Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Madigan again makes himself the story
Next Post: Question of the day - Golden Horseshoe Awards
Posted in:
* Kristen McQueary on Lincolnshire’s recent “right to work” ordinance vote…
For too long, unions have dictated public policy in this state. They’ve told politicians what to approve or reject. No questions asked.
Lincolnshire asked questions. It is offering employees an option. A choice. Unions are free to make their case to workers that they should join the union. Why is that so scary?
“Our goal is not to bust unions,” Lincolnshire Mayor Elizabeth Brandt says. “Want to join? No problem. Want to pay dues? No problem. But this (right-to-work zone) says, if you don’t want to, you don’t have to. That empowers the worker.”
It’s fascinating how unions talk about empowering workers, but don’t want them to have the power to join or not.
The unions? They like mandates.
Lincolnshire likes freedom.
I wonder how the Tribune owners would react if the government ordered the company to provide free advertising to anyone who wanted it.
* What these folks either fail to understand or don’t want to admit is that unions are required by federal law to represent every employee in their bargaining units, whether the employees pay union dues or not.
So, people can withhold dues and then legally demand all sorts of union services, like grievance procedures. The freeloaders are entitled to be provided the same wages, benefits and working condition protections earned for them by the very unions that they refuse to help pay for.
And if you’re OK with the government ordering that sort of thing, you’re not a small government person. That’s some Big Brother stuff right there, man.
* Somewhat related…
* Labor board upholds ruling to dismiss AFSCME’s unfair labor charge against Rauner administration: “I find insufficient evidence that CMS made a threat of reprisal,” she wrote. “The available evidence is that the ‘answer’ set forth in the FAQ’s regarding health insurance for employees on strike was accurately reflective of a long standing policy. An employer stating the potential negative impact to pay and benefits (including health insurance) that accompany a strike is not, in and of itself, evidence of coercive conduct.”
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Madigan again makes himself the story
Next Post: Question of the day - Golden Horseshoe Awards
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Why do we never hear about unions working to repeal the exclusive representation clause in federal law? Most likely because they put it in there and want it there.
If they unions members only representation in federal this would be a different story.
Comment by Ay caramba! Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:26 am
I thought if an employee did not want to become a union member, but benefited from union activities, that the employee would still be liable for “fair share” deductions to the union for collective bargaining efforts.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:28 am
===still be liable for “fair share” deductions====
In an open shop state, yes. In a right to work state, no.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:29 am
**The unions? They like mandates. Lincolnshire likes freedom.**
Lies.
Does McQueary not understand that Lincolnshire is placing a new mandate on what kind of contracts employers can have with employees?
In union shops, this means that the employer has AGREED to give the union a closed shop, where everyone has to be in the union. Lincolnshire is now telling employers that they are not allowed to give certain contracts to their employees.
Comment by AlabamaShake Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:36 am
Speakin’ of runnin’ the govt like a biz….IL taxpayers will be happy to know Allstate is one of the leading owners of junk bonds. If you folo the markets you should know hedge funds hustlers and other like that big Northbrook insurer have bought zillions of junk bonds from folks like the oil drillers. The drillers are goin’ bust and the bonds are not good. So the hedge funds have to cash in other assets to pay the loans used to the buy the junk bonds. A new path to wrecking the economy.
Whoosh — just like subprime mortgates —swaps — CDOs Merry Christmas from the Good Handsters.
Comment by Annonin' Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:37 am
If workers shouldn’t have to pay fair share then I shouldn’t have to pay taxes. It’s called democracy. I have a way to participate in the process to influence how my tax money is spent. And union members can participate in how their dues are spent.
You already have “freedom.” It’s called, go work for somewhere that doesn’t have a union. It’s pretty easy. Almost 90% of all jobs don’t have unions.
Comment by There is power in a union... Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:39 am
Union business is hard work and expensive. Those who would not pay fair share fees and still work at a union job would benefit a lot for free.
As has been said many times, and unfortunately must and will be repeated, the people who push RTW and other union-busting policies are for all intents and purposes not employees who are upset at paying fees and feel like their freedom is diminished, but super-rich people who want to dominate politics and the economy.
Labor rights need to be expanded in this age of severe income inequality. It is a tool to redistribute wealth and shift the balance back to a stronger middle class.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:41 am
==For too long, unions have dictated public policy in this state.==
Yeah, like that time a Dem legislature and Governor voted to cut their pensions. AFSCME was surely the mastermind there.
