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.

>> ^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:

In fact, they make it illegal for a group of unionized workers to negotiate a contract that requires each employee who enjoys the benefits of the contract terms to pay his or her share of costs for negotiating and policing the contract.

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:

Full Text of Oklahoma’s Right to Work State Law: (“RTW States O”).
Oklahoma. Constitution. Article. 23, § 1A provides:
A. As used in this section, "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or agency or employee representation committee or union, that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation.

B. No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to:
Resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization;
Become or remain a member of a labor organization;
Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization;
Pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or pro rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization; or
Be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.



Full Text of Texas’s Right to Work State Law: (“RTW States T”).
§ 101.004. Contract for Withholding Union Dues from Employee's Compensation Void Without Employee's Consent
A contract that permits or requires the retention of part of an employee's compensation to pay dues or assessments on the employee's part to a labor union is void unless the employee delivers to the employer the employee's written consent to the retention of those sums. (Enacted 1993.)

§ 101.052. Denial of Employment Based on Labor Union Membership Prohibited
A person may not be denied employment based on membership or nonmembership in a labor union. (Enacted 1993.)

§ 101.053. Contract Requiring or Prohibiting Labor Union Membership Void
A contract is void if it requires that, to work for an employer, employees or applicants for employment:
(1) must be or may not be members of a labor union; or
(2) must remain or may not remain members of a labor union.

>> ^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:

In fact, they make it illegal for a group of unionized workers to negotiate a contract that requires each employee who enjoys the benefits of the contract terms to pay his or her share of costs for negotiating and policing the contract.

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.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jwray:

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

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

>> ^jwray:

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

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

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

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).

Non-union.

What's that? Eddie won't go on stage without red M&M's?

Well, screw it, bring me his Mexican non-union equivalent!

>> ^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.

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...

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.

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?

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?

>> ^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.

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.