Michigan Newest Right to Work State

[Red Arrow]

I am not a fan of unionizing supermarkets... or gas stations... or discount retailers...

Just curious (not being a smarta$$), why?

[Red Arrow]

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.

Were there some major definition changes in the last 50 or so years like maybe the definition of bargaining unit?  I remember my dad saying his employer was able to pay non-union workers differently than union workers a long time ago.  The difference may have also involved "bargaining unit" and/or workers from the same employer but a different region brought in temporarily.  Dad passed away several years ago so it will be difficult to ask him (and get an answer).

[Conan71]

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.

Do you remember when the union meat cutters walked out on Safeway back in the 1980's here?  Anyone know if there are unions left in Oklahoma grocers?

[AquaMan]

Safeway had a clever way of diminishing union influence back in the 80's. Once cashiers hit the $10 an hour mark, (before digitized pos stations) they simply closed the stores, fired the employees and sold the stores to a new group of owners who offered the jobs back to the employees at minimum wage. The union then had to start from scratch to re-organize. Of course the new owners consisted of management from the old operation. It worked so well it has been copied for a long time now.

Right to work laws are like "death panels", "death taxes" and "job creators". They are pooh packaged and labeled as candy.

The most common Okie union related phrase I hear is "Well, Unions used to serve a need and were helpful. Now they just aren't necessary". No explanation why or supporting logic. This from workers who are paid much less than non RTW states for the same jobs. Unions have lost the PR battle in the south and now are vulnerable from the same "Sauerkraut" mentality in other states.

A caveat. I joined a union on my current job even though I have a BBA. I know what unscrupulous management can and will do (I spent some time in that brotherhood). The union is now my only defense against their behaviors.

[DolfanBob]

Do you remember when the union meat cutters walked out on Safeway back in the 1980's here?  Anyone know if there are unions left in Oklahoma grocers?

My Mother had worked at Safeway for many years and her boyfriend at the time was a Safeway meat cutter. I remember that strike very well. I hadn't thought about that in years. When Homeland bought out all the Safeways here. She stayed on maybe a year but her wage was cut twice and her benefits were a lot less also. She eventually was forced into a early retirement by the new corporate managment.

[Ed W]

 

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.

I've worked for small business owners who treated their employees fairly and paid an adequate wage.  I've also worked for a few who cheated employees out of wages, cheated on their taxes, and were unscrupulous toward their customers.  Had those businesses grown larger, I'd expect the management culture to remain the same.

As I wrote previously - perhaps in another thread - I've worked for a corporation that had a comprehensive employee policy that was written to cover most situations.  While the company adhered to it, there were few problems.  Eventually, however, as layoffs cut deeper and deeper into the workforce, they threw out the policy and let favoritism and nepotism hold sway.  "You can't lay off so-and-so.  He's the production manager's son-in-law!"  Morale crumbled as the remaining workers realized that there were no longer any rules.  Management took the same approach with the professional help, mainly engineers and IT folks, with all of them leaving as a result.  They brought in some kids right out of school, hiring them cheaply, and found that they were simply not up to the tasks.  The company folded.  

I'm not trying to imply that their failure was entirely based on the way they treated the employees, but it was undoubtedly a factor.

Then there's the company I work for at present.  They 'negotiated' with the unions for about 5 years, sending people to the meetings who had no authority to advance any deals.  They repudiated positions they'd agreed to previously.  In short, they did not negotiate in good faith while preparing to enter bankruptcy proceedings.  None of the union groups trust them.  They took the cost savings from the 2003 'negotiations' and handed them out to upper management as bonuses.  And they're in line for another round of bonuses if they can avoid a merger before emerging from bankruptcy.  

So yes, Red, when a company treats employees as a valuable part of their business, there's little need for a union.  On the other hand, when a company regards their employees as just a number, a cost, or no more than a piece of machinery, unions serve to protect their jobs and working conditions.  It's an article of faith among some that Unions Are Evil just as it's a similar belief that Corporations Are Greedy. It's not entirely true nor is it entirely false, either.  

If all companies were to treat employees as a valued part of the business, offering wages and benefits commensurate with their ability and skill, we'd have a far more stable labor environment.  But that's merely a way of re-stating "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."  It's a utopian view of human nature, but it's a failure as an economic system.      

[Red Arrow]

I've worked for small business owners who treated their employees fairly and paid an adequate wage.  I've also worked for a few who cheated employees out of wages, cheated on their taxes, and were unscrupulous toward their customers.

I have been more fortunate than you.  I have been treated fairly (as far as I know) but haven't always liked the outcome.  I don't count wages of part time jobs while in college for fairness with regards to a "living wage".  Even there, I did OK for summer job pay until I got not-hired for a 3rd summer due to affirmative action.  "Real" job salaries have been fair.