McQueary needs to stick to Hurricane Katrina fanfic.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:48 am
=You already have “freedom.” It’s called, go work for somewhere that doesn’t have a union. It’s pretty easy. Almost 90% of all jobs don’t have unions.=
True- you can also work to decertify your union. It’s a democracy- if more than half of your fellow employees want the union gone, it’s gone. No one is “forced” to do anything.
Comment by chi Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:50 am
==Why do we never hear about unions working to repeal the exclusive representation clause in federal law? Most likely because they put it in there and want it there.==
Of course they do. The only reason to repeal the exclusive representation clause is that it resolves the Free Rider problem of RTWFL, and that’s not Labor’s job. AFSCME doesn’t need to do Rauner any favors.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:51 am
Arsenal,
When unions work to change NLRA so that they get all their power by majority vote (as current) but people who want to opt out are allowed to represent themselves, then they (and Rich) will have a real argument. Until then it’s trying to have their cake and eat it too.
If they don’t like the supposed free rider problem they should work to repeal it. Until then all evidence is that they want it this way.
Comment by Ay caramba! Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:55 am
A little off topic but the recent federal budget deal delays the Cadillac tax on health plans so the Rauner employee health insurance premiums increase planned for July 1 isn’t “required” any more. What next guv?
Comment by Joe cannon Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 8:57 am
I received an email from the Tribune last night with the subject of “We’re Not Just Journalism” I originally read it as “We’re Just Not Journalism”. I think my initial reading was right.
Comment by Carhartt Representative Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:01 am
Personally I think the fix for rtw is to repeal the federal mandate. If u don’t want to be in the union than deal with your employer directly and take any repercussions from that action. If u prefer that the union be your gobetween than pay the freight for that service.
At this point we aren’t going to repeal rtw in states where it’s been passed so taking the burden off the unions that operate in those states.
I personally don’t see a problem repealing the mandate andleaving it to the states to determine. Of course some idjits are likely to require the union to represent even with rtw. Don’t know how to fix that kind of stupid.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:03 am
=The freeloaders are entitled to be provided the same wages, benefits and working condition protections earned for them by the very unions that they refuse to help pay for.=
This is an inconvenient truth that the anti-union groups fail to acknowledge.
And, if unions are so horrible and unnecessary, why are groups of employees continuing to push for unionization (latest- Uber drivers, Trump hotel in LV etc.)?
Comment by Former Hoosier Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:03 am
Ay caramba, the Free Rider problem only exists under a RTWFL regime, and unions are fighting that tooth and nail, so actually NO evidence suggests that they want a Free Rider problem.
C’mon, man. Your argument here is that unions should eliminate the Exclusive Representation clause because it will eliminate one of the (many…) problems with RTWFL. But the unions don’t want RTWFL. It’s not their job to make it easier to pass. If you’re asking anyone to give up something they like for something they hate, you’re not making a realistic argument.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:06 am
Also, be sensible- if you want to avoid the Free Rider problem of RTWFL (which, frankly, is a feature, not a bug of the policy) it’s a lot easier to just NOT do RTWFL than to try to bring down a pillar of modern labor law.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:11 am
You pose a clever question, Rich. But think it through. Suppose the government gave the Tribune an exclusive monopoly to sell all the print, broadcast and online advertising that 9 million people in the Chicago area would see. You want to reach those 18 million eyeballs and 18 million years, you have to go through the Tribune. The government says that in return, the Tribune has to print ads from people who don’t want to pay — but the Tribune can run those ads when and where it wants, giving every choice slot to paying customers.
The Tribune would grab that deal in a heartbeat, for the same reason that organized labor is content to represent non-members in exchange for monopoly access to a workforce.
I read the blog and know your pro-union leanings, Rich, which is fine. You have freedom. But your analogy, when thought through, is specious. Don’t deny the columnist her valid point: when workers, too, have freedom, many of them vote with their feet. You can see their footprints all over Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Indiana.
Comment by Be careful out there Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:15 am
The free-rider problem doesn’t end with repealing the exclusive representation requirement. Anything the union negotiates sets a floor for all employees in the bargaining unit. The employees who would choose not to pay for the union’s work benefit from that floor, too.
Comment by Concerned Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:16 am
Ears not years. I apologize.
Comment by Be careful out there Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:16 am
Arsenal,
All you’re saying is they want to have their cake (exclusive rep of all workers) and eat it too (complain when workers opt out and still get rep services). No sympathy for that.
They should want exclusive rep powers and all that entails for a workforce majority bargaining unit, while those who wish to opt out can self-represent. Until they want that they are making a junior-high playground argument.
