Michigan voting on "right to work", what is the controversy here?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Tagger or spence, without conflating completely unrelated topics like child-labor laws, US working conditions from 50 years ago or China's lack of labor laws, What is the negative to giving today's US workers a choice to be part of a union or not?

In that case the employer has already negotiated with the union to provide representation.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

In that case the employer has already negotiated with the union to provide representation.

-spence

Ah yes, another vague response that dodges the question.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Ah yes, another vague response that dodges the question.

LOL JD, get in line, I'm still waiting for his answers to 5 of my unanswered questions.
Spence is like a shrewd politician, he thinks if he waits long enuff and dances
around enuff you'll forget the question.

[TheSpecialist]

This is just me, but we all hate free riders right? Illegals with free tuition, welfare abusers etc. This is just another form of it, because in a right to Work state if you work in a Union shop and you don't have to join you still reap the collective bargaining rewards that the other are paying for. Raises, vacation and sick time,bonuses and anything else that union dues are paying for to be bargained you also get, a free ride.

My union dues are less than $20 a week, a small price to pay for the security of a good stable job with a good wage, and great benefits.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

This is just me, but we all hate free riders right? Illegals with free tuition, welfare abusers etc. This is just another form of it, because in a right to Work state if you work in a Union shop and you don't have to join you still reap the collective bargaining rewards that the other are paying for. Raises, vacation and sick time,bonuses and anything else that union dues are paying for to be bargained you also get, a free ride.

This isn't necessarily the case from people that I've worked with that are from RTW states. Frequently, people that opt-out have the potential to be the first cut when layoffs need to come because they do not have the same protections as the union works. Also, the company is under no obligation to keep employees that underperform who aren't part of the union.

At the same time, if you opt-out of the union, there's actually incentive to excel because the company does not have to operate raised based on indiscriminate, seniority-based pay raises.

With the good, comes the bad. You opt-out and you don't get the same job security protections. However, you also have the potential to be rewarded relative to the quality of your work.

[justplugit]

Prolly should be in the joke thread, but what a betta place then this.

A union boss walks into a bar, sits down,orders a beer,and sees a guy sitting at the bar with a Romney button on and 2 beers in front of him.
The union boss thinks, "This guy is prolly drowning his sorrows, being Obama
got re- elected."
So he thinks, "I'll really rub it in" and yells to the bartender
"Drinks for the house for everyone except for the Republican."
The Republican smiles,waves at the union boss and says, "Thank You!!!"
The guy thinks WTH, that didn't get him, I'll do it again and yells out, "drinks for
the house,except for the Republican." The Republican smiles, at the union boss
and says "Thank you!!!
This infuriates the boss, so he yells out again "Drinks for the house,except for the
Republican." Again the Republican smiles at the union boss and says "Thank You".
The union boss is now out of his mind with rage and says to the bartender,
"Whats the matter with this guy, is he a crazy arse or something?"
"Nope" says the bartender,
"He owns the place."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

This is just me, but we all hate free riders right? Illegals with free tuition, welfare abusers etc. This is just another form of it, because in a right to Work state if you work in a Union shop and you don't have to join you still reap the collective bargaining rewards that the other are paying for. Raises, vacation and sick time,bonuses and anything else that union dues are paying for to be bargained you also get, a free ride.

The comparison to illegals and welfare abusers is a false correlation. Right to workers are not illegal and they are not on welfare. They are just as legal as union workers and work for their pay as do union workers. Their relation is with the company, not the union and the company does not give them a free ride. They must, at a minimum, meet company standards or they can be fired more easily, as JohnnyD pointed out, than union workers. And the company is not obligated to pay them as much as union workers, neither is the company forbidden to pay them higher, as JohnnyD also pointed out. The union might well put up a big stink if they were paid higher. And the union would also not like it if they were given less in pay and benefits since that would encourage the company even more strongly to replace union workers with non-union workers. So the easiest way would be to pay them the same.

My major objection to collective bargaining as it is enforced by government is that it violates the Constitutional freedom of association granted to individuals. The power that unions have was granted by FDR's creation of the National Labor Relations Board and the FDR Court's acceptance of it on purely political rather than constitutional grounds; and that board's decision to favor unions by granting them the right to bargain through enforced collectives, violating individual's rights to bargain for themselves (free association). The employer's rights of association are also violated not only because he cannot bargain with individual workers according to their individual merit, he is not allowed to associate with other similar employers to form a collective resistance to union demands, while workers can be represented by large national or international unions.

It would be more equitable and reasonable if collective bargaining was between the company and those employees who chose to form an inter-company union. There would be no outside influence by representatives who have broader concerns than those most "fair" and profitable to the company and its employees. These would be voluntary unions which would not force those who didn't want to join to be part of their negotiations. As it is now, the deck is stacked and individual freedoms are abridged.

My union dues are less than $20 a week, a small price to pay for the security of a good stable job with a good wage, and great benefits.

Are you certain that your job security is a result of your union? Doesn't that depend more on the viability and profitability of your employer and his business? A substantial amount of money is collected nationwide as union dues--are you satisfied with how they are politically distributed? You seem to be not only satisfied with your union, it seems that you would rather have it than not. Wouldn't it be easy to convince others to join?

As to the notion of "free riders", aren't there some union members who get a free ride when they aren't as productive as or more disruptive than most of their fellow workers, but get away with it by being protected by the union?