They brought in some kids right out of school, hiring them cheaply, and found that they were simply not up to the tasks.

One of my uncles got RIFed when in his mid 50s shortly after the company he worked for was sold to a large corporation.  It eventually took 3 young guys to replace him.

Then there's the company I work for at present. ... They took the cost savings from the 2003 'negotiations' and handed them out to upper management as bonuses.  And they're in line for another round of bonuses if they can avoid a merger before emerging from bankruptcy.

Some of my friends work for your employer.  Some of my friends are former employees of your employer.  I see information from both sides of the union "issue" at your employer but it is at best 2nd hand since I have not worked there.  I think there is blame to go around on both sides.  Having said that though, there is no excuse for the bonuses given to executives after the big wage and benefit concessions given by the unions in 2003.
 

If all companies were to treat employees as a valued part of the business, offering wages and benefits commensurate with their ability and skill, we'd have a far more stable labor environment.

Add contribution to the company and I'll agree.  Someone with skill and ability who does not (or cannot due to being underemployed) contribute accordingly needs to get paid according to their contribution.  I'm sure everyone can think of some specific exceptions but as a generality I believe in pay for contribution.

But that's merely a way of re-stating "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

We part ways here.  That's why I added contribution to the comment above.  A guy with a wife and 6 kids who sweeps the floor may need more income than a single guy checking the stress on a wing attach fastener but I believe the stress analysis is worth a higher compensation package.

[Ed W]

I'm sure everyone can think of some specific exceptions but as a generality I believe in pay for contribution.
We part ways here.  That's why I added contribution to the comment above.  A guy with a wife and 6 kids who sweeps the floor may need more income than a single guy checking the stress on a wing attach fastener but I believe the stress analysis is worth a higher compensation package.

I could have been more clear.  My thinking is that an employee must be contributing to the business through his labor and his ideas, otherwise he shouldn't be there at all.  Sadly, I've known people who were 'suitcases' - being carried by their coworkers rather than pulling their own weight, and that's been true in both union and non-union environments.  Given the rigorous safety aspects of my job, I'd rather not work next to someone doing the least necessary to get by. 

[Red Arrow]

I could have been more clear.  My thinking is that an employee must be contributing to the business through his labor and his ideas, otherwise he shouldn't be there at all.  Sadly, I've known people who were 'suitcases' - being carried by their coworkers rather than pulling their own weight, and that's been true in both union and non-union environments.  Given the rigorous safety aspects of my job, I'd rather not work next to someone doing the least necessary to get by. 

Agreed.

[TulsaRufnex]

Just curious (not being a smarta$$), why?

Because I think organized labor should be limited to skilled trades or physical labor.
I mean, the skill of moving a bar code over a scanner, and knowing the difference between PLU #s for lettuce variations doesn't merit forming a union, IMHO.
At least, as long as there is a minimum wage that keeps employers from playing games with the pool of unskilled labor...

Once again, these days, my perspective has changed...  Wal-mart workers now have to sell everything from tires, tv's, cell phones and computers to produce, condiments, meat/poultry, sudafed and vacuum cleaners... geez.  

[cynical]

Were there some major definition changes in the last 50 or so years like maybe the definition of bargaining unit?  I remember my dad saying his employer was able to pay non-union workers differently than union workers a long time ago.  The difference may have also involved "bargaining unit" and/or workers from the same employer but a different region brought in temporarily.  Dad passed away several years ago so it will be difficult to ask him (and get an answer).

There has been no major change in the definition of "bargaining unit" since Taft-Hartley. Unit clarifications are conducted by the NLRB on petition. The NLRB's determination is based on the "community of interest" of the workers on a case by case basis. It would be inconceivable for workers on the same assembly line for example, to not be included in the same bargaining unit, but employers such as Hostess will frequently have multiple bargaining units and multiple union contracts. In that sense, the company could have a contract covering one bargaining unit while another potential bargaining unit has declined to authorize a union to represent them.

[Red Arrow]

Because I think organized labor should be limited to skilled trades or physical labor.
I mean, the skill of moving a bar code over a scanner, and knowing the difference between PLU #s for lettuce variations doesn't merit forming a union, IMHO.
At least, as long as there is a minimum wage that keeps employers from playing games with the pool of unskilled labor...

Once again, these days, my perspective has changed...  Wal-mart workers now have to sell everything from tires, tv's, cell phones and computers to produce, condiments, meat/poultry, sudafed and vacuum cleaners... geez.  

Thank you.

[Red Arrow]

In that sense, the company could have a contract covering one bargaining unit while another potential bargaining unit has declined to authorize a union to represent them.

That may well have been the situation.