Comment by Ay caramba! Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:17 am
Concerned,
If someone with less skills than the union guys were to opt out, what employer in her right mind would pay that person union wages when he/she is self-representing and offering a lower skill set?
Comment by Ay caramba! Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:20 am
There’s a larger point here. No business wants to deal with unions. That’s coercion straight up. The Clayton Act exempts unions from anti-trust action . The simple way to deal with the problem is avoid Illinois. Many businesses do.
Comment by Steve Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:20 am
==for the same reason that organized labor is content to represent non-members in exchange for monopoly access to a workforce==
Except that unions don’t have “monopoly access to a workforce”.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:20 am
=but the Tribune can run those ads when and where it wants, giving every choice slot to paying customers.=
A union with exclusive representation cannot discriminate between dues paying and fair share in this fashion (or any other).
Also, the government didn’t give the Trib a monopoly, the people buying ads did.
Also, the people buying ads would have the right to vote out the Tribune (would probably be a smart move, even in this fantasy hypo).
Basically, everyone gets free Tribune ads. This is not a viable business model (the Tribune running an awful business model is the most realistic part of this fantasy).
Comment by chi Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:25 am
Ay, if that person is in the same bargaining unit, an employer could undercut the union by paying that person a bit more (despite the disparity in skills or experience). Folks would drop the union and then the employer could impose a different (read lower) wage scale. Unions keeps wages higher. That is a feature, not the bug that Rauner sees it as.
Comment by Concerned Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:25 am
Ay caramba, go ahead and repeat your cake cliche a few more times, it doesn’t matter.. Of course they want exclusive representation of all workers (and here’s the dirty little secret of labor law, management wants them to have that, too). And of course they want to be compensated for the representation they provide. There’s no reason they wouldn’t! It’s not hypocritical to want to be paid for what you do, except that when labor policy comes up we start from this bizarre place that unions are the only political actors who shouldn’t advocate for their own best interest.
Without RTWFL, there’s no Free Rider problem for the unions to complain about. Thus, the only reason to repeal the Exclusive Representation clause is that it makes RTWFL more politically palatable. But again, it’s not the unions’ job to sell RTWFL.
Your argument remains: unions should give up a policy they like because it will make a policy they don’t like easier to sell. Which is to say, your argument remains a hash.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:27 am
==No business wants to deal with unions. That’s coercion straight up==
How do you figure it’s coercion? Businesses don’t want to deal with unions because they don’t want anybody holding them accountable for the treatment of their employees. Tell me this. Why do you anti-union folks fear unions so much?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:27 am
=No business wants to deal with unions.=
Patently false. Dealing with one entity (a union) instead of many (employees) is preferable to many businesses. Taking advantage of the training unions provide is another benefit, among many, that many businesses want.
Comment by chi Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:29 am
Arsenal,
Don’t get rid of exclusive representation, amend it so they have all those powers for a majority workforce that actually wants to be in the union. For everyone else: no dues and no representation from the unions.
The alternative unions get to control all workers with a 50% + 1 vote. How about a system where unions are supported by 100% of the people they represent? That sounds like a strong union agenda to me.
You proposition is to wind back the clock to end Right-to-Work? You’re looking at a country that is about to be majority states RTW. Good luck on working out that plan instead of doing something that will actually make sure unions are strong by making sure they have 100% support of those they represent.
Comment by Ay Caramba! Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:37 am
There is already a way to pay fair share into a charity instead of the union. So… people who are that against the unions’ stances have an outlet to pay their money elsewhere. And they get the benefits.
And anyone who pushes the “freedom” argument should also be pushing to make it easier to start and join a union. It’s all about “freedom” right? And you love “freedom.”
I expect Lincolnshire to now be fully supportive of any attempt to organize within the city limits. /s
Comment by There is power in a union... Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:37 am
Annonin’, would that be the same Allstate whose CEO made big noise on how he wouldn’t allow the insurer to buy State of Illinois GO bonds because of the “risk?”
The CEO who has 41% of shareholder equity in now-tanking junk bonds?
I’m guessing he might have second thoughts now as Allstate’s $1.1 billion in fracking and mining startup junk bonds join the pantheon of Confederate War Bonds.
Maybe he can get something for them on “Pawn Stars.”
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:40 am
“What these folks either fail to understand or don’t want to admit is that unions are required by federal law to represent every employee in their bargaining units.”
