The Right to Work for less money

[MikeK]

I have never met a union member I had a problem with. I have, however, met quite a few union bosses that I would cross the street to avoid pissing on if they were on fire. Generally, when I complain about unions, I am talking about the decisions of the management, like the recent strike that put Hostess out of work. Even other unions criticized them for that strike.

Only one other union was critical of the Hostess bakers union and that was the Teamsters local which also represented Hostess employees -- the delivery drivers.

In this conflict the bakers' union was way ahead of the Teamsters in terms of awareness of what the company was up to, which included looting the pension fund in advance of a planned bankruptcy and shut-down. Hostess Loots Pension Funds For Operations, Deemed ‘Betrayal Without Remedy’ It seems bad publicity about the negative health effects of Hostess' flagship products was taking the company down and the board was planning to cash in as big as possible before shutting down by giving the employees as little as possible.

This conflict is a textbook example of why having two unions in the same company is like a man having two wives in the same house. In this example the Teamsters were concerned only with wages and benefits and chose to not support the bakers whose analyst was warning of the company executive board's secret intention -- which turned out to be true.

If the union leadership was right why didn't they hold an election and explain their position to the members?

There always are factors and details involved in these situations which are not fully revealed in the media reports. But if you follow the story closely as it unfolds I'm sure you'll find the answer to your question. As it is the Bakers' union seemed to be acting unreasonably until it was revealed that Hostess' executive board was planning to loot the pension system and shut the company down -- as per Mitt Romney's tactic at Bain Capital. It's commonly known as predatory capitalism.

As to why the Teamsters local was not supportive of the Bakers, at this point I have no idea. But based on what is known thus far it certainly seems the Bakers were acting reasonably.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Why then would you want to take away the right of workers to collectively negotiate what payment they receive for their labor? "

I don't want to do that, at least not for workers in the private sector. But neither do I want to deny any worker the right to avoid paying dues or any agency fee. It's a little bit like the ObamaCare tax for those who don't have health insurance, they shouldn't have to pay for somerthing they don't want.

Public secor is different IMHO, their compensations and benefits should be tied to what their counterparts in the private sector are getting. Fine by me if they want to unionize and negotiate over other issues, but public sector unions are bankrupting many cities and counties with underfunded pensions and benefits that cannot be met. That's gotta stop.

 

[MikeK]

you lost me, dismissing and violating deriding what? the right not to be forced to act against what one considers or perceives as their own interests?

Yeah.. sorry. I'm clearly doing a piss-poor job of communicating here.

What I'm getting at is Obama, and opponents of right-to-work legislation, are clearly mocking it when they say it's "really" about the "right to work for less money". But I kept thinking about that phrase "the right to work for less money" and realized that really is what it's all about. That's the core question at the heart of the labor movement: Do non-union members have a right to compete for jobs by agreeing to work for less money? Or fewer benefits? Or any other concessions they wish to make?

Or, should they respect the union's "turf"?

As I've said, if a union negotiates in good faith for an exclusive labor contract with an employer, more power to them. But there's a legitimate question over whether negotiations conducted via current labor law represent "good faith". I don't think they do. My understanding of the gist of those laws is that employees can force a union contract on an employer by simply voting to make it so. That's not negotiation.

When competent union officials negotiate with corporate management you may rest assured their analysts have provided them with an accurate profile of the corporation's financial status and projections. They know what the corporation can and cannot afford and they base their demands on that information.

It may seem that the union is being unreasonably forceful but with very few exceptions they know exactly what they are doing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only one other union was critical of the Hostess bakers union and that was the Teamsters local which also represented Hostess employees -- the delivery drivers.

In this conflict the bakers' union was way ahead of the Teamsters in terms of awareness of what the company was up to, which included looting the pension fund in advance of a planned bankruptcy and shut-down. Hostess Loots Pension Funds For Operations, Deemed ‘Betrayal Without Remedy’ It seems bad publicity about the negative health effects of Hostess' flagship products was taking the company down and the board was planning to cash in as big as possible before shutting down by giving the employees as little as possible.

This conflict is a textbook example of why having two unions in the same company is like a man having two wives in the same house. In this example the Teamsters were concerned only with wages and benefits and chose to not support the bakers whose analyst was warning of the company executive board's secret intention -- which turned out to be true.

If the union leadership was right why didn't they hold an election and explain their position to the members?

