The Right to Work for less money

[Polk]

Also, I'm glad this thread at least got past the point where people were (incorrectly) claiming that you can be forced to join a union.

 

[thereisnospoon]

" 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.

Why should workers be able to get the benefits of union representation without having to contribute to the cost of it?

As for public sector unionization, that's a whole other ball of wax that'll derail this thread like woh.

Why should they not? If joining the union is required or working under union work rules and having to put up with group think and no chance at advancement or earning merit pay, then dues should be optional.
Here's the rub. If the union and not the employer were paying for pensions and benefits, I can see the logic in the paying of dues. But because the union contributes NOTHING, dues should again be an option.
Public sector unions should be abolished.

 

[Polk]

Except the union does contribute something: it's your representative in the negotiations over pay and benefits. And if you don't want to join the union, you don't have to in any state. In states that are not right-to-work states, you simply have to a fee for that service. Just like I have to pay for valet when I'm at a nice hotel. Or pay the barber that cuts my hair.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Also, I'm glad this thread at least got past the point where people were (incorrectly) claiming that you can be forced to join a union.

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed "closed shop" union regulations. However, the practice of requiring union membership to retain employment at a "union shop" IS legal in many states.
Technically speaking, an applicant need not be a member of the labor collective, but he MUST join the collective, within a set time to retain employment.
In effect, this is a "closed shop".
Same difference.
Closed Shop
Right to Work, removes this requirement. Thus, a worker's rights issue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Except the union does contribute something: it's your representative in the negotiations over pay and benefits. And if you don't want to join the union, you don't have to in any state. In states that are not right-to-work states, you simply have to a fee for that service. Just like I have to pay for valet when I'm at a nice hotel. Or pay the barber that cuts my hair.

That would be true if the union also had the financial responsibility to pay for the benefits.
They do not.
In forced union states, the worker has no choice but to pay the dues and accept the agent.
If the dues paid by the worker were directed by the worker and not the union bosses, then dues paying would make sense.
Since union bosses have absolute discretion over union dues funds, the choice is removed.
Therefore, the worker loses rights to part of his wages.

 

[MikeK]

What exactly qualifies as middle class living wage jobs?

The American Middle Class is commonly defined as having achieved the American Dream, which is owning a comfortable home in a good neighborhood with all modern conveniences, owning a newer car, being able to educate one's children and lead a healthy, happy, dignified life.

What exactly qualifies as lower class living wage jobs?

Lower class American workers typically rent rather than own in less desirable environments than middle class neighborhoods. They own older cars and generally live from paycheck to paycheck. The lower class workers' lifestyle was portrayed rather candidly in the 1950s Jackie Gleason tv comedy, The Honeymooners.

What exactly qualifies as higher class living wage jobs?

A "higher class" wage would be anything substantially above middle class. But if you mean upper class you'd be referring to the level of corporate CEO, bank executive, successful professionals, etc.

And how much for each one?

I don't know the current salary ranges for the various levels but that shouldn't be too difficult to research. In the lower range, what does the average non-union sweat-shop worker earn? The average super-market checkout clerk? The average hamburger flipper?

In the middle range would be municipal police and firefighters, mid-level management employees, etc.

In the upper range the sky is the limit. Some of these people bring home millions of dollars in annual salaries and bonuses. Significantly, the gap between upper and middle income levels has been increasing steadily and substantially over the past three decades and as the union presence diminishes the gap becomes more readily apparent.

Who sets these wages and where is he or her?

The wage levels set themselves in accordance with various social, commercial, and political influences, such as GDP and such legislation as the "Right-To-Work" legislation.

 

[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.

Why should workers be able to get the benefits of union representation without having to contribute to the cost of it?

As for public sector unionization, that's a whole other ball of wax that'll derail this thread like woh.

Here ya go:

snippet:

Unions object that right-to-work is actually "right-to-freeload." The AFL-CIO argues "unions are forced by law to protect all workers, even those who don't contribute financially toward the expenses incurred by providing those protections." They contend they should not have to represent workers who do not pay their "fair share."

It is a compelling argument, but untrue. The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate unions exclusively represent all employees, but permits them to electively do so. Under the Act, unions can also negotiate "members-only" contracts that only cover dues-paying members. They do not have to represent other employees.

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly on this point. As Justice William Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods, the Act's coverage "is not limited to labor organizations which are entitled to recognition as exclusive bargaining agents of employees … 'Members only' contracts have long been recognized."

To be fair, most union activists are honestly mistaken on this point. Unions rarely negotiate members-only contracts. And when unions negotiate as exclusive representatives they must represent everyone equally. They cannot negotiate one wage for their members and the minimum wage for everyone else. But the law does not force them to represent non-members in the first place.

Sherk: The Right-to-Freeload myth | www.michiganview.com | The Michigan View

 

[MikeK]

Nothing could be further from the truth. All these laws do is allow a person to get a job in a union shop and not be required to join the union.

That is called "scabbing." A non-union worker employed in a union shop is a "scab."

