Question for Corth: Unions

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:08 pm

Corth, you're in favor of abolishing the minimum wage, because workers should be paid what they're worth and if they don't like the wage offered, they can find another job.

Do you also support unions? Under the same logic, can't a corporation that doesn't want to deal with unions simply fire their entire workforce and hire replacements? You are, after all, assuming that individual workers can subsist for an indefinite period of time without income while they search for a more suitable job... isn't it equally reasonable to assume that corporations should be able to subsist for a period of time with no productivity?

And for corporations who are contractually obligated to hire union workers... why did they allow themselves to get into that situation? They consensually signed the contract. Why? Why not just rebuke the union, fire the workforce, and rehire from scratch? We expect workers who are in an unsatisfactory work relationship to take responsibility for their situation. Why not corporations? If you sign the contract, it's your own fault if your hiring practices are hogtied.

Curious. Non-troll thread, please keep it that way.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Kifle » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:17 pm

I agree, but what about states where you can't fire a worker for no reason?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:35 pm

I'm waiting for Corth to respond, but in the meanwhile, in many states, corporations are actually forced to work with unions by state law. And Federal law in many ways protects unions in similar fashion.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:56 pm

don't let corporations collude together, we call those monopolies because they exercise undue influence.... how is that different that unions... ok that was a bit hyperbolic... when you consider that there are non union potential employees, but what about when you consider a skilled workforce... that can't be instantly replaced with a random human being. They are monopolizing the labor that the company needs.

I don't think we assume workers can subsist indefinitely without work... I think we believe that you are responsible for your own welfare. Some of us have social safety nets (family and church) some of us have savings some of us grow our own food...

I'm pretty sure corporations are required to negotiate with unions due to state and federal laws and labor board regulation/provisions... Wisconsin unions have filed a complaint with the labor board that Walker refuses to negotiate... A union would have no power if they couldn't compel the employer to negotiate with it... anytime they talk about good faith, you know there are laws or contractual obligations that bar negotiating in bad faith... thats a legal term, not something meant to persuade the public sympathies.

Corporations end up in these situations for a variety of reasons including the laws that require them to negotiate and contracts that once signed have all sorts of union perpetuating provisions. Also consider the soft pressure applied on the corporations by government/representatives supportive of unions... Lastly... I think unions have an advantage of being able to pick the battlefield... corporation can't really force a union under contract to do anything... but a union can find ways to encourage a corporation to reopen the contract if it finds something it wants to change... with sick outs, work slowdowns, bad mouthing the company in the media etc... The right to strike is often covered in the contract and requires notice usually > 30 days... but the above items circumvent that. Note, Wisconsin teachers called in sick and did not go on strike... because it was prohibited in their contracts.

None of these "reasons" seem particularly strong to me to accept "bad" contracts, but if you look at the history I think its evident in totality that unions somehow have corporations at a disadvantage... until the corporation literally collapses. We got a lesson in that in 2008 with the automakers and we're getting another one with state pension funds for public employees across the nation...
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Corth » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:00 pm

Ragorn,

Assuming that private sector unions get no special protections under law that other worker's wouldn't, I have absolutely no problem with them whatsoever. There is no coercion whatsoever. If they fail to show up for work (strike) they can be fired. However firing ALL your employees is a little different than firing one of them. So they do gain some leverage, and I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing. Collective action actually seems kind of natural to me.

Public sector unions are trickier. I think the issue is with the 'employer' which instead of a profit motive has a reelection motive, so tend to reward their union supporters on someone else's (taxpayer's) dime. I don't necessarily think public sector unions need to be abolished. I do think many (not all) public employees are getting a windfall at the taxpayer's expense, and that is the specific issue I am not happy about.

If it passes constitutional muster I would like to see the political activities of public sector unions curtailed or prohibited. The conflict of interest created by allowing them to essentially bribe the people who will directly decide what they are paid is not acceptable. Put it this way - if a corporate executive was found to be taking money from a union rep he would be immediately terminated and probably sued. In the public sector, that is essentially what is expected to happen.