There always are factors and details involved in these situations which are not fully revealed in the media reports. But if you follow the story closely as it unfolds I'm sure you'll find the answer to your question. As it is the Bakers' union seemed to be acting unreasonably until it was revealed that Hostess' executive board was planning to loot the pension system and shut the company down -- as per Mitt Romney's tactic at Bain Capital. It's commonly known as predatory capitalism.

As to why the Teamsters local was not supportive of the Bakers, at this point I have no idea. But based on what is known thus far it certainly seems the Bakers were acting reasonably.

You have evidence that 1) This was the plan of the board and 2) that the union was privy to these plans?

Didn't think so.

 

[Politico]

ANyone who is against right to work has never had to forcibly hand over their wages just to get a job.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[jgarden]

The Right to Work for less money -

Assuming that the motive for the vast majority of employees is financial renumeration, maximizing ones salary takes precedence. Research has demonstated that the earnings of unionized workers average 10 to 20% more in America that their non unionized counterparts.

If employers tend to pay more to workers who organize and financially "penalize" those who don't, all "right to work" legislation is accomplishing is enshiring the "right" for the un-unionized American worker to receive less money for the same work.

 

[Dick Tuck]

 

[ScienceRocks]

What is wrong about giving the person a choice???

This is what this is about.

 

[beretta304]

Unions are legal extortionists. Your wages are confiscated from your check. As far as the bullshit argument that the contract is the contract, the contract doesn't give the union ownership of the company.(unless of course it's GM which Obama gave to the UAW.) Therefore when the group that negotiated the contract moves on they have to be replaced. These replacements may not want to join the union. Why should they have to. The company has the right to hire whom they please and the employee has the right to not want to join a union.


Unions are passe. They once served a great purpose but like the VHS tape...are now obsolete.

 

[beretta304]

Employer to prospective employee, "You seem to someone who would be a great addition to our company we would like to offer you a position but you have to join a union." "I don't want to join", says the prospect. "Then I'm afraid we can't use you."

BULLSHIT.

The union should dictate what the company does? That's what it's doing.

 

[Bill Angel]

In a "right to work" state, aren't older workers pitted against younger workers? Can a company layoff older workers who are union members and replace them with younger workers who are willing to work for less pay and benefits?

 

[beretta304]

This is the "Walmart Thread" all over again. Different day, same topic.

 

[Gadawg73]

you lost me, dismissing and violating deriding what? the right not to be forced to act against what one considers or perceives as their own interests?

Yeah.. sorry. I'm clearly doing a piss-poor job of communicating here.

What I'm getting at is Obama, and opponents of right-to-work legislation, are clearly mocking it when they say it's "really" about the "right to work for less money". But I kept thinking about that phrase "the right to work for less money" and realized that really is what it's all about. That's the core question at the heart of the labor movement: Do non-union members have a right to compete for jobs by agreeing to work for less money? Or fewer benefits? Or any other concessions they wish to make?

Or, should they respect the union's "turf"?

As I've said, if a union negotiates in good faith for an exclusive labor contract with an employer, more power to them. But there's a legitimate question over whether negotiations conducted via current labor law represent "good faith". I don't think they do. My understanding of the gist of those laws is that employees can force a union contract on an employer by simply voting to make it so. That's not negotiation.

When competent union officials negotiate with corporate management you may rest assured their analysts have provided them with an accurate profile of the corporation's financial status and projections. They know what the corporation can and cannot afford and they base their demands on that information.

It may seem that the union is being unreasonably forceful but with very few exceptions they know exactly what they are doing.

Good point and most of the time NOW they do.
But they didn't for 40 years, they ran companies into the ground.
General Motors is the perfect example.
And the competition, the Japanese auto makers that came here forced them to do so.
And during that 40 years union membership went down because of the "my way or the highway" union approach.
So tell us how that works with government union workers.
Under your theory government union workers should take massive wage cuts because WE ARE FUCKING BROKE.

 

[Bern80]

Ahhh, could someone post that correlation and causation article again for this guy?

 

[Bern80]

you lost me, dismissing and violating deriding what? the right not to be forced to act against what one considers or perceives as their own interests?

Yeah.. sorry. I'm clearly doing a piss-poor job of communicating here.

What I'm getting at is Obama, and opponents of right-to-work legislation, are clearly mocking it when they say it's "really" about the "right to work for less money". But I kept thinking about that phrase "the right to work for less money" and realized that really is what it's all about. That's the core question at the heart of the labor movement: Do non-union members have a right to compete for jobs by agreeing to work for less money? Or fewer benefits? Or any other concessions they wish to make?

