The Right to Work for less money

[Bern80]

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.

If part of the contractual agreement between the union and employer was that the employer would not hire anyone non-union, fine. Not sure why an employer would agree to such a contract, but if they did of course the union would be within their rights to sue for breach of contract.

 

[Bern80]

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?

I understand their function perfectly. I simply disagree with the factors that unions believe wages should be based. Wages should not be based on things like establishing a standard of living or how much you can get out of a company.

My reply to the above was meant to tell the invidiual posting that two things that happen simultaneously does not automatically a correlation make.

 

[MikeK]

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.[...]

Referring to the same premise we must go back to the factors which determine what an employer's profit level, which is the direct result of his employees' labor, should be. Should the employer take more profit by sharing less with the employee, or does the employee deserve a more equitable share of the fruits of his labor?

If we conclude that a given wage demand is excessive based on the employees' "skill set," then we must equally evaluate the employer's profit margin based on the value of his product or service.

Consider the wealth accumulated by the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan and other corporate giants of the Gilded Age, who rose to financial nobility by greedily exploiting the labor of workers who were paid what today would be considered starvation wages. This abusive practice, which is the natural course of events within an unregulated capitalist system, is in fact what led to the union movement and the rise of the American Middle Class -- which embodies the greatness of America.

Eliminating the unions will lead to the rise of a new Gilded Age, indications of which already are plainly visible in the upward redistribution of America's bounty occurring over the past three decades.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

Exactly what would make them "weaker" as you say?
Less dues means they are less likely to fairly negotiate?

Or is it just not worth their while?

 

[Dick Tuck]

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

This is what this is about.

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

 

[kwc57]

Help me make sure I understand how union negotiations work. Is it kind of like when Guido comes to your donut shop and tells you that giving him $100 a week will ensure no windows are broken in your shop?

 

[Gadawg73]

Who determines who lives in poverty?
Could it be government
Those living in "poverty" in America receive free health care, free food, free housing, utility subsidies, free lunches for their kids at school not to mention additional help from willing charitable organizations.
Poverty in America is the same as middle class in Europe.

 

[Katzndogz]

The fight in Michigan wasn't over whether someone had to join a union or not. Michigan laws allowed employees to opt out of joining the union. But they were still charged union dues every month and the money went to the union. That's what the fight in Michigan was about. It was about depriving the unions of the money they were getting from non union employees. Ostensibly it was because non union members were getting the benefit of belonging to a union and should be paying dues, or the equivalent of dues.

Non union employees are free to negotiate their own employment terms, free of the unions and the unions don't want some workaholic undermining union employees by working harder and making more money.

 

[Gadawg73]

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

This is what this is about.

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.
The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

 

[Koios]

Help me make sure I understand how union negotiations work. Is it kind of like when Guido comes to your donut shop and tells you that giving him $100 a week will ensure no windows are broken in your shop?

It's folly to think we can help assure you understand something you do not. Sorry to disappoint.

Negotiations are competing forces. State employees, for example, might want more money to keep pace with inflation, and they have an arrow in their quiver: they can stop doing the work, effectively shutting down state services, which riles up the voters, making the governor fear having to look for a day job. Quite a nice bit of leverage.

But the governor is not without some arrows too: folks in the state are suffering; revenue is tanking; if we do this, many of you will be pink-slipped. I love you like brothers and sisters, and the people vitally need the service you provide, plus I'm no rich CEO wanting a fat payday on stock options. I, like you, am a public servant. And here's the numbers; the cookie jar simply cannot support what you're asking, which I think is entirely fair, but undoable. I need your help to do the work of the people. It's one hell of a nice bit of leverage, too.

So in the end, the competing forces, create a balance, that economists in the beginning thought was a nice alternative to being commie, like them Bolsheviks. Let labor and management come together, and find a natural balance, where all's fair, since both have some say and have to agree.

Simple. Also, now you understand collective bargaining vs. protection rackets, which are indeed entitely different.

 

[Koios]

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

This is what this is about.

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, as Righties seem to think.

 

[thanatos144]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u_F3oev06i0]UNIONS ASSAULT ON CAMERA!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Gadawg73]

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, and Righties seem to think.

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

 

[Koios]

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, and Righties seem to think.

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

Tell Me......How is it that union supports scream bloody murder when government stops them from raking in the cash hand over fist, but then turn around and bitch about the wealthy raking in the cash hand over fist?

Talk about infantile whining.

 

[Jarhead]

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, and Righties seem to think.

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

excellent point.

Way too deep for many on this board to comprehend.

 

[Jarhead]

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, and Righties seem to think.

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

Management has a responsibility to the shareholdres as does the governor to the people.

So tell me...

Seeing as how many states are in the red......how is that panning out?

Seems it EXACTLY supports Gadawgs premise.

 

[Againsheila]

Eleanor Roosevelt Labor Quotes

Eleanor Roosevelt Labor Quotes



WORKERS’ RIGHTS

I have always felt that it was important that everyone who was a worker join a labor organization.
IBEW Strike, 1941

I believe you should tell the story of injustices, of inequalities, of bad conditions, so that the people as a whole in this country really face the problems that people who are pushed to the point of striking know all about, but others know practically nothing about.
CIO Convention, 1943

The unionization of domestic workers will be salutary for both the employer and the employee.
"My Day," 1946

Eleanor Roosevelt explained that the United States delegation considered that the right to form and join trade unions was an essential element of freedom…trade unions had met with much opposition…the struggle was, in fact, still continuing…
UN Summary Document, 1948

You in the unions do not yet represent all of labor. But I hope some day you will, because I believe that it is through strength, through the fact that people who know what people need are working to make this country a better place for all people, that we will help the world to accept our leadership and understand that, under our form of government and through our way of life, we have something to offer them…
ACWA Convention, 1956

I am opposed to ‘right to work’ legislation because it does nothing for working people, but instead gives employers the right to exploit labor.
American Federationist, 1959

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals continue to openly lie to protect their union buddies that are a waste on society today. Liberals claim the dangerous sweat shops will come back now if unions are destroyed, as if the Federal Govt today with more laws and regulations to prevent sweat shops....somehow won't stop it.

Nevermind the media and internet today exposing everything under the sun. This isn't 1880, assholes.

 

[Koios]

Maybe I did not word my point very well so I will try again.
We all pay taxes. Government has union workers. Businesses have union workers in the private sector. Government is not in the private sector.
When unions negotiate in the private sector they negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
When government unions in the government sector negotiate THEY DO NOT negotiate with the people that pay their wages and benefits.
Until they do they should not be able to unionize in the government sector. Government gives them what they want BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THEIR WAGES AND BENEFITS.

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

Management has a responsibility to the shareholdres as does the governor to the people. (thanks for agreeing.)

So tell me...*

Seeing as how many states are in the red......how is that panning out?

Seems it EXACTLY supports Gadawgs premise.

*Okie doke, even if it's OT. In 2011, 8 states had surpluses. Let's therefore assume the other 42 had balanced (some by law) or deficit budgets.

Meanwhile, the biotech my live-in girlfriend works for has never turned a profit, but still pays the prevailing wages in biotech, to their employees.

Point being, because you're fucking up or having to borrow / seek VC does not remove your responsibility to pay the prevailing wage to workers you need.