This ties in to the issue of corporatations financing politicians. Obviously the Supreme Court said it's protected speech, so barring an Amendment that is the law of the land. One thing I would say is that if government didn't have so much power to decide which company wins and which company loses - often arbitrarily - there wouldn't be any need for corporations to contribute politicallly. In fact, a substantial political (or for that matter charitable) gift which doesn't serve the selfish purposes of the corporation could subject the officers to liability from the company's shareholders.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:38 pm

Corth wrote:Assuming that private sector unions get no special protections under law that other worker's wouldn't, I have absolutely no problem with them whatsoever. There is no coercion whatsoever. If they fail to show up for work (strike) they can be fired. However firing ALL your employees is a little different than firing one of them. So they do gain some leverage, and I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing. Collective action actually seems kind of natural to me.

My perspective is that collective bargaining puts employees on equal footing with employers in terms of power in the working relationship. Most individual employees have no real leverage when negotiating with their company, unless they are a highly-skilled and irreplacable resource performing a critical function. The ability to collectively bargain ensures that even the line workers and cafeteria employees have the leverage they need to avoid being mistreated by their employer. It's a necessary mechanism to ensure a balance of power.

If it passes constitutional muster I would like to see the political activities of public sector unions curtailed or prohibited. The conflict of interest created by allowing them to essentially bribe the people who will directly decide what they are paid is not acceptable.

How is this different from energy companies lobbying and contributing political funding to politicans on the House Energy Subcommittee? Perhaps both should be regulated... but it's not often I hear you support increased government intervention in the workplace :)

This ties in to the issue of corporatations financing politicians. Obviously the Supreme Court said it's protected speech, so barring an Amendment that is the law of the land. One thing I would say is that if government didn't have so much power to decide which company wins and which company loses - often arbitrarily - there wouldn't be any need for corporations to contribute politicallly.

As long as the government is charged with creating and upholding federal laws, they'll always have the power to play kingmaker with corporations. Every company in America stands to gain by lobbying Congress, because laws influence commerce.

The reason I ask is, the issue in Wisconsin is whether collective bargaining should even be legal. While the unions at the heart of the debate certainly have questionable methods of operation, the issue on the floor is whether workers should be given the right to form unions in the first place. I'm curious to know if there's anybody who actually supports dismantling workers' right to assemble, or if the anti-union sentiment is solely political in nature.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:39 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:I'm waiting for Corth to respond, but in the meanwhile, in many states, corporations are actually forced to work with unions by state law. And Federal law in many ways protects unions in similar fashion.

Which states? I'm curious to read the law... do you have a list?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Corth » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:29 pm

Ragorn wrote:How is this different from energy companies lobbying and contributing political funding to politicans on the House Energy Subcommittee? Perhaps both should be regulated... but it's not often I hear you support increased government intervention in the workplace :)


I'm not advocating for the socialization of a private sector industry. I'm saying a certain kind of bribery - unions paying off their political benefactors - should be made illegal. Hardly increased government intervention in the workplace.

Ragorn wrote:As long as the government is charged with creating and upholding federal laws, they'll always have the power to play kingmaker with corporations. Every company in America stands to gain by lobbying Congress, because laws influence commerce.


Well yeah, of course. That is one reason government should wield less power. :)

On the basic point - whether unions should even be allowed, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's a little problematic in the public sector, but in the private sector I think it makes a whole lot of sense. In fact when the auto manufacturers were having their problems before they got bailed out and a lot of people on this forum were blaming the unions, I was blaming the auto manufacturers. Nobody compelled them to give the ridiculous compensation and benefits to the unions which they willingly did. They must have known at some point it would bankrupt them. Perhaps they also suspected that the US government would bail them out...
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:29 pm

Corth wrote:I'm not advocating for the socialization of a private sector industry. I'm saying a certain kind of bribery - unions paying off their political benefactors - should be made illegal. Hardly increased government intervention in the workplace.

