Right to Work Legislation

Brunner26_2

Well explain to me, why ANYONE should be foreced to join a union?

Because in some situations you would be benefiting from all of the bargaining that the union does on your behalf. You could look at it like paying taxes. The money goes to things that are (supposed to) benefit you.

ETA: That's a possible argument. I don't know where I stand on the issue.

TheRoadDog

I was in a union back in the early 70's. Culinary, Cooks and Waitresses. I worked at a Ramada Inn. Every payday a union representative would be out in the Restaurant looking for employees. This was way before automatic paycheck debits and such, so, if you could avoid them that day, you didn't have to pay union dues. They didn't do anything for anyone, except collect your money. I think I was making about 1.65 an hour. They managed to corner me once in 18 months.

KimmyEB

Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.

Freeloaders? I guarantee there are people who work harder than you ever have or ever will in your life who have no healthcare.

Thank you. You were much better at addressing that little snide remark than I would have been, Mara.

lour441

Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.

Freeloaders? I guarantee there are people who work harder than you ever have or ever will in your life who have no healthcare.

Work smarter, not harder??!

I am not going to get into the entitlement debate. There are people that need the help and have no other options. There are people that take advantage of it. Whatever....

That said... Only someone on the left would consider a hardworking person who pays their taxes and payroll deductions and chooses not to pay union dues for whatever reason a freeloader. If the union is worth a damn, people will pay dues without being forced into it.

Brunner26_2

Oh NOW libs are against freeloader laws. Where was all this righteous indignation when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats? Don't even talk to me about freeloading until we've addressed entitlement programs.

Freeloaders? I guarantee there are people who work harder than you ever have or ever will in your life who have no healthcare.

Work smarter, not harder??!

I am not going to get into the entitlement debate. There are people that need the help and have no other options. There are people that take advantage of it. Whatever....

That said... Only someone on the left would consider a hardworking person who pays their taxes and payroll deductions and chooses not to pay union dues for whatever reason a freeloader. If the union is worth a damn, people will pay dues without being forced into it.

I disagree with the statement that if the union was worth a damn that people would choose to pay dues. Some people would, but not all. I doubt even most would. It's human nature to try and game the system, and lots of people figure that others will do it. People try their hardest to pay as little tax as possible, even though they benefit from it (I'm not going to debate that statement). More people consume public radio/television than actually pay to keep it going.

lour441

I disagree with the statement that if the union was worth a damn that people would choose to pay dues. Some people would, but not all. I doubt even most would. It's human nature to try and game the system, and lots of people figure that others will do it. People try their hardest to pay as little tax as possible, even though they benefit from it (I'm not going to debate that statement).

If people are not willing to pay to belong to an organization then it has no value to them even if they indirectly benefit from the organization's work. In the case of unions, a person that chooses not to pay dues would still be covered by the collective bargaining agreement made with the employer. They would not be able to take part in any union activities or vote on new agreements with the employer. As far as I know, unions can force non-members to pay their share of the collective bargaining process and contract administration which is not considered dues. This is not gaming the system.

If unions in right to work states want to keep people paying dues they need to offer something to the individuals other then having them watch their dues money funneled to union backed politicians or redistributed to union officials.

More people consume public radio/television than actually pay to keep it going.

If public radio/television disappeared tomorrow the only ones that would care are those that currently pay for them. Again... value to the consumer. Those same people will turn to something they already value and pay for.. Cable TV? Satellite Radio? Etc...

Brunner26_2

If people are not willing to pay to belong to an organization then it has no value to them even if they indirectly benefit from the organization's work.

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I just disagree with that statement. I just believe that people will choose not to pay more often than they will choose to pay, whether they realize they benefit from it or not (for the sake of this argument, I'm assuming the people not paying do benefit). It's the reason people are threatened with jail for not paying taxes. It's (at least one of) the reason the music industry is shifting from music sales to streaming.

As far as I know, unions can force non-members to pay their share of the collective bargaining process and contract administration which is not considered dues.

Are you sure about this? I don't think this is the case. Can you provide some examples?

If unions in right to work states want to keep people paying dues they need to offer something to the individuals other then having them watch their dues money funneled to union backed politicians or redistributed to union officials.

Union dues do go to more than that. From wikipedia:

"Union dues may be used to support a wide variety of programs or activities, including: Paying the salaries and/or benefits of full-time or part-time union leaders and/or staff; union governance; legal representation; legislative lobbying; political campaigns; pension, health, welfare, and safety funds; and/or the union strike fund."

I see no problems with unions backing politicians. Organizations of all types support politicians who advocate their members' interests.

lour441

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I just disagree with that statement. I just believe that people will choose not to pay more often than they will choose to pay, whether they realize they benefit from it or not (for the sake of this argument, I'm assuming the people not paying do benefit). It's the reason people are threatened with jail for not paying taxes. It's (at least one of) the reason the music industry is shifting from music sales to streaming.

Union dues are not taxes. No reason to continue using that example.

There are plenty of organizations that people pay toward that are valuable to them. Again... If they don't pay, even if they derived some value, they don't care enough about the organization and would not miss it if it went away. The music industry is adjusting to market conditions (AKA adding value for tech savvy consumers)

As far as I know, unions can force non-members to pay their share of the collective bargaining process and contract administration which is not considered dues.

Are you sure about this? I don't think this is the case. Can you provide some examples?