The union continues to collective bargain and allows unions to continue exactly as it did before the law was changed.

And when management turns its back on a union demand, regardless of how reasonable, the only recourse the union has is to strike. But when management has been gradually filling the ranks with scabs (non-union workers) and the union workers strike, management simply brings in more scabs to take up the slack and ignores the striking union employees.

What these "Right-To-Work" laws do is effectively disarm the unions, making them irrelevant.

Do the non union workers get the job done as well as the union workers?

Presuming they have comparable skill levels, yes. In fact they probably do it better -- and for a lot less pay and little to no benefits. And if they don't like it they can quit, because they have no other recourse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Also, I'm glad this thread at least got past the point where people were (incorrectly) claiming that you can be forced to join a union.

When did that happen?

 

[MikeK]

Nothing could be further from the truth. All these laws do is allow a person to get a job in a union shop and not be required to join the union.

That is called "scabbing." A non-union worker employed in a union shop is a "scab."

The union continues to collective bargain and allows unions to continue exactly as it did before the law was changed.

And when management turns its back on a union demand, regardless of how reasonable, the only recourse the union has is to strike. But when management has been gradually filling the ranks with scabs (non-union workers) and the union workers strike, management simply brings in more scabs to take up the slack and ignores the striking union employees.

What these "Right-To-Work" laws do is effectively disarm the unions, making them irrelevant.

To the lazy union worker they are a scab.
We call them motivated workers.

Of course scab workers are motivated. They have no choice. They have no union to defend them against an unreasonable or ruthless employer. They either perform at maximum output level, with minimal compensation, or they are fired.

Why do you think they are called scabs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except the union does contribute something: it's your representative in the negotiations over pay and benefits. And if you don't want to join the union, you don't have to in any state. In states that are not right-to-work states, you simply have to a fee for that service. Just like I have to pay for valet when I'm at a nice hotel. Or pay the barber that cuts my hair.

The problem is the union does not represent the individual worker, it represents the collective bargaining power of all the workers. There are cases where an individual worker might be able to negotiate a better contract for himself based on the fact that he is able to offer the employer something no one else can. Unions assume that everyone is equal in skill and abilities, and set out to defend sub par workers because this helps swell the ranks of people that pay into their coffers. Unions have morphed from protecting average workers from being exploited to protecting bad workers from being fired.

 

[thanatos144]

If union members are doing such a good job why do they fear competition?

 

[Polk]

Also, I'm glad this thread at least got past the point where people were (incorrectly) claiming that you can be forced to join a union.

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed "closed shop" union regulations. However, the practice of requiring union membership to retain employment at a "union shop" IS legal in many states.
Technically speaking, an applicant need not be a member of the labor collective, but he MUST join the collective, within a set time to retain employment.
In effect, this is a "closed shop".
Same difference.
Closed Shop
Right to Work, removes this requirement. Thus, a worker's rights issue.

A "union shop" and a "closed shop" are not the same thing. In a "closed shop", workers are required to join the union. In a "union shop", workers are required to join the union or reimburse the union for their portion of the cost of collective bargaining negotiations.

 

[Polk]

Except the union does contribute something: it's your representative in the negotiations over pay and benefits. And if you don't want to join the union, you don't have to in any state. In states that are not right-to-work states, you simply have to a fee for that service. Just like I have to pay for valet when I'm at a nice hotel. Or pay the barber that cuts my hair.

That would be true if the union also had the financial responsibility to pay for the benefits.
They do not.
In forced union states, the worker has no choice but to pay the dues and accept the agent.
If the dues paid by the worker were directed by the worker and not the union bosses, then dues paying would make sense.
Since union bosses have absolute discretion over union dues funds, the choice is removed.
Therefore, the worker loses rights to part of his wages.

It doesn't matter if they have the financial responsibility to pay for the benefits or not. They are required, by law, to represent you in the negotiation if you are an employee of the firm. For those who do not want the join the union, the "union bosses" have zero discretion over the payments. Those payments are required, by law, to only represent that worker's share of the bargaining negotiation process.

 

[Polk]

" 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.

Why should workers be able to get the benefits of union representation without having to contribute to the cost of it?

As for public sector unionization, that's a whole other ball of wax that'll derail this thread like woh.

Here ya go:

snippet:

Unions object that right-to-work is actually "right-to-freeload." The AFL-CIO argues "unions are forced by law to protect all workers, even those who don't contribute financially toward the expenses incurred by providing those protections." They contend they should not have to represent workers who do not pay their "fair share."

It is a compelling argument, but untrue. The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate unions exclusively represent all employees, but permits them to electively do so. Under the Act, unions can also negotiate "members-only" contracts that only cover dues-paying members. They do not have to represent other employees.

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly on this point. As Justice William Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods, the Act's coverage "is not limited to labor organizations which are entitled to recognition as exclusive bargaining agents of employees … 'Members only' contracts have long been recognized."

