Michigan Newest Right to Work State

[guido911]

Glad I'm not one of 'em.

Funny, you are being led by them. And you will be for the foreseeable future. 

[Townsend]

Funny, you are being led by them. And you will be for the foreseeable future. 

I'd suggest another word than "led".

It feels as though many things move forward in spite of instead of thanks to the Oklahoma legislature.  That, of course, can be said of many government entities.

[Red Arrow]

However, you will, of course get the last word.

Whatever makes you happy.

[TulsaRufnex]

Whatever makes you happy.

Thanks for proving Hoss's point.   

[Red Arrow]

Thanks for proving Hoss's point.   

I couldn't sleep thinking I had disappointed Hoss.

Plus.....
What a clever way to try to get the last word.  Challenge me to not get the last word by saying I couldn't resist. 

[Hoss]

I'd suggest another word than "led".

It feels as though many things move forward in spite of instead of thanks to the Oklahoma legislature.  That, of course, can be said of many government entities.

True, but how many state legislatures are so often the butt of jokes of our backwards-ness?  Maybe Tennessee.

Fark has an icon for Florida in the headline recaps.  I'm surprised they don't have one for Oklahoma.

[cynical]

Like I wrote many years back, could you imagine what would happen if doctors and lawyers formed unions. Think about your health care costs being increased whenever docs got disgruntled and wanted more. Or, what if they went on strike. I wonder how quickly we would see sympathy strikes pop up in support of those strikes. Probably none since doctors are not "labor".

As far as RTW, I thought its actual affect was persons got to choose whether to join a union or not. That's all. Sounds like democracy to me.

I might have mentioned this before, but compulsory union membership has been illegal nationwide since passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. RTW has no effect at all on that issue. It's all about money.

[Red Arrow]

I might have mentioned this before, but compulsory union membership has been illegal nationwide since passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947.

That must have been something too many people didn't read even after Taft-Hartley was passed.

[TulsaRufnex]

I might have mentioned this before, but compulsory union membership has been illegal nationwide since passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. RTW has no effect at all on that issue. It's all about money.

Technically correct I guess, but in practice it's more like,  "you're paying the same money for the union to represent you, so there's no reason NOT to join."
Unfortunately, RTW gives the right to work for a union shop in which that union is still required to negotiate on their behalf, while they don't have to pay anything for that service.

Taft-Hartley allowed states to pass RTW laws...

IMO, right-to-work is for people who want something for nothing... kinda like if I don't vote for the winning political party of the governor of Oklahoma or POTUS, I don't have to pay my taxes...



Now... back to our regularly scheduled anti-union propaganda from Guido and newsbusters...  

[Red Arrow]

Unfortunately, RTW gives the right to work for a union shop in which that union is still required to negotiate on their behalf, while they don't have to pay anything for that service.

If you don't want to pay the dues or join the union in a union shop, you should have to negotiate your own deal or at least take the same deal as other non-union workers at the same place.  It may be the same deal as the union deal which would understandably irritate the union folks.  It may be a different deal which shouldn't bother the union folks.

[Ed W]

Unfortunately, RTW gives the right to work for a union shop in which that union is still required to negotiate on their behalf, while they don't have to pay anything for that service.

I'm wondering about a possible next step in the RTW movement.  Imagine for a moment that an employer decides to pay his non-union workers 10% more than the union guys doing the same job.  He could argue that the contract prevents him from paying those union workers more, decimating the union ranks as members abandon it for better pay.  In a short time, the union all but ceases to exist, and the employer finds cause to fire the few remaining members.  Shortly thereafter, everyone takes a 30% pay cut.  

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be a plausible way to destroy a union.

[Red Arrow]

Imagine for a moment that an employer decides to pay his non-union workers 10% more than the union guys doing the same job.

What you propose is not impossible.  I envision that for 10% more pay, the workers would have to be more flexible as a minimum.  Perhaps that flexibility would be filling in to change the left main gear tire when a co-worker is on vacation even though the first worker's job description is to change right main gear tires. (Intentional exaggeration)

He could argue that the contract prevents him from paying those union workers more, decimating the union ranks as members abandon it for better pay.

The contract probably would prevent him from paying union workers more. It also prevents the employer from paying the union workers less than the contract if business drops off.   The contract provides some job security not available to at-will workers.  There may also be other benefits with the contract that the non-union workers didn't get.  Things like representation in the case of a dispute with the employer are worth something.  The total compensation package, including benefits only provided by the union and the contract, would have to be evaluated by each worker before his/her decision to leave the union for 10% or whatever. 

In a short time, the union all but ceases to exist, and the employer finds cause to fire the few remaining members.

