions in advance,
by informed consent.

Personally I believe all conflicts should be mediated by consensus,
that free and equal access to mediation assistance and training should be
required for citizens and institutions to operate (again, by freely agreeing in advance
on such a policy), and that what should determine authority is who accepts
responsibility for redressing grievances.

So if people in office or their agencies don't answer to petitions or resolve grievances,
they should not be in charge of making such decisions. And thus hold them accountable.

 

[dblack]

Employers should be free to sign exclusive union contracts if they wish. The problem is, labor law often forces this decisions, which cascades the coercion onto potential employees. "Right to Work" laws are simply hedges against bad labor law to begin with. Employers shouldn't be forced to deal with unions simply because they're implicitly threatening violence.

 

[Publius1787]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

That is up the We the People

By that standard if "We the people" decide that every first born child should be decapitated then let it be so. No, that's just as laughable as your statement. The founders recognized that there were certain rights that no government had the authority to tamper with no matter how many of the people agreed. This is the problem with the left. They don't want individual liberty and rule of law. They want a French/Bolshevik Revolutionary government.

I suggest you've made a flawed comparison in that decapitating a newborn is an unacceptably immoral and criminal action but legislating a requirement which promotes union participation is not. The union "check-off" practice (mandatory dues) is both moral and lawful and it serves the ultimate interests of the working class by strengthening unions.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if you enjoy the 8-hour work day, the 40-hour work week, paid overtime, paid vacation, along with a host of other benefits and worker protections, I suggest you re-think your apparent anti-union posture. I won't deny that some unions are corrupt and poorly managed, but this is wholly the fault of membership's failure to attend meetings and vote for good leadership. The point I wish to make here is, where unions are concerned, tossing out the baby with the bath water is a very bad idea.

The Union Movement is one of the best things ever happened to the American working class. Moving against unions is ignorantly self-defeating.

I spent most of my life in the military (infantry) working considerably longer than the average federal unionized employee who makes much more, works much less, and with better benefits. I currently own a small business which shall go unnamed because it gets too close to home for an internet forum. I likewise make the same no matter how many hours I work. Having very little overhead and most of the bills paid, if my workers were to unionized (just an example), I would fire them all, close up shop, and retire. Either way you have it, no man relinquishes his property by virtue of opening a business no matter what his workers think on the issue! You cannot vote someone's liberty away so as to artificially increase yours. Therefore the comparison stands.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

no.....but then the question comes up....should those who dont, get the Benefits that the Union got them.....i say no....you get what the company wants to give you .....

Of course no one suggests removing the legal impediment that forbids a union from negotiating a contract that prefers union members over non-union workers. This creates a free rider problem. Just change the law and let the union negotiate terms for union members ONLY. Everybody else can fend for themselves if they want.

in my office at the PO it always pissed me off how the non-union guys were the ones who filed the most grievances compared to the Union members....

 

[gallantwarrior]

I am not really understanding the question. If you are asking in a generic sense whether all workers should pay dues to unions, heck no. If you are asking if people who get jobs at a company that is unionized should pay dues that is murkier. First of all I would never work for a union cause I don't want anyone telling me when I can work and when I can't. Some people don't have that luxury( pipeline welders are a good example) so al I could recommend is to try to have union dues not pay for things you don't agree with, but good luck with that. Private business unionization has declined drastically in the last decades while I believe public sector unionization has increased slightly, a seriously dangerous development. I digress. My vote would be no but the reality is if you sign the contract you have to abide by those rules.

To my knowledge, if the place you work has union representation, they cannot force you pay for that portion of union funds used for political action committees. That means, you can file the paperwork and have your dues reduced by that amount. That usually means you do not have a vote on union issues, for officers, contracts, etc. But you can still damned well cough up some portion of you pay to provide for union cadre.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I voted YES for the following reasons and more! These benefits were paid for by he blood, sweat and tears of Union members, not tomention hard cold dues money. No leeching RW anal retentive jerk should get a free ride; especially when they scream and bray incessantly about "welfare queens" and constantly conjure apparitions of poor people getting something for nothing.

Does any sane worker really want a relaspe of the following:

1. The Unions gave us the week end leisure time.

2. Unions helped end child labor

3. Unions won Widespread Employer Based Health Coverage!

4. Unions Spearheaded the Fight for the Family and Medical Leave Act!

5. The Unions helped to build the Middle-Class!

And then they got greedy and corrupt.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You said the pay was good. Do you think that was so because of the inherent generosity of the employer? The pay was good for someone like you, who just walked into the job, because those old time jaw-flapping "union farts" did all the heavy-lifting it took to make the pay "good."