This is objectively false. Federal law does not require that unions represent any non-members. It is perfectly legal for them to adopt members only contracts that only cover dues-paying members. This has been legally uncontroversial since the Supreme Court decided Consolidated Edison v. NLRB in 1938.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/197.html
Unions choose of their own will to be exclusive bargaining representatives. This is what requires them to negotiate fairly for both members and non-members. But it’s a product of their own choice. If they don’t want to represent non-members, they should relinquish their exclusive bargaining status.
Comment by Jack Kemp Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:41 am
==Don’t get rid of exclusive representation, amend it so they have all those powers for a majority workforce that actually wants to be in the union. For everyone else: no dues and no representation from the unions.==
That’s an elimination of Exclusive Representation. You can call it an “amendment” but it will remain an elimination.
==The alternative unions get to control all workers with a 50% + 1 vote.==
“Represent” not control, and it’s telling that you’d use that term. Anyway, majoritarian democracy is hardly some novel and scary concept.
==You proposition is to wind back the clock to end Right-to-Work?==
Wind back what clock? Illinois hasn’t adopted RTWFL (and won’t). Meanwhile, you’re proposing we wind back the clock on Exclusive Representation, the foundation of labor law…
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:45 am
FREEdom yep that’s it something for free. Consider the author of that little rant before you give it any serious consideration.
Comment by Obamas Puppy Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:45 am
All team members of the Steelers, Bulls and Celtics are required to join the union. Where’s the freedom and justice in that.
Comment by GOP Extremist Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:46 am
“The alternative unions get to control all workers with a 50% + 1 vote. How about a system where unions are supported by 100% of the people they represent? That sounds like a strong union agenda to me.”
No other democratic body is held to this standard. None. It is far too cumbersome. Do you also demand all elected officials get 100% of the vote of all eligible voters? Do you also believe a bill cannot pass a legislative body until it has 100% of all the votes of the body? Do you believe the Knights of Columbus, any church, school board, or any other group should be unable to move on anything until 100% of their members agree?
No, labor is continuously singled out for a standard no other democratic body is held to. Under the guise of “freedom.”
Comment by There is power in a union... Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:47 am
If Illinois was run by the unions, why does the state have an income tax structure that favors the wealthy? Why does the state have a corporate tax structure that favors big businesses? Why does it have a school funding system that favors the wealthy?
The Trib’s ax grinding against unions is so hyperbolic that it only hurts their ’cause’ against unions and lessens their (small) credibility.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:48 am
===Patently false. Dealing with one entity (a union) instead of many (employees) is preferable to many businesses. Taking advantage of the training unions provide is another benefit, among many, that many businesses want.===
True for private businesses but not for the public sector (e.g., AFSCME). In my experiences with AFSCME, they stifled progress in state government.
Comment by justacitizen Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:54 am
An ordinance can void a contrac? What does the comptroller think?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:57 am
=This has been legally uncontroversial=
I know this Princess Bride meme has been used a lot lately, but:
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Comment by chi Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 9:59 am
Ah caramba! When those who are supposedly concerned about ‘freedom’ agree to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, which greatly restricts Unions’ and Union members’ free speech, I wouldn’t think they are being disingenuous. If we’re talking about freedoms - why not go back to the Wagner Act. Why are sympathy strikes outlawed? Wildcat strikes? Boycotts? Why must a Teamster be compelled to cross a picket line? Doesn’t sound like freedom to me?
Comment by Triple fat Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 10:09 am
=True for private businesses but not for the public sector=
Please see this amicus brief filed in the Friedrichs decision, showing many governments (including Chicago’s) find working with one collective bargaining agent preferable to many indivisual employees. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-915_bsac_Cities_Counties_and_Elected_Officials.pdf
Comment by chi Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 10:17 am
C’mon, this isn’t hard- unions want *both* exclusive representation and the resources to afford exclusive representation. Just like I *want* to do my job, and I also want my bosses to pay me for what I do. This is no exposé.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 10:20 am
To what extent is this about defunding traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, or about meeting the stated needs of some major business sectors?
Each side kind of sees most clearly what justifies their advocacy or resistance.
What we do know is that this nationwide RTW effort is neither about personal freedom, nor about the Village of Lincolnshire.
Comment by walker Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 10:27 am
=== So, people can withhold dues and then legally demand all sorts of union services, like grievance procedures. The freeloaders are entitled to be provided the same wages, benefits and working condition protections earned for them by the very unions that they refuse to help pay for. ===
I don’t necessarily disagree, but the the “free rider” problem is prevalent throughout society. Don’t all trial lawyers benefit from the trial lawyers association, even if they don’t belong? Don’t all newspapers benefit from the Illinois Newspaper Association even if they don’t belong?