To be fair, most union activists are honestly mistaken on this point. Unions rarely negotiate members-only contracts. And when unions negotiate as exclusive representatives they must represent everyone equally. They cannot negotiate one wage for their members and the minimum wage for everyone else. But the law does not force them to represent non-members in the first place.

Sherk: The Right-to-Freeload myth | www.michiganview.com | The Michigan View

Retail Clerks has long been used as a talking point by "right-to-work" supporters, but it's based on a fundamental misunderstand of the holding of the case (the language being quoted is actually dicta). If that wasn't enough, the Court adopted language expressedly stating the opposite in International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street ("a union's status as exclusive bargaining representative carries with it the duty fairly and equitably to represent all employees of the craft or class, union and nonunion.")

 

[Polk]

Except the union does contribute something: it's your representative in the negotiations over pay and benefits. And if you don't want to join the union, you don't have to in any state. In states that are not right-to-work states, you simply have to a fee for that service. Just like I have to pay for valet when I'm at a nice hotel. Or pay the barber that cuts my hair.

The problem is the union does not represent the individual worker, it represents the collective bargaining power of all the workers. There are cases where an individual worker might be able to negotiate a better contract for himself based on the fact that he is able to offer the employer something no one else can. Unions assume that everyone is equal in skill and abilities, and set out to defend sub par workers because this helps swell the ranks of people that pay into their coffers. Unions have morphed from protecting average workers from being exploited to protecting bad workers from being fired.

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

 

[Gadawg73]

Except the union does contribute something: it's your representative in the negotiations over pay and benefits. And if you don't want to join the union, you don't have to in any state. In states that are not right-to-work states, you simply have to a fee for that service. Just like I have to pay for valet when I'm at a nice hotel. Or pay the barber that cuts my hair.

The problem is the union does not represent the individual worker, it represents the collective bargaining power of all the workers. There are cases where an individual worker might be able to negotiate a better contract for himself based on the fact that he is able to offer the employer something no one else can. Unions assume that everyone is equal in skill and abilities, and set out to defend sub par workers because this helps swell the ranks of people that pay into their coffers. Unions have morphed from protecting average workers from being exploited to protecting bad workers from being fired.

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

My son works in the IT world. As a single employee he has leverage.
Guess why.
Workers that need a mob to belong to for leverage have to because they are in most instances in an industry that competes for low skilled workers with no other skills that are forced to work in a limited market.
In most instances because of lack of foresight.

 

[Bern80]

That's ridiculous. Of course merits matter, indivudually. If you're a dweeb you don't get in nor get the job. You flip burgers or something.

Not as much as it matters in a non-union environment. Unions protect those that choose to be the least productive. They can skate by doing the bare minimum because their union is going to negotiate a collective contract that applies to everyone. That's another problem with unions it discourages employees from being more productive. The run counter to a basic principle most of us are taught growing up. The harder you work in terms of productivity and/or honing and refining your skills, the more you'll be rewarded. But I guess that's wrong according to you. You must teach your children to make sure they get that has union representation so can they put forth as little effort as possible and still have someone negotiate a raise for them. It isn't hard to see what the real problem with the country is.

But reward, which is completely different, speaks to value, which is subjective as all get out. And thus collective bargaining was created to stave off those who would have had us emulate the Ruskies, and be commie. Seems we chose right.

Again observably false. If that were true all non-unon workers in the country would be making minimum wage and there would be far more unions.

So by having labor and management meet, within the context of a free market (no one there that doesn't choose to be) the thought was that the competing forces would create balance where actual value is the defacto result.

But the question is how is the value defined? Employers want the value to be based on one set of factors while the union wants it based on another. The union does NOT want it based on free market factors. The employer's factors are things like scarcity of the worker's skills, demand for the skill set, and prevailing wages for similar jobs in the area. The union's factor is basically just leverage due to the amount of people in the labor force it controls. They basically say 'I can control so much of the labor you need to operate that you're gonna give us what we want if you want any chance of staying in business.' It has NOTHING to do with the market value of a skill set.

And it seems it was, since wages paced productivity, right up till about 1980, when suddenly we got stupid and thought unions were outdated and no longer necessary, reducing steadily the percentage of our workforce in unions.

And whadaya know. Productivity still plodding upward, and now the envy of the world. But oops, wages going in the toilet. Folks no longer being paid their worth.

You're not being objective. Of course wages went down, but you can't argue that it's because people are no longer being paid what their worth. They went down simply because labor doesn't have the leverage it once had. What you're finding out is that union cost of labor back in your good 'ol days was artificially inflated.

 

[Katzndogz]

There should be a right to work for less money. Employment should be between the employer and the employee. If someone is willing to work for less money than someone else, they should have the right to do it.

 

[Bern80]

No it's not. While both are subjective as shit, in essence:

Merit = I think it has meaning to me;
Worth = I want it more than the cost in Cents/Dollars/Trade/Service to get it.

Does that help?

Wrong again;

Merit = level of contribution of the individual
worth/value = is the market factors that establish the prevailing wage for the skill set.