Sorry, I'm confused. Unions paying off politican benefactors, bad. Corporate lobbyists paying off political benefactors, ok? Can you explain the difference to me?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:10 am

Ragorn, in the United States, only 22 states are right-to-work states, other states have stronger protections of concepts like the union shop, which requires that employers hire only employees that agree to become a part of the union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law <- find the negative of the list here.

Furthermore, the Railway Labor Act mandates that certain employers engage in collective bargaining with their employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act

And of course, the National Labor Relations Act - the big one, prohibits employers from refusing to bargain with representatives of a recognized union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L ... ations_Act


So essentially, employers must work with unions if they are recognized by the NLRA. In 22 states, employers are protected from being prohibited by the union to hire non-union members that do not have to join the union. While it may be possible for some employers to negotiate a union agreement that does not include a union shop clause, in practice this is rare.

Finally, an important distinction, the NLRA and thus most of the Federal components do not apply to public sector workers. State labor laws vary a lot, and the situation can be quite different form state to state.

In summary: while both federal and state law require that employers work with unions, the lack of right-to-work laws in the majority of states allows employers to become compelled to retain only union workers. It's a double strike against those seeking to avoid compelled collectivization.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:57 pm

I understand the concept of the union shop, but that relationship is established between the union and the corporation with which it is employed. The union-corporation agreement becomes a binding contract, under which all employees must join the union or face termination, and that contract is enforced by state contract law. However, that contract is initiated by the union and the corporation, not the government. So in essence, a union and a corporation can forge an agreement forcing employees to join the union, but the government can't force companies into those agreements in the first place.

So that's where I'm confused. Are there states where the government actually, literally, tells corporations that they MUST work with the union and set up these kinds of agreements? Or does state law just enforce the contracts that unions and corporations agree on together?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:02 pm

Ragorn wrote:I understand the concept of the union shop, but that relationship is established between the union and the corporation with which it is employed. The union-corporation agreement becomes a binding contract, under which all employees must join the union or face termination, and that contract is enforced by state contract law. However, that contract is initiated by the union and the corporation, not the government. So in essence, a union and a corporation can forge an agreement forcing employees to join the union, but the government can't force companies into those agreements in the first place.

So that's where I'm confused. Are there states where the government actually, literally, tells corporations that they MUST work with the union and set up these kinds of agreements? Or does state law just enforce the contracts that unions and corporations agree on together?

The government forces them to negotiate with recognized unions in good faith - so they must work with unions. The government(s) (state and federal) furthermore make it extremely difficult to fire a union or prevent employees from forming one to start with.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby kiryan » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:34 pm

i can't speak to exactly how it occurs, I can only point out at the results... the system results in corporations signing these union shop contracts. I don't think the company managers are stupid. I have to believe it comes down to soft pressure from politicians and the threat of binding arbitration (which is what happens when you don't negotiate in "good faith").

Realize the union doesn't have anything to lose. They start with no rights so anything is an improvement. The corporation has lots to lose... especially if they lose complete control and it ends up in arbitration.

Now consider the nature of the "union shop" provisions... The union has a recognized right to exist, and has won the legal authority to negotiate for ALL of the employees... IF the company can just hire non union workers, then doesn't that eventually result in the loss of the union? It is decidely anti union to begin with and usually companies have aggressivly tried to prevent the union from forming in teh first place so it shows that the union faces hostility. Same principle if the company can just fire union workers outside of specific job related reasons... I think an arbiter would find these provisions reasonable to protect the union... especially since they don't cost the company any money directly... just a recognition and protection for the union who has established the right to exist.