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 10:36 am
==And if you’re OK with the government ordering that sort of thing, you’re not a small government person. That’s some Big Brother stuff right there, man.==
Why are you blaming the “freeloaders” because federal law requires this? I think many people would agree with the notion that if you are not paying dues toward a CB effort, then you do not reap any of the (supposed) benefits. The “freeloaders” did not ask for this world. They asked to be out of it.
Push to change this aspect of law.
The only teeny tiny problem for unions is that people will then see they can negotiate mutually agreeable pay and benefits on their own.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 10:41 am
“I find insufficient evidence that CMS made a threat of reprisal,” she wrote. “The available evidence is that the ‘answer’ set forth in the FAQ’s regarding health insurance for employees on strike was accurately reflective of a long –standing policy. An employer stating the potential negative impact to pay and benefits (including health insurance) that accompany a strike is not, in and of itself, evidence of coercive conduct.”–
This has Coli smell all over it. It’s why he was appointed by Rauner.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 10:47 am
Word: re the CEO of Allstate: Many large company CEO’s are driven as much by shared political ideology, as by any knowledge of economics.
Comment by walker Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 10:59 am
Arsenal, no one contends it is the unions’ job to sell RTW. It is also not the job of opt-out folks to sell exclusive representation reform. There is a free-rider problem here, and it is the union’s problem, as they created this world. A world where their own favored policy backfires with unintended consequences when someome merely says “I want out”.
The issue here is that unions don’t want anyone to see that a functional world exists outside of theirs. State government Truman Show.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 11:08 am
Shoe- “they created this world”
Um, you do realize that Labor was opposed to Taft-Hartley and that Truman vetoed it, don’t you?
Comment by Juice Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 11:20 am
“All team members of the Steelers, Bulls and Celtics are required to join the union. Where’s the freedom and justice in that.” So the NFL can have different thresholds for “Roughing the Passer” or “Personal Foul” based on whether the QB is in the union or not? Because that’s what your argument can lead to.
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 11:26 am
When the US Supreme Court announced they would take up the two California teachers lawsuit that they shouldn’t be required to pay fair share because of free speech (they felt they shouldn’t be forced to pay dues for initiatives and policies for which they didn’t agree with their union) - someone on here posted that, they wanted their taxes money back that were spent on the Vietnam and Iraq wars. If those two California teachers don’t have to go along with the majority who voted for a union because of free speech - then I also feel that I shouldn’t have to have my tax money go for policies that I disagree with. I want my tax money back too!
Comment by Joe M Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 11:46 am
Looking at this from the perspective of a union member who works in Libertyville:
We are RTW. Now I don’t have to be part of the union and can keep that 1.25% of my pay in my own pocket…Hooray!!!
Wait, my employer is now cutting wages and benefits by 10% for all who no longer have union protection…Help!!!
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 11:52 am
- chi -
If you are right that some companies do want to deal with unions then let’s allow companies that don’t want to deal with unions to operate. Let’s repeal the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932.
Comment by Steve Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:03 pm
Yes Steve. While we’re at it let’s repeal child labor laws; the 40 hour work week; unemployment insurance; workers comp completely; and make everyone a captive worker. That would be great!
Comment by Triple fat Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:12 pm
Skeptic
The QB would still play by all the same rules as negotiationed, he’d just be riding for free. It’s an apples and oranges comparison I’m sure on many levels. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of their “it’s about worker empowerment ” argument. We all know it’s just about lowering payroll and union busting.
Comment by GOP Extremist Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:16 pm
If there is one thing the last 40 years have proven to the U.S. Workforce, you’re employer will always reward productivity. Right? 1973 to 2013 productivity increased 74% and compensation increased a staggering 9%… With numbers like that we need laws strengthening bargaining rights of Unions - not deminishing them Steve.
Comment by Triple fat Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:22 pm
“You can see their footprints all over Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Indiana.”
The sooner workers who surrender their rights and economic standing to multimillionaires and billionaires like the Koch brothers and Diane Hendricks leave Illinois for RTW states, the better. Those people are a political and economic liability.
Plus, Governors Snyder and Walker were sneaky on RTW. They didn’t run on it and may have said it was not a priority but passed it in a sudden manner.
RTW states are overwhelmingly at the bottom of income rankings and have lower unionization rates. Unionized women earn more than non-union women in every state, per an article/study I recently read. Whoever wants to pass RTW is no friend of this state.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:38 pm
“You already have “freedom.” It’s called, go work for somewhere that doesn’t have a union. It’s pretty easy. Almost 90% of all jobs don’t have unions.”