I pulled this quote from the SEIU page.
http://www.seiu503.org/about-seiu/join-seiu/why-join-a-union/

unions are legally obligated to represent everyone within the bargaining unit, whether or not they are union members. Non-members are covered by the contract, may file grievances, are represented by the union, and are even represented by a union attorney in arbitration hearings.
For this reason, in most unions, those who choose not to become union members have to pay a “fair share” fee — their fair share of the cost of bargaining and administering the contract that protects everyone.

Your "gaming of the system" claim falls apart with that quote.

Union dues do go to more than that. From wikipedia:

"Union dues may be used to support a wide variety of programs or activities, including: Paying the salaries and/or benefits of full-time or part-time union leaders and/or staff; union governance; legal representation; legislative lobbying; political campaigns; pension, health, welfare, and safety funds; and/or the union strike fund."

Yes.. union dues pay for a lot of things. Most union dues go towards the salary and benefits of union leaders and staff.

Teamsters members do not make a lot of money. They are certainly not making 150k per year and yet the Teamsters are flush with officials making more. How does this provide value to the average teamster's member???? If I were in a right to work state and a member of the teamsters union you can be damn sure I would opt out.

http://www.tdu.org/files/150-club-report-2010.pdf

I see no problems with unions backing politicians. Organizations of all types support politicians who advocate their members' interests.

I see no problem with any organization providing support to politicians as long as I have the option to opt out if I do not agree with what my organization is backing.

To use a previous example we have discussed on this board before...

If Chick-Fil-a provides support to hate groups I have the option to no longer provide them with my money.

If I live in a non-right to work state, and belong to a union that is donating money to a cause I do not agree with my only choice to stop my money going to that cause is to quit my job. How is that a choice?

Brunner26_2

I pulled this quote from the SEIU page.
http://www.seiu503.org/about-seiu/join-seiu/why-join-a-union/

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the fair use fee. I'm glad to see it exists.

I still don't have an opinion either way about right-to-work legislation as the statistics are mixed, but you've made some great points.

Brunner26_2

Lour444, if you're still paying attention, here's an article from Forbes that says something different than what you said (i think) about RTW. It basically says that RTW laws being pushed today will force unions to offer non-union members all of the benefits of a union (collective bargaining, legal representation) without having to pay a single penny, including any fair use fee. The non-paying person could even turn around and sue the union if they felt they didn't do a good enough job of representing them, even though it was free.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/11/right-to-work-laws-explained-debunked-demystified/

lour441

Lour444, if you're still paying attention, here's an article from Forbes that says something different than what you said (i think) about RTW. It basically says that RTW laws being pushed today will force unions to offer non-union members all of the benefits of a union (collective bargaining, legal representation) without having to pay a single penny, including any fair use fee. The non-paying person could even turn around and sue the union if they felt they didn't do a good enough job of representing them, even though it was free.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/11/right-to-work-laws-explained-debunked-demystified/

I read the article. It seems to back up my argument. Perhaps you can quote the part that says a non-union employee does not have to pay a "fair share" fee for the collective bargaining, etc. that the union provides.

Brunner26_2

I read the article. It seems to back up my argument. Perhaps you can quote the part that says a non-union employee does not have to pay a "fair share" fee for the collective bargaining, etc. that the union provides.

From page 2 of the article:

While even a Republican controlled Congress could recognize the inherent fairness of requiring non-member workers to contribute to the unions in return for getting all the benefits of membership via the ‘agency fee’, the law managed to create a loophole that would allow the states to do away with agency fees altogether—if that was their desire.

That loophole is what we now know as ‘right to work’ laws—laws that permit non-union member employees to continue to get all the benefits of union representation and protection, as is still the requirement of federal law, without having to pay so much as a penny in return for these benefits.

My understanding is that the non-union workers in RTW states get every benefit without ever having to pay anything. How do you interpret that part?

treetop57

That SEIU Local 503 website is discussing the situation in Oregon, which is not a so-called "Right to Work" state. So-called "Right to Work" laws prohibit payment of "fair share" fees as a condition of employment.

Even in non-so-called-Right-to-Work states, employees in a union shop or agency shop can pay only the cost of union representation and negotiation and opt out of political contributions. No one has to quit their job in order to avoid supporting political candidates or issues with which they disagree. Of course, whether employees represented by a union have to opt-in or opt-out of political contributions is a contentious issue in non-so-called-Right-to-Work states like California. Seems like we have a question about that issue on the ballot every six months or so!

treetop57

What that SEIU site calls "fair share fees" are legally known as "agency fees." Prohibiting agency fees is the heart of the new Michigan so-called Right to Work law.

In the absence of a state right-to-work law, a collective bargaining agreement may include a provision for what is called "agency fees," "union security," or (by its critics) "forced dues." All three terms refer to the same basic thing: All workers covered by the contract must either join the union and pay the associated dues or remain out of the union and pay an agency fee, typically equal to regular membership dues.

Under a right-to-work law, a collective bargaining agreement cannot require an agency fee for nonmembers covered by a union contract. Opponents of right-to-work laws argue that this puts unions in the untenable position of being obligated to represent workers who may choose not to contribute to the costs of providing that representation.

http://www.mackinac.org/9966

Brunner26_2

Maybe it would be better if the unions weren't legally obligated to offer certain services non-union employees, such as legal representation.

MaraDiaz

Work smarter, not harder??!

Workers should be fairly compensated and treated respectfully regardless of IQ. I suppose I could argue that until that day comes, they should take your advice by quitting their sub-living-wage jobs and take up robbing banks and dealing drugs. It is, after all, working smarter.