If it came down to it, I think the union in the initial negotiations would give up everything just to get the union shop provision, the dues, and the termination procedures... then they build from there year after year... Once established, its very hard to go back and say we gave that to you, but now we need to take away those provisions.... impossibly hard given the actual history.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:43 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:The government forces them to negotiate with recognized unions in good faith

I may just be daft, but I'm missing this part in the links you provided. The links you quoted talk about how the government enforces contracts put into place between unions and corporations, but I didn't see the part about the government requiring companies to negotiate with unions against their will (if they want to set up a non-union shop, for example).

Is there a law in one or more states outlawing corporations from setting up non-union shops? I didn't think there was.

Now consider the nature of the "union shop" provisions... The union has a recognized right to exist, and has won the legal authority to negotiate for ALL of the employees... IF the company can just hire non union workers, then doesn't that eventually result in the loss of the union?

I think the only reason that most companies negotiate with unions is because collective bargaining is better in the short term than having to fire and replace their entire (or nearly entire) workforce. If you must choose between handing out a 5% global pay raise, or suffering two months of zero productivity and the lost of untold institutional knowledge, I think most companies grudgingly choose the former.

I'm not aware of any legislation that FORCES companies to consider union agreeements... I could be wrong though. I just think the fallout from the alternative is so cataclysmic that most corporations don't even consider it.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby kiryan » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:12 pm

I'm not aware of any legislation that FORCES companies to consider union agreeements...

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Article I thought is relevant to our discussion...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/04/co ... rs-coffee/

A Connecticut town must provide their union workers free coffee and milk, according to a ruling from the State Board of Labor Relations.

The board also ordered town leaders to reinstate “Dress Down Fridays” for the union clerical and custodial workers.
...
The board determined the town retaliated against the union members for comments they made at a finance meeting in 2009.
..
Healy said he was especially troubled that not only will taxpayers be forced to purchase coffee and milk for the union workers, but they will also be required to pay $10,000 in legal bills.

“It says the state labor relations board is in the pocket of labor,” Healy said.

== I see this as a bad thing... even assuming it is retaliation as reported. Why can't a company or public entity take away free coffee for whatever reason it wants. Instead... you can only take it away if ?
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:15 pm

It's in the text of the article on the NLRA: "Employers have a duty to bargain with the representative of its employees."
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby kiryan » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:39 pm

== federal government, speciifcally Obama, forcing more companies to be union shops

http://www.iecvotes.com/index.php?ht=d/ ... 762/guid/1

Status of Legislation: On February 6, 2009, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13502, which authorizes and encourages the use of union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal construction contracts. President Obama's order also repealed President Bush's Executive Order 13202, which banned PLA?s on federal projects. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Representative John Sullivan (R-OK) have introduced the Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (S. 90/H.R. 983), which would preserve open competition on federal construction projects. Specifically, S. 90 and H.R. 983 would "prevent discrimination against Federal Government contractors or their employees based upon labor affiliation or the lack thereof, thereby promoting the economical, nondiscriminatory, and efficient administration and completion of Federal and federally funded or assisted construction projects."

http://publicceo.com/index.php/local-go ... by-project

Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) between construction companies, project owners and labor union consortiums originated in the 1930s as a way to protect large projects from work stoppages that plagued many sites across the country. In exchange for labor agreeing to use high-speed arbitration to resolve workplace disputes, the contractor usually agreed to hire employees through a union hiring hall at union wages.

Kreischer called PLAs a bad deal for his employees. If they work under a PLA, either the contractor or the employee has to pay into union benefit plans in addition to their existing private pension plan even though they may never receive the union benefits if they don’t work enough years to qualify. Employees also have to pay union dues for the privilege of limiting the types of jobs they can do and hours they can work.

http://www.alrb.ca.gov/content/pdfs/for ... s_1106.pdf

What must my employer do after the union requests bargaining?
Under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, both your employer and the union that
represents you have an obligation to bargain in good faith to reach an agreement. This
means that both sides must make an honest, sincere effort to reach an agreement. U