What I fail to understand is if being a member of a union is such a good thing why joining one must be compulsory.
Comment by CapnCrunch Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:48 pm
=If you are right that some companies do want to deal with unions then let’s allow companies that don’t want to deal with unions to operate. Let’s repeal the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932.=
Well, some companies don’t want to pay any overtime or provide health care. Some companies want to hire ten-year olds to do their work. Just because a company wants something does not make it a good idea. Unfortunate that I have to point this out.
Comment by chi Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:51 pm
=What I fail to understand is if being a member of a union is such a good thing why joining one must be compulsory.=
What I fail to understand is how intelligent individuals can fail to grasp the concept that no one is forced to join a union. You can be compelled, however, to pay for services received. And if you don’t want to receive those services you can convince 50% of your coworkers to vote with you and then boom: democracy in action, you won’t have to receive or pay for those services.
Comment by chi Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:53 pm
Freeloaders. Ahem. Indeed.
Comment by Beeker Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 12:59 pm
=What I fail to understand is how intelligent individuals can fail to grasp the concept that no one is forced to join a union. You can be compelled, however, to pay for services received. And if you don’t want to receive those services you can convince 50% of your coworkers to vote with you and then boom: democracy in action, you won’t have to receive or pay for those services.=
This sums it up very accurately
Comment by Carhartt Representative Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 1:09 pm
“What I fail to understand is how intelligent individuals can fail to grasp the concept that no one is forced to join a union. You can be compelled, however, to pay for services received.”
A worker who is forced to pay the dues becomes a de facto member.
Comment by CapnCrunch Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 1:20 pm
There is so much misinformation and ignorance out there, it’s downright scary. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the unions need to mount a campaign to remind people what a worker’s life was like back in the day.
Comment by cailleach Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 1:23 pm
==You can be compelled, however, to pay for services received.==
Heck, at least the Union provides the services. The government has been making us pay for years for stuff we personally do not use. I’ve never driven a tank, but I’m pretty sure some of my tax money went to buy one. Unless I get to drive that tank, I think people should stop complaining about having to pay for services they actually receive. Like benefits from Union negotiations. And roads. And clean water. And on and on.
Comment by HangingOn Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 1:38 pm
== the people who push RTW and other union-busting policies are for all intents and purposes not employees who are upset at paying fees and feel like their freedom is diminished, but super-rich people who want to dominate politics and the economy.==
I do not call $38k a year super-rich nor do I feel I need to dominate politics but on this issue I believe in Right-to-Work… no one should not be forced to be in a union and pay union dues just to have the job…
Comment by Allen D Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 1:40 pm
how about ammend the right to work zone law…. any person who elects not to join a union. as is their right, is not entitlted to any pay, benefits or procedures (such as call back rights, senority, colas, retirment plans etc) negotiated by the union. the employer may do what it chooses with non-members.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 1:43 pm
Give her a break, Rich. Kristen is just writing what her bosses tell her to.
Comment by K3 Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 1:46 pm
“how about ammend the right to work zone law…. any person who elects not to join a union….. is not entitlted to any [benefits] negotiated by the union. the employer may do what it chooses with non-members.”
And, if the non-member is not satisfied with the individual benefits, he or she might entertain what actions?
Comment by CapnCrunch Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 2:07 pm
“The QB would still play by all the same rules as negotiationed [sic]”
I agree, that’s the way it would be now, whether or not the QB was a member of the union. My comment was in response to the commenter who suggested that unions shouldn’t have to cover non-members. I was using a sports analogy to point out the absurdity of such an idea.
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 2:09 pm
Allen D,
Is that 38k a year include pension and Social Security benefits? If you are still working… Please believe me… You are arguing against your own self interest… If,however, you are a small business owner, income made to look like 38k provides a nice living and retirement.
Comment by Triple fat Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 2:10 pm
If people are so upset about joining a union, please answer this question - How many state employees went from fair share dues to full fledged union members?
I used to be a fair share employee, but went full dues paying member because of this current administration. The extra amount of money was so minor between fair share and full dues, that I felt that the protection was worth the money.
Besides, as a teamster, I get their health benefits that are better than the State health insurance.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 2:19 pm
==no one should . . . be forced to be in a union and pay union dues just to have the job==
You forced to take a union job? If you don’t like unions then don’t take a union job. Problem solved.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Dec 18, 15 @ 2:42 pm