Or, should they respect the union's "turf"?

As I've said, if a union negotiates in good faith for an exclusive labor contract with an employer, more power to them. But there's a legitimate question over whether negotiations conducted via current labor law represent "good faith". I don't think they do. My understanding of the gist of those laws is that employees can force a union contract on an employer by simply voting to make it so. That's not negotiation.

When competent union officials negotiate with corporate management you may rest assured their analysts have provided them with an accurate profile of the corporation's financial status and projections. They know what the corporation can and cannot afford and they base their demands on that information.

It may seem that the union is being unreasonably forceful but with very few exceptions they know exactly what they are doing.

But again the premise is the problem. As such we have to go back to the factors that determine what a person's wages should be. The pro-union side is making the argument that wages ought to be determined by factors like the ability to have some arbitrary standard of living level and/or the above, what the employer can afford to pay. What the pro-union side seems to fail to grasp is labor is a commodity whose pricing is subject to the same factors as pretty much every other commodity out there; supply and demand. Not what you would like to live on, not how much the company can afford, rather scarcity and demand for your skill set. The problem as always is pretty simple. A group of people just would rather the rules be different in an attempt to selfishly make life easier for themselves at the expense of someone else.

 

[Bern80]

you lost me, dismissing and violating deriding what? the right not to be forced to act against what one considers or perceives as their own interests?

Yeah.. sorry. I'm clearly doing a piss-poor job of communicating here.

What I'm getting at is Obama, and opponents of right-to-work legislation, are clearly mocking it when they say it's "really" about the "right to work for less money". But I kept thinking about that phrase "the right to work for less money" and realized that really is what it's all about. That's the core question at the heart of the labor movement: Do non-union members have a right to compete for jobs by agreeing to work for less money? Or fewer benefits? Or any other concessions they wish to make?

Or, should they respect the union's "turf"?

As I've said, if a union negotiates in good faith for an exclusive labor contract with an employer, more power to them. But there's a legitimate question over whether negotiations conducted via current labor law represent "good faith". I don't think they do. My understanding of the gist of those laws is that employees can force a union contract on an employer by simply voting to make it so. That's not negotiation.

In a country that was founded on the concept of individual freedom I would say the answer ought to be yes. Any two people ought to be able to make whatever arrangement they wish to make. Even if one of those people is an employer who has mostly union labor. If a prosepective employee wishes to forgoe the benefits of the union brings and work for less compensation why would any third party have the right to void that arrangement if the two principle parties are in agreement to it?

 

[kwc57]

In a "right to work" state, aren't older workers pitted against younger workers? Can a company layoff older workers who are union members and replace them with younger workers who are willing to work for less pay and benefits?

No, that would be age discrimination which violates your civil rights. I know because I sat on a jury of an age discrimination case a few years back. If you can prove that they are replacing employees based on age, the company can get their ass kicked in court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you lost me, dismissing and violating deriding what? the right not to be forced to act against what one considers or perceives as their own interests?

Yeah.. sorry. I'm clearly doing a piss-poor job of communicating here.

What I'm getting at is Obama, and opponents of right-to-work legislation, are clearly mocking it when they say it's "really" about the "right to work for less money". But I kept thinking about that phrase "the right to work for less money" and realized that really is what it's all about. That's the core question at the heart of the labor movement: Do non-union members have a right to compete for jobs by agreeing to work for less money? Or fewer benefits? Or any other concessions they wish to make?

Or, should they respect the union's "turf"?

As I've said, if a union negotiates in good faith for an exclusive labor contract with an employer, more power to them. But there's a legitimate question over whether negotiations conducted via current labor law represent "good faith". I don't think they do. My understanding of the gist of those laws is that employees can force a union contract on an employer by simply voting to make it so. That's not negotiation.

In a country that was founded on the concept of individual freedom I would say the answer ought to be yes. Any two people ought to be able to make whatever arrangement they wish to make. Even if one of those people is an employer who has mostly union labor. If a prosepective employee wishes to forgoe the benefits of the union brings and work for less compensation why would any third party have the right to void that arrangement if the two principle parties are in agreement to it?

The government is the third party here that is interfering with contractual agreements between management/ownership and labor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ahhh, could someone post that correlation and causation article again for this guy?

You have a problem understanding that given the fact that the primary function of unions is to negotiate the best deals they can for employees regarding wages, benefits, etc.,

the weaker unions are the less likely they will be able to best negotiate such deals?