What are some other examples of the duty to bargain in good faith?
Under the duty to bargain in good faith, both sides have an obligation to:
• Make an honest and sincere effort to reach an agreement,
• Meet at reasonable times and places,
• Discuss mandatory subjects of bargaining. This means wages, hours, working
conditions, pensions, bonuses, worker safety, insurance, seniority, grievance
procedures, discipline, layoffs, etc


Does my employer have to enter into a contract with a union?
No. The Act only requires your employer to bargain in good faith with the union in an
attempt to reach agreement. Neither side is obligated to accept the proposals of the other
sid

What happens if the union and my employer do not reach an
agreement?
If there is no agreement reached, and the parties have bargained in good faith, there is no
violation of the Act. However, the employer still has a duty to bargain with the union if
the union requests further bargaining


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues.

The NLRA imposes additional requirements before a union can invoke a union shop agreement clause to require an employer to fire an employee who has failed to pay dues.


http://www.mnaflcio.org/news/right-work-laws-get-facts

Can a union unilaterally impose a union security agreement?

No. The employer and the union must negotiate a union security agreement. If management refuses, there is no union security agreement.

Why would an employer agree to a union security clause?

Many employers want to avoid the divisions and animosity that occur when some workers have to pay the costs of representing other employees.


http://clear.uhwo.hawaii.edu/CB-FAQ.html

What Are Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining?
Both the employer and the employee representative are required to bargain over "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment." This has been defined over the years to include wages and fringe benefits, grievance procedures, arbitration, health and safety, nondiscrimination clauses, no-strike clauses, length of contract, management rights, discipline, seniority, and union security.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby kiryan » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:46 pm

So "union shop" is covered under "union security clauses". and no there doesn't seem to be any requirement for a company to agree to a specific union security clause... however consider that the company must bargain in good faith on all issues. What would be the justification for not accepting a union security clause

I did a lot of research to see if I could find some explicit discussion of how a company got "forced" into accepting a union security clause... I couldn't find anything.

however in reading the history I found a discussion of a justification for union security clause. Before there were union security clauses... union support waxed and waned based on how "active" the union leaders were... it created an environment where union bosses were constantly making trouble with the company management simply to remain relevant and supported by their workers. Unions sought these security clauses in order to make them less vulnerable to their members.

In some sense, I can see how companies would agree to union security clauses... to ensure that union leaders aren't stirring up trouble just to endear themselves to their constitutency. I still suspect it has more to do with "good faith" and as a trade for something like no strike clauses.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:00 pm

Yes, I can see an executive order being passed that mandates government projects as union shops. That's the government (employer) negotiating with unions (workforce), same as with any other employer-worker relationship. That's not Obama "forcing a company to be a union shop." That's the federal government establishing a union shop for one of its own projects.

I also did some reading this weekend, and there are industries in which the federal government requires private sector companies to work with unions. Most notably is the transportation industry, and the two largest reasons cited by the government for these regulations are 1) National security and 2) The fact that the federal government has (or originally had) a large stake in the companies in question (railroads, automakers). I did see the regulations in some states requiring companies to negotiate with unions, but those regulations are at the state level and are not typically present in Right to Work states.

The reason I'm asking all this is because the media frenzy around Wisconsin/RI/Ohio makes it impossible to glean what the current state of labor in our country actually is. My opinion, after looking into the issue as deeply as possible, is that collective bargainin NEEDS to remain legal in order to foster a free market in the workplace... but the existing teachers' unions are most often dickheads. So I oppose legislative restrictions on collective bargaining, but I absolutely don't mind some of the specific unions in question being knocked down a peg.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:35 pm

I don't mind if unions exist. I don't want to infringe upon people's right to associate and collectively bargain (except in extreme examples like ww2 and to a lesser degree Reagan and air traffic controllers).