I don't believe that would generally be possible during the duration of the contract.  At contract renewal time, the union members would certainly have less clout than when they were a majority.  When most of a work force quits their job with the hope that no one will take it while negotiating a new contract goes on strike, it is more effective than if only a few do.

Shortly thereafter, everyone takes a 30% pay cut.

Suddenly the union has value again.  That employer would get a union work force back faster than he could say "pay cut".  All the previous union workers would know how to take care of that quickly.  Right to Work does not (as I understand it, at least in the private sector) deny the workers the right to have a union.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be a plausible way to destroy a union.

When an employer treats the employees fairly, there is generally no need for a union.  If there is a union, there should be no reason for hate and discontent between the workers and employer when the employer treats the workers fairly.  Yes, it can happen.  Unfortunately, it often does not.  An employer that dumps on its employees deserves union troubles.  How much is a subject all in its own.

Slight semantics disclaimer:  I have been told by a friend in no uncertain terms and some really nasty language in an emotional outbreak (I had to leave before he gave himself a heart attack.) that workers who are union members are not union workers as they (generally) do not work for the union, they are represented by the union.  While my friend is technically correct, I use the term "union worker" as most of us do to mean workers who are members of and represented by a union.

[TulsaRufnex]

If you don't want to pay the dues or join the union in a union shop, you should have to negotiate your own deal or at least take the same deal as other non-union workers at the same place.  It may be the same deal as the union deal which would understandably irritate the union folks.  It may be a different deal which shouldn't bother the union folks.

In Indiana, more than a decade prior to RTW being passed there, I took a job over the summer in Bloomington at Kroger and was given paperwork at time of employment to accept/decline union membership.  
I was informed this would have no effect on the amount that was taken out of paychecks for union dues, however.
I am not a fan of unionizing supermarkets... or gas stations... or discount retailers...
However, if I could convince half the employees to vote out the union, it could be done... and if I could convince half the employees to vote IN a union, I'd likely be fired before it got that far... such is how the deck is stacked in many/most modern-day workplaces, and how the REAL world works when worker protections in place are minimal at best based on decades old laws that no longer take in consideration new realities...

http://www.unions.org/union-benefits/articles/how-to-start-a-union.html

If I HATED unions, I could work for a non-union supermarket, retail, etc...

I once believed unions were too strong (1980s)... now I find reality to be just the opposite...
I once believed that Michigan should have RTW and Oklahoma should not... I now believe "Right-to-work" to be a term of Orwellian dimensions.

And my young-Republican friends in college told me I was supposed to get more convervative as I aged... funny dat.

[guido911]

I'm wondering about a possible next step in the RTW movement.  Imagine for a moment that an employer decides to pay his non-union workers 10% more than the union guys doing the same job.  He could argue that the contract prevents him from paying those union workers more, decimating the union ranks as members abandon it for better pay.  In a short time, the union all but ceases to exist, and the employer finds cause to fire the few remaining members.  Shortly thereafter, everyone takes a 30% pay cut.  

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be a plausible way to destroy a union.

[cynical]

I'm wondering about a possible next step in the RTW movement.  Imagine for a moment that an employer decides to pay his non-union workers 10% more than the union guys doing the same job.  He could argue that the contract prevents him from paying those union workers more, decimating the union ranks as members abandon it for better pay.  In a short time, the union all but ceases to exist, and the employer finds cause to fire the few remaining members.  Shortly thereafter, everyone takes a 30% pay cut. 

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be a plausible way to destroy a union.

Under current labor law this scenario is unlikely to impossible. Except for the pro sports and entertainment industries in which unions negotiate minimums but permit individuals to negotiate over scale rates, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer or a union to discriminate among members of a collective bargaining unit based in their union membership or lack of union membership. Wages of members if the bargaining unit are set by collective bargaining. The employer is not free to offer non-union bargaining unit members extra money to reward them for being non-union, or for any other reason for that matter. And the union is not free to withhold the benefits of union representation from non-union members of bargaining units. This is the gist of RTW: a non-union worker has all if the rights of union representation (except political rights such as contract ratification, negotiating committee service, etc.) while not having to pay a dime for it. Red's idea of unions representing union members while the non-members fend for themselves is resisted most strenuously by the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that regularly pays for legal counsel to sue unions for alleged breaches of the unions' duty of fair representation. As I said before, the issue is not the right of workers to be free from unions, it is depriving unions of revenues while requiring them under threats of megabucks lawsuits to spend members' dues representing non-members. This agenda is exceptionally cynical and the media discussion, focused as it is on the false issue of compulsory union membership, is either exceptionally incompetent or exceptionally dishonest. It is a pure power play, and one the unions an workers in general have lost. I read today that private sector union membership has dropped to below 8% of all private sector employees. Meanwhile, unions continue to be vilified as the cause of all of our economic trouble. It doesn't add up and can't be made to add up.