So you paid a few bucks to the union but you got it back tenfold in terms of "good pay."

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

What about the Teamsters Union? Truck-drivers are not highly skilled, nor are warehousemen.

My son-in-law works for UPS. He owns a fine home on Long Island and supports his family very nicely. He never graduated high-school. Where would he be without the union?

What about the International Longshoreman's Association? And the Service Employee's International (janitors, window-washers, etc.)? There are many unions that serve the interests of unskilled workers who otherwise would be working like slaves for pitiful wages.

Working for FedEx for better pay and benefits.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What about the Teamsters Union? Truck-drivers are not highly skilled, nor are warehousemen.

My son-in-law works for UPS. He owns a fine home on Long Island and supports his family very nicely. He never graduated high-school. Where would he be without the union?

What about the International Longshoreman's Association? And the Service Employee's International (janitors, window-washers, etc.)? There are many unions that serve the interests of unskilled workers who otherwise would be working like slaves for pitiful wages.

If any union truly cared about their members they would provide educational and training sources to help them rise above the unskilled level to one where they could be productive AND make a decent living.

As it is, union bosses care for nobody but themselves. As FDR pointed, letting public employees unionize was a cause for less production and responsiveness.

Many unions provide training. IBEW Los Angeles and Operator Union 503 Los Angeles are two I'll mention of many. They're affiliated with local community colleges also but the classes are hands on and taught by journeymen usually, and safety on the job as well as technical info, is stressed. I've never met a union boss who's a thug although sometimes they might ignore the members, like any organization you have your jerks. The very wealthy and corporations have their unions also. One of the best that represent them is the US Supreme court, which declared corporations 1st class citizens. 1st class citizens can't be drafted or jailed. Instead of jail, pay a paltry fine which can be written off as business expenses which the rest of us 2nd class citizens cannot do. Corporations (1st class citizens) unlike the rest of us 2nd class citizens, can also operate in USA but claim Ireland or caiman islands or whatever, as their residence to lower their taxes, which right wing 2nd class citizens think is wonderful for some strange reason.

A long-time friend of mine, who is a "union man", whose father was a "union man", convinced me to grudgingly concede that the trade unions (i.e. carpenters, steam-fitters, steel workers, etc), might still serve some purpose. Mostly, training issue and the fact that members are called on a maintained list, or can report to the union hall when they need work, convinced me there might be some small benefit for skilled tradesmen to belong to a union. But there are loads of unions, many of them public-sector unions, that do nothing of the sort for their members. Oh, and don't leave a job where such a union exists without pulling your "traveler's card".

So, yes, there may still be some reason for certain types of unions to exist, but belonging should be an option. Other unions...yeah, a bunch of crooks and thieves whose livelihoods rely on how much they can squeeze out of their captive audience.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

Such a silly troll ^^^. Publius agenda is never hidden. But I digress.

There are closed shops where everyone is required to join the union, but those employees opposed to the union will receive the same salary, benefits and representation. They will not be required to pay union dues but they will be required to pay an amount equivalent to union dues to an approved non profit.

Who approves the non-profit?

 

[Publius1787]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

Such a silly troll ^^^. Publius agenda is never hidden. But I digress.

There are closed shops where everyone is required to join the union, but those employees opposed to the union will receive the same salary, benefits and representation. They will not be required to pay union dues but they will be required to pay an amount equivalent to union dues to an approved non profit.

Who approves the non-profit?

I guess they don't understand that theft is theft.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I don't like unions but no one forced a person to go work for a union. But that is what unions do. If you don't want to pay the union dues don't work for a union.

 

[Publius1787]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I don't like unions but no one forced a person to go work for a union. But that is what unions do. If you don't want to pay the union dues don't work for a union.

No, but union laws in many states with respect to many trades makes it near impossible not to work for a union.

 

[dblack]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I don't like unions but no one forced a person to go work for a union. But that is what unions do. If you don't want to pay the union dues don't work for a union.

No, but union laws in many states with respect to many trades makes it near impossible not to work for a union.

They make it impossible for an employer to refuse a union contract in many cases, which is the core of the problem - state intervention in our economic freedom.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I don't like unions but no one forced a person to go work for a union. But that is what unions do. If you don't want to pay the union dues don't work for a union.