I strenuously object to forced membership, forced dues and union security clauses.

also, I would argue with you Ragorn that unions are the antithesis of competition. Unions monopolize labor company by company like corporations monopolize commerce industry by industry... except you can prosecute companies for monopolistic behavior.

lastly, I have real problems with public sector unions... unions negotiate against the tax payer, the public for wages and benefits… there is something wrong there. and that’s before you consider the conflict of interest in negotiating with the people you help to elect and donate campaign funds to. Beyond the 400 million unions donated to Obama’s 750 million presidential run, think of the billions of dollars worth of union labor donated to their phone banks and get out the vote efforts…

Furthermore, unions claim legitimacy under the justification of protecting workers’ rights… but if the government is charged with protecting workers’ rights everywhere else… so why do we need a union to protect the public workers from government?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:27 pm

kiryan wrote:also, I would argue with you Ragorn that unions are the antithesis of competition. Unions monopolize labor company by company like corporations monopolize commerce industry by industry... except you can prosecute companies for monopolistic behavior.

I think if unions ever approached monopolistic magnitude, we'd see legislation in place to keep them restrained. Maybe we're getting there with the AFL-CIO... and at any rate, I'd have no problem with anti-trust legislation being extended to unions if they ever get big enough to

lastly, I have real problems with public sector unions... unions negotiate against the tax payer, the public for wages and benefits… there is something wrong there. and that’s before you consider the conflict of interest in negotiating with the people you help to elect and donate campaign funds to. Beyond the 400 million unions donated to Obama’s 750 million presidential run, think of the billions of dollars worth of union labor donated to their phone banks and get out the vote efforts…

Furthermore, unions claim legitimacy under the justification of protecting workers’ rights… but if the government is charged with protecting workers’ rights everywhere else… so why do we need a union to protect the public workers from government?

The issue here is preventing cushy no-bid contracts from being dished to private corporations without going through the public workers union. The union is very interested in preventing... oh, let's say Halliburton... from landing exclusive government contracts that other businesses are not permitted to jockey for. The public sector in this case tries to protect the union members from porkrolling politicians who are more interested in padding their former (or future) employers than keeping things above board.

In a perfect world, where government followed its own rules, such a thing probably wouldn't be necessary. And it's kind of a sad commentary on our government that such a thing is necessary in the first place.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:35 pm

woah... i think you're really off kilter here...

unions gave obama 400 million of the 750 million used in his election... unions are the dominant source of funding for the democrat party... unions negotiate with government representatives for wages and benefits... there is a clear conflict of interest here.

once a union is certified, no other union can represent the employees. The employees can not represent themselves direectly... and under most contracts are "required" to join the union or at least required to pay union dues. The employee and all future employees effectively lose individual choice as long as 51% of people support the union... and while there can be competition between unions... there is no competition between the worker and the union. you will be a union member if there is a union.

They were specifically given an exemption from the anti monopoly laws... thats should pretty much say it all.

--

as far as your justification for the "prevailing wages" contract requirements... I think you have this all wrong. The intent is not to prevent haliburton from getting no bid contracts.

The union's purpose for supporting prevailing wages cotnracts is to first, prevent non unionized companies from underbidding unionized companies because they have a lower cost for labor. There are some contracts that actually stipulate jobs must be completed by union labor. If you don't have a unionized workforce, you can't bid.

The government's supposed rationale for previlaing wages is supposedly a myriad of justifications on efficiency and safety but basically boils down to paying a "fair wage" and icing out companies who dedicate more profits to pay themselves than their workers.

In reality, I suggest that prevailing wage contracts are designed to benefit unions and not the worker nor the government.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:09 pm

When it comes to Haliburton, specifically, there really wasn't competition available for that firm's capabilities.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Ragorn » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:41 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:When it comes to Haliburton, specifically, there really wasn't competition available for that firm's capabilities.

Regardless, you bid the contract and award it to Halliburton. No-bid contracts are hooey.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Question for Corth: Unions

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:23 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:When it comes to Haliburton, specifically, there really wasn't competition available for that firm's capabilities.

Regardless, you bid the contract and award it to Halliburton. No-bid contracts are hooey.

So, you're for increased government theater at future taxpayer expense?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests