search results matching tag: non union
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds
Videos (3) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (51) |
Videos (3) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (51) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Santorum: I Don't Believe in Separation of Church and State
Okay, so the problem isn't "fictitious" it's widespread, but in your opinion could easily be solved by the unions if only they weren't so ignorant of the law.
Except, both the union and anti-union sites I've found say that unions are required to represent everyone due to federal labor laws. They don't specify which statute contains that requirement, and IANAL, but I'm guessing it's the Wagner Act, specifically the part about "Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization."
After all, saying "pay your dues, or you don't get our benefits" would be pretty coercive, especially if the union just negotiated for better safety equipment...
>> ^jwray:
That's incidental and avoidable consequence of the law, not part of the actual law. Right to work laws do not say that union contracts have to apply to all employees regardless of whether they're in the union or not. Many union contracts just happen to have been written without considering that. Employers would easily agree to changing the terms of union contracts to be inapplicable to non-union workers.
Santorum: I Don't Believe in Separation of Church and State
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^jwray:
That free rider problem is fictitious. Unions need not write contracts that apply to non-union employees.
From the paper you linked, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence:
Which is to say, the whole point of the legislation is to create a free rider problem as a way to financially undermine unions.
It's definitely true that the proponents of Right to Work will tell you that they're really about giving workers "freedom" from the job-killing tyranny of unions, but that's why it's on my list of perverse ways in which Republicans use the word freedom.
That's incidental and avoidable consequence of the law, not part of the actual law. Right to work laws do not say that union contracts have to apply to all employees regardless of whether they're in the union or not. Many union contracts just happen to have been written without considering that. Employers would easily agree to changing the terms of union contracts to be inapplicable to non-union workers.
Here is the actual text of some right to work laws:
Santorum: I Don't Believe in Separation of Church and State
>> ^jwray:
That free rider problem is fictitious. Unions need not write contracts that apply to non-union employees.
From the paper you linked, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence:
Which is to say, the whole point of the legislation is to create a free rider problem as a way to financially undermine unions.
It's definitely true that the proponents of Right to Work will tell you that they're really about giving workers "freedom" from the job-killing tyranny of unions, but that's why it's on my list of perverse ways in which Republicans use the word freedom.
Santorum: I Don't Believe in Separation of Church and State
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^jwray:
That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
That free rider problem is fictitious. Unions need not write contracts that apply to non-union employees.
RTW states have 3.2% lower wages on average, but they have 1% lower unemployment and 8% lower cost-of-living.*
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf
Santorum: I Don't Believe in Separation of Church and State
>> ^jwray:
That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Santorum: I Don't Believe in Separation of Church and State
That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).
Crazy Fast Hand Cake Lady
Non-union.
Mi nombre es Eddie Vedder!
What's that? Eddie won't go on stage without red M&M's?
Well, screw it, bring me his Mexican non-union equivalent!
The Most Aggressive Defense Of Teachers You’ll Hear
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
He didn't like being lumped into a big bucket, or painted with a broad brush? Yes, that is rather unfair. So why do the exact same thing to lawyers?
At what point in this video does he do that?
"I resist the urge to remind the other dinner guests that it's also true what they say about lawyers.".
So.. if you were one of said dinner guests at this likely fictional dinner, you would have left there thinking he never fired back at the lawyer.
In his retelling of it, he never mentions what the urge was to say. It was most likely just a vulgar shot back.. as in something like 'they have small.....', or whatver. I say this because he then mentions 'they're eating, and in polite company'.
That's kinda beside the point anyways, because his rant was more about the contrast of the lawyer in the story's outlook of doing work for pay - where he teaches out of a genuine desire to teach, that's what drives him.. not money. Though he may very well desire to be rich just like pretty much everyone else. Therefore it was an insult to him for the other person to discuss pay, and snub his nose offhandidly over it. Some people do jobs because it's "what they were born to do", despite pay.. it may be something they love (or more in line with what's being expressed in the video) because they believe they're doing good in the world. I don't see the poem being so much about being stereo-typed or lumped together into some "big bucket" with other teachers.
Ontop of all this if you're take anything political / union / non-union / whatever from this, that's your baggage.
I believe your whole anti-union political thought process is what spurred you to shoot this guy down in some fashion.. work in a jab somehow.
Cheesy Anti-Union Video All Target Employees Must Endure
While there are sycophantic unions out there the majority are holding the line on little items like cost of living increases and medical care. I'll take a union any day over a non-union one.
This is just an ad for rich people trying to get others to fight THEIR fight. And it works...
Cheesy Anti-Union Video All Target Employees Must Endure
I like how when they talk about crosstraining possibilities in a non-union they begin walking past the funnest parts of the store to work in. Suddenly they're in the electronics, movie and CD music area. Places employees watching the video would begin thinking, "Oh man I'm in shoes, but Id love to get cross trained for selling THAT stuff.. Can't do that in a union? But I'm quite the music buff myself, actually...", etc.
Stopping here though.. can't stomach anymore cheese.
Dagny Taggart Confronts the Union in Atlas Shrugged Part 1
How appropriate that an anti-union film would have such amateurish, non-union styled performances and production values. Who ever said you needed skilled labor to make a good movie?
Wisconsin & Anonymous Strike Back!
Unions are fine, as long as they're negotiating with their respective private companies. And if/when their business model fails, both union and business should be allowed to fail and disappear. While GM failed, Toyota was still making vehicles and their non-union workers are paid well.
Authorizing "public" unions was a mistake. Kennedy didn't live long enough to see his folly. The taxpayer is bled like a stuck pig by the puppet with a sharp stick that unions elect. Union worker performance is held accountable by no one: competence, merit and competition never even enter the equation.
How does this graft protect my "worker rights" or help society?
Michael Moore - America is NOT Broke (Madison, WI March 5th)
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
•Corrupt union leaders then personally negotiate with thier pet-elected corrupt politicians to freeze unrealistic pay, benefits, and work rules for unions
Throughout this entire mess, I have not seen any evidence of the lazy, overpaid union workers like the right keeps claiming. Where is the gravy train? From the studies I've seen, the union workers are at best paid a few percentage points higher than non-union. And the ones I believe, which take into account required education levels and responsibilities, indicate that public sector union workers could do better in the private sector.
I don't buy it. If the union workers are earning too much money, show us the proof and we will elect officials who run on the platform of negotiating for more reasonable pay levels. That hasn't happened, and it makes me believe that it's a load of bullshit.
Even if it is true, the proper route is to demonstrate the problem to the public, not bust the unions. We're the boss, remember? It's our money. Let everybody decide how to fix the problem if there is one. But right now, the majority of Americans are firmly behind unions. This whole Republican union-busting movement is a despicable end-run around the will of the people. And if there is any justice, they will be crushed for it in the next election.
TYT: O'Reilly Loves His Union
So, because China doesnt have unions, public sector workers in Winsconsin shouldnt have them either? Does that mean they'll consider sending schoolchildren to China to be educated there, if chinese non-union teachers makes a better offer?
I'd say we offer Beck,Limbaugh and O'reilly's jobs up to ousted, non-union dictators like Gaddafi, they seem to have a much firmer grasp on reality.