No, but union laws in many states with respect to many trades makes it near impossible not to work for a union.

I'd move, or start my own company.

 

[MikeK]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

No, it should be voluntary.
You should choose your affiliations and policies for funding and representation.

Only if you use the services rendered by a group under condition of paying for them,
then yes, you should be required to pay for the services you use.

But again, you should AGREE voluntarily to those conditions in advance,
by informed consent.

Personally I believe all conflicts should be mediated by consensus,
that free and equal access to mediation assistance and training should be
required for citizens and institutions to operate (again, by freely agreeing in advance
on such a policy), and that what should determine authority is who accepts
responsibility for redressing grievances.

So if people in office or their agencies don't answer to petitions or resolve grievances,
they should not be in charge of making such decisions. And thus hold them accountable.

If you are hired in a union shop you will be receiving a wage level and other benefits which were achieved through the efforts of those union members who fought for them and who are paying dues to support the union. Since you are enjoying those benefits, why should you not pay the same dues as those who made it possible are paying?

If you don't wish to pay the dues, should you not receive the wage level and benefits (none) which existed before the union became active?

The situation is analogous to one in which a group of people labor to build a house and to plant a field of crops, then you come along and enjoy the shelter and food which derived from their pain and efforts without contributing to the upkeep.

 

[MikeK]

If any union truly cared about their members they would provide educational and training sources to help them rise above the unskilled level to one where they could be productive AND make a decent living.

As it is, union bosses care for nobody but themselves. As FDR pointed, letting public employees unionize was a cause for less production and responsiveness.

Many unions provide training. IBEW Los Angeles and Operator Union 503 Los Angeles are two I'll mention of many. They're affiliated with local community colleges also but the classes are hands on and taught by journeymen usually, and safety on the job as well as technical info, is stressed. I've never met a union boss who's a thug although sometimes they might ignore the members, like any organization you have your jerks. The very wealthy and corporations have their unions also. One of the best that represent them is the US Supreme court, which declared corporations 1st class citizens. 1st class citizens can't be drafted or jailed. Instead of jail, pay a paltry fine which can be written off as business expenses which the rest of us 2nd class citizens cannot do. Corporations (1st class citizens) unlike the rest of us 2nd class citizens, can also operate in USA but claim Ireland or caiman islands or whatever, as their residence to lower their taxes, which right wing 2nd class citizens think is wonderful for some strange reason.

A long-time friend of mine, who is a "union man", whose father was a "union man", convinced me to grudgingly concede that the trade unions (i.e. carpenters, steam-fitters, steel workers, etc), might still serve some purpose. Mostly, training issue and the fact that members are called on a maintained list, or can report to the union hall when they need work, convinced me there might be some small benefit for skilled tradesmen to belong to a union. But there are loads of unions, many of them public-sector unions, that do nothing of the sort for their members. Oh, and don't leave a job where such a union exists without pulling your "traveler's card".

So, yes, there may still be some reason for certain types of unions to exist, but belonging should be an option. Other unions...yeah, a bunch of crooks and thieves whose livelihoods rely on how much they can squeeze out of their captive audience.

Suppose you take a job in a union shop where the hourly wage is $30 and all the standard benefits apply. Then one day there is a meeting and all the union members say there is no reason to continue paying dues and you all agree to purge the union. Then a week after the union is abolished the boss calls a meeting and says your hourly wage is now $15, there no longer is overtime pay, no paid vacation, no sick leave, and no break time -- and if you don't like it you can quit.

What do you do?

 

[dblack]

I answered 'other' on the poll, in part because I wasn't clear on what was being proposed. A law prohibiting employers from signing exclusive contracts with unions seems just as wrongly interventionist as a law requiring them to.

 

[Publius1787]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

No, it should be voluntary.
You should choose your affiliations and policies for funding and representation.

Only if you use the services rendered by a group under condition of paying for them,
then yes, you should be required to pay for the services you use.

But again, you should AGREE voluntarily to those conditions in advance,
by informed consent.

Personally I believe all conflicts should be mediated by consensus,
that free and equal access to mediation assistance and training should be
required for citizens and institutions to operate (again, by freely agreeing in advance
on such a policy), and that what should determine authority is who accepts
responsibility for redressing grievances.

So if people in office or their agencies don't answer to petitions or resolve grievances,
they should not be in charge of making such decisions. And thus hold them accountable.

