Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because of public fear of unions, which was exploited in the 80s and continues today.
Meanwhile, Jet Blue and Southwest benefit from being smaller and smarter. They reduced costs by limiting themselves to lucrative routes, and not being everywhere on earth. Southwest also taught the industry a lesson on how to seat passengers more efficiently, while making it fun for travelers. And the real brain gem was Southwest's all 737 fleet. Only one type of replacement parts. Only one type of mechanic. Saved them beaucoup bux, while making Southwest #3, behind Delta and United. JetBlue doesn't even come close.
Fear? What fear? What on Earth are you talking about? Is this the "Reagan fired the ATC's and ruined it for everybody" speech?
Fear that unions were making workers too well paid, reducing product quality (fault of company product managers / designers and not wage-earning workers). Fear that higher wages were driving the high inflation of the late 70s and at the beginning of the 80s. Fear that service workers would organize and make burgers beyond our economic reach. And it was skillfully exploited by business interests who funded pseudo-economics (preconceived conclusions) which are little more that ad campaigns / politics in "economics" drag.
Does that help?
Inasmuch as the "right to work" controversy is presently a major issue one would expect to see a lot of pro-union movies on television, such as:
How Green Was My Valley
The Grapes Of Wrath
Native Land
On The Waterfront
The Pajama Game
Harlan County USA
The Organizer
Norma Rae
Matewan
The Molly Maguires
Hoffa
But how many have we seen?
None.
And why? Because the television channels are corporate entities.
Some of you need to give some thought to that.
It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.
But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."
That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?
What am I missing?
Workers cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment (see Taft-Hartley). They can, however, be required to pay a fee to the union for the costs of collective bargaining, since they are entitled to the benefits of said bargain even though they are not members of the union.
Holy shit, I'd better let my wife with an associates degree know she shouldn't be making $100k+, have health insurance or a pension since she lives in Oklahoma. Polk said so. In fact, I'd better let all of my neighbors know they shouldn't either. Thanks for repeating Dear Leader and the media's big lie or we wouldn't have known.
I know you're smart enough to know the difference between average compensation and the compensation of specific individuals.
I'm sure you're smart enough to know the problem with making generalizations.
It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.
But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."
That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?
What am I missing?
Workers cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment (see Taft-Hartley). They can, however, be required to pay a fee to the union for the costs of collective bargaining, since they are entitled to the benefits of said bargain even though they are not members of the union.
It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.
But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."
That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?
What am I missing?
Workers cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment (see Taft-Hartley). They can, however, be required to pay a fee to the union for the costs of collective bargaining, since they are entitled to the benefits of said bargain even though they are not members of the union.
Fear? What fear? What on Earth are you talking about? Is this the "Reagan fired the ATC's and ruined it for everybody" speech?
Fear that unions were making workers too well paid, reducing product quality (fault of company product managers / designers and not wage-earning workers). Fear that higher wages were driving the high inflation of the late 70s and at the beginning of the 80s. Fear that service workers would organize and make burgers beyond our economic reach. And it was skillfully exploited by business interests who funded pseudo-economics (preconceived conclusions) which are little more that ad campaigns / politics in "economics" drag.
Does that help?
No, mainly because I was alive and well in the 70's and 80's and I don't recall arguing about the price of burgers, frycooks and whatnot.
And actually, the inflation of the 70's was largely due to poor monetary policy aimed at controlling unemployment.
I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.
Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?
The law being passed in Michigan does not take away collective bargaining rights it gives employees the choice to join a union or not to.
No one is saying an industry has to be unionized to pay well. The technology sector requires a special skill set very few people have, so those people are able to command a wage premium (although, many of those jobs are being outsourced to China and India, so it may not be the boon it appears to be on the surface).
More to the point very few are willing to do what it takes to acquire this skill set. The solution to making more money, to the point where being in a union is irrelevent is exceedingly simple. You find out what jobs are in demand, that pay what you want and you go out and acquire the skill set necessary to do that job. It is not the high skill jobs that are going overseas. It is the low skill jobs, like manufacturing. If you want people's income to rise and the economy to improve you have to teach people these skills, instead of getting the american peopel to focus on this class warefare thing where people who are dependent on government think they should earn more without requiring more of themselves to do something that pretty much anyone else can do.
Making an argument about effort is weird, since many of the most highly-skilled sectors of the economy are de facto unionized (they just don't refer to themselves as unions). Doctors and lawyers are both organized in to guilds that control the amount of people who can enter the industry (doctors are more successful at this due to some court rulings, but that's another topic).
It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.
But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."
That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?
What am I missing?
Workers cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment (see Taft-Hartley). They can, however, be required to pay a fee to the union for the costs of collective bargaining, since they are entitled to the benefits of said bargain even though they are not members of the union.
It isn't about the right to work for less money.
Wages are lower in RTW states.
It's about the right to work and not being forced to join a union.
That right exists in all 50 states. Its called IF YOU DON'T WANT A UNION JOB DON'T APPLY FOR ONE AT A UNION SHOP. Take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and quite WHINING.
But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."
That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?
What am I missing?
Workers cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment (see Taft-Hartley). They can, however, be required to pay a fee to the union for the costs of collective bargaining, since they are entitled to the benefits of said bargain even though they are not members of the union.
This is the part of this debate I don't get and about the only time I would be on the union's side if what it seems is being said is true; so a person can say they don't want to be in a union, but still has to pay union dues because they still get the benefits of being in the union. Okay so how is that essentially NOT being in the union. You get the benefits but don't pay for them if you just opt to not join? Why wouldn't everyone do that then. Should you choose not be in the union and now have the right not to pay dues now to them I would think a person would just be on their own and say they don't want to be a part of any collective bargaining and simply deal with their employer on their own merits.
More to the point very few are willing to do what it takes to acquire this skill set. The solution to making more money, to the point where being in a union is irrelevent is exceedingly simple. You find out what jobs are in demand, that pay what you want and you go out and acquire the skill set necessary to do that job. It is not the high skill jobs that are going overseas. It is the low skill jobs, like manufacturing. If you want people's income to rise and the economy to improve you have to teach people these skills, instead of getting the american peopel to focus on this class warefare thing where people who are dependent on government think they should earn more without requiring more of themselves to do something that pretty much anyone else can do.
Making an argument about effort is weird, since many of the most highly-skilled sectors of the economy are de facto unionized (they just don't refer to themselves as unions). Doctors and lawyers are both organized in to guilds that control the amount of people who can enter the industry (doctors are more successful at this due to some court rulings, but that's another topic).
Doctors and lawyers receive post graduate education BEFORE they can apply to enter their craft.
Please tell us where any union member does that.
But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."
That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?
What am I missing?
Workers cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment (see Taft-Hartley). They can, however, be required to pay a fee to the union for the costs of collective bargaining, since they are entitled to the benefits of said bargain even though they are not members of the union.
You are exactly right.
Within 30 days after they are hired they have to join the union AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT per Taft Hartley.
Not a condition to GET hired but a condition to STAY hired.
Real fair huh?
More to the point very few are willing to do what it takes to acquire this skill set. The solution to making more money, to the point where being in a union is irrelevent is exceedingly simple. You find out what jobs are in demand, that pay what you want and you go out and acquire the skill set necessary to do that job. It is not the high skill jobs that are going overseas. It is the low skill jobs, like manufacturing. If you want people's income to rise and the economy to improve you have to teach people these skills, instead of getting the american peopel to focus on this class warefare thing where people who are dependent on government think they should earn more without requiring more of themselves to do something that pretty much anyone else can do.
Making an argument about effort is weird, since many of the most highly-skilled sectors of the economy are de facto unionized (they just don't refer to themselves as unions). Doctors and lawyers are both organized in to guilds that control the amount of people who can enter the industry (doctors are more successful at this due to some court rulings, but that's another topic).
Doctors and lawyers receive post graduate education BEFORE they can apply to enter their craft.
Please tell us where any union member does that.
Making an argument about effort is weird, since many of the most highly-skilled sectors of the economy are de facto unionized (they just don't refer to themselves as unions). Doctors and lawyers are both organized in to guilds that control the amount of people who can enter the industry (doctors are more successful at this due to some court rulings, but that's another topic).
Doctors and lawyers receive post graduate education BEFORE they can apply to enter their craft.
Please tell us where any union member does that.
Teachers come to mind.
Doctors and lawyers receive post graduate education BEFORE they can apply to enter their craft.
Please tell us where any union member does that.
Teachers come to mind.
Also nurses (although most nurses are not unionized) and writers.
Teachers come to mind.
Also nurses (although most nurses are not unionized) and writers.
And doctors might need to be, soon. Most GPs are salaried employees these days, and not in private practice. That's compressing their wages.
Also nurses (although most nurses are not unionized) and writers.
And doctors might need to be, soon. Most GPs are salaried employees these days, and not in private practice. That's compressing their wages.
Doctors already operate in a de facto union structure anyway (AMA). While most doctors aren't AMA members, the AMA controls the supply of doctors, which helps increase the wages of non-members.
It isn't about the right to work for less money.
Wages are lower in RTW states.
It's about the right to work and not being forced to join a union.
That right exists in all 50 states. Its called IF YOU DON'T WANT A UNION JOB DON'T APPLY FOR ONE AT A UNION SHOP. Take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and quite WHINING.
Beyond that, union shops are already illegal.