If you are hired in a union shop you will be receiving a wage level and other benefits which were achieved through the efforts of those union members who fought for them and who are paying dues to support the union. Since you are enjoying those benefits, why should you not pay the same dues as those who made it possible are paying?

If you don't wish to pay the dues, should you not receive the wage level and benefits (none) which existed before the union became active?

The situation is analogous to one in which a group of people labor to build a house and to plant a field of crops, then you come along and enjoy the shelter and food which derived from their pain and efforts without contributing to the upkeep.

Being the type of guy that I am, I am quite certain in my faculties that I could rise above the complacency of those who demand protection of their jobs and wages and make myself indispensable to the employer. By your same reasoning I can neither receive the union pay or higher than the union pay. It goes both ways and such a proposition that does not fit both sides of the puzzle falls flat for what it is and is shown as the extortion that it is. You advocate for force and theft.

What if I were to make your example analogous to a man working his whole life to finally start his own business and a bunch of low skilled goons decided that they were entitled to higher pay than the market demands and a say in how you run your business? They take none of the risk, they built none of the business, they are easily replaceable, and yet, you can't get rid of them because all of a sudden they are entitled to a job on your property? No, no, no. Yet another situation where it fits one way for you but not the other. Gotta have the cake and eat it too?

 

[Publius1787]

Many unions provide training. IBEW Los Angeles and Operator Union 503 Los Angeles are two I'll mention of many. They're affiliated with local community colleges also but the classes are hands on and taught by journeymen usually, and safety on the job as well as technical info, is stressed. I've never met a union boss who's a thug although sometimes they might ignore the members, like any organization you have your jerks. The very wealthy and corporations have their unions also. One of the best that represent them is the US Supreme court, which declared corporations 1st class citizens. 1st class citizens can't be drafted or jailed. Instead of jail, pay a paltry fine which can be written off as business expenses which the rest of us 2nd class citizens cannot do. Corporations (1st class citizens) unlike the rest of us 2nd class citizens, can also operate in USA but claim Ireland or caiman islands or whatever, as their residence to lower their taxes, which right wing 2nd class citizens think is wonderful for some strange reason.

A long-time friend of mine, who is a "union man", whose father was a "union man", convinced me to grudgingly concede that the trade unions (i.e. carpenters, steam-fitters, steel workers, etc), might still serve some purpose. Mostly, training issue and the fact that members are called on a maintained list, or can report to the union hall when they need work, convinced me there might be some small benefit for skilled tradesmen to belong to a union. But there are loads of unions, many of them public-sector unions, that do nothing of the sort for their members. Oh, and don't leave a job where such a union exists without pulling your "traveler's card".

So, yes, there may still be some reason for certain types of unions to exist, but belonging should be an option. Other unions...yeah, a bunch of crooks and thieves whose livelihoods rely on how much they can squeeze out of their captive audience.

Suppose you take a job in a union shop where the hourly wage is $30 and all the standard benefits apply. Then one day there is a meeting and all the union members say there is no reason to continue paying dues and you all agree to purge the union. Then a week after the union is abolished the boss calls a meeting and says your hourly wage is now $15, there no longer is overtime pay, no paid vacation, no sick leave, and no break time -- and if you don't like it you can quit.

What do you do?

You had better damn well display to your employer that you are indispensable. But I know, that would be competing against your fellow man and we should all be a bunch of equal well paid robots? No, you work for what the market pays. You build up your skills, and once you're skilled enough, allow the employers to compete for you. If you have a low skilled job with no advancement then you should quit and find a higher skilled job with better advancement. But how are you going to get such a job with low skills? Use the best weapon you have! Work for a smaller wage until you have acquired said skills! The whole point of unions is to protect workers from competition. Competition, however, is absolutely necessary!

Don't ever start the story in the middle. An artificial wage is an artificial wage.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

What about the Teamsters Union? Truck-drivers are not highly skilled, nor are warehousemen.

My son-in-law works for UPS. He owns a fine home on Long Island and supports his family very nicely. He never graduated high-school. Where would he be without the union?

What about the International Longshoreman's Association? And the Service Employee's International (janitors, window-washers, etc.)? There are many unions that serve the interests of unskilled workers who otherwise would be working like slaves for pitiful wages.

Working for FedEx for better pay and benefits.

as far as the drivers/delivery goes UPS pays a good deal more...around $30 an hour compared to 20 for Fed-X.......and UPS has some pretty good benefits....they are Teamsters......