right to work: anyone notice a difference?

[Jludo]

Typically union reps will present a company with evidence that some large percentage of their employees want representation, the employer declines to bargain with them, and the NLRB holds a formal election. If 50% or more of the employee represented vote for the union the company has to bargain with it in good faith.

This is the law I've been looking for, where is it?
That is what conservatives should be trying to revoke, they shouldn't be trying to pass right to work on top of it. The two can't coexist.

 

[rockhopper46038]

The law you are looking for is the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. And yes, it should be repealed.

 

[Jludo]

The law you are looking for is the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. And yes, it should be repealed.

FDR?? I'm stunned...

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't understand what your qualm is. The union's existence isn't dependent on it's being accepted by the employer.

That is my whole friggin point, the employer is the only one without any say, the union gets to exist in spite of what the employer wants

 

[.356luger]

But employers don't "give" unions permission to dictate terms. Unions negotiate terms to employers, not employees. Unions bargain for employees in an attempt to get higher wages for the collective than the employer would likely pay(so the argument goes) if each employee negotiated solely on his own behalf.

The union sets the minimum scale/wage the employee can negotiate hat ever they want as long as they are not below scale

A union negotiation looks like this TO THE EMPLOYER: "We will only work for you if you......" In your example, the union "negotiation" looks like this TO THE EMPLOYEES: "You can only work for Company X if you join us." In the latter, the union is dictating terms of employment.

Again two way street in my local company x says to the union your people can only work for us if you train them and they get these certifications. Union says ok we will train them if you only hire out of our labor pool. A beneficial relationship

No, in this example the EMPLOYER set the terms of employment. If the union were setting the terms, the people responsible for the short shorts would be the other employees. And they would also require a portion of tips be confiscated from everybody for the purpose of making sure that short shorts would always be required, even if the employer didn't require short shorts.

If enough people felt the short shorts were less favorable to the banana hammock then it could be voted in. The tips would go to Jimmy's dr apt, Nancy's retirement, and Jim Susan and teds immediate death beneficiary and to keep the banana hammock around since they breath so well.... I've heard

That's funny because you're the one arguing that that is exactly what unions do. You are the one saying that membership in the union as demanded by the union is a term of employment. So where do unions get to dictate terms of employment?

This is a two way street when the negotiations are countered by the contractors/business/ect

i.e. we will give you $0.10 on the contract but everyone in your union has to be CPR certified

If it's not set by the employer, then how in the world can it be a term of employment? Again, how does Employee Subset A get to tell Employee Subset B what employment terms are?

By way of a collective vote, vote count, and motion to pass also see above

 

[Twangbanger]

The law you are looking for is the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. And yes, it should be repealed.

Aha! Jludo gets served. I was waiting for it. And it was Rockhopper who dropped the bomb. (It's ok...Wikipedia is always open...we'll wait for you to catch up).

(Didn't you wonder why your buddy MRJarrell wasn't coming to your aid on this one? Ya got hung out to dry, kid!)

No, employers do not "enter into contracts" with a union, in that beautiful, classroom-filmstrip manner in which the issue is presented to you by the Ayn Rand groups handing out literature on the DePauw campus. They are COERCED into it. The union plants arrange the card-signing party...they present the results to the NLRB...and the employer gets SERVED with the unavoidable fact, by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that the union is bringing a truckload of Grasshoppers into his Ant factory.

At that point, his options are that he can comply - or "go forth and multiply." This beautiful, uncoerced free-market "contract" concept that you and the LP are selling here is just a bunch of horse_hit.

The State of Indiana cannot repeal the NLRA. So, they do the next best thing...pass a state RTW law, allowing individual workers not to play if they don't want to. You see, RTW is the state's check against the over-reach of the Federal Gubmint. (Seeing that neither the LP nor anyone else has succeeded in repealing the NLRA in...well, forever...I suspect Indiana made the right call, wouldn't you?)

And as to the OP's question about what difference it has made, I suspect that will be answered after a number of years have passed, and we can observe patterns in how state contracts are awarded - which is mainly what this fight was ever really about at the state level, anyway. That, and the fact that the Democratic party has lost face with their Union constituents - since their legislators weren't willing to miss the Super Bowl to flee the state and deny a quorum to prevent this law getting passed.

When a FOOTBALL GAME means more to you than "Supporting Your Union Brothers and Sisters" - that sorta puts the lie to your principled position, doesn't it?

 

[Exodus]

Before RTW you could opt out of the union at my job. I believe there are 2 that had. They still had/have (not sure about now with RTW) to pay reduced dues though.

 

[deal me in]

Employers can't 'refuse to recognize the union' in that fashion. Typically union reps will present a company with evidence that some large percentage of their employees want representation, the employer declines to bargain with them, and the NLRB holds a formal election. If 50% or more of the employee represented vote for the union the company has to bargain with it in good faith.

Anything less than bargaining in good faith constitutes an unfair labor practice. The employees don't go on strike, the government takes the company to court.

Bargaining in good faith is very subjective. Employer can offer, accept, or decline any terms they want. If they are willing to accept a work stoppage then they can offer compensation and work rules that are worse than pre-union. Most bargain in good faith and compromise as it's better than a work stoppage and hiring/training new employees.

 

[.356luger]

Aha! Jludo gets served. I was waiting for it. And it was Rockhopper who dropped the bomb. (It's ok...Wikipedia is always open...we'll wait for you to catch up).

(Didn't you wonder why your buddy MRJarrell wasn't coming to your aid on this one? Ya got hung out to dry, kid!)

No, employers do not "enter into contracts" with a union, in that beautiful, classroom-filmstrip manner in which the issue is presented to you by the Ayn Rand groups handing out literature on the DePauw campus. They are COERCED into it. The union plants arrange the card-signing party...they present the results to the NLRB...and the employer gets SERVED with the unavoidable fact, by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that the union is bringing a ckload of Grasshoppers into his Ant factory.

Not true just a week ago a contractor became signatory to my local he has 3 employees he did this of his own volition.

Im not sure there is a sitting dem that is a union card holder?

Btw the main principle of the patriot act was to keep us safe too right?

 

[KJQ6945]

Before RTW you could opt out of the union at my job. I believe there are 2 that had. They still had/have (not sure about now with RTW) to pay reduced dues though.

They didn't exactly opt out. They exercised their "Beck rights" to not pay for the unions political agenda. They are then no longer card carrying members, but still pay about 90% their dues. They are then referred to as scabs.

With right to work, you can actually quit if you don't want your dues going to support the democrats that are trying to ruin your way of life. You are then referred to as a scab.

 

[KJQ6945]

To the OP's original question.

The only change I've noticed, is that the union might be a little more receptive to the issues faced by the membership. They are not so quick to blow you off now. They have figured out that doing so costs them members.

The sky has not fallen, as promised. The usual suspects quit the union, no surprise. A few others quit after being ignored over specific issues. A grand total of about 10 members quit out of a couple thousand. Barely measurable.

You mentioned that you are having negative effects personally. What are they?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[.356luger]

To the OP's original question.

The only change I've noticed, is that the union might be a little more receptive to the issues faced by the membership. They are not so quick to blow you off now. They have figured out that doing so costs them members.

The sky has not fallen, as promised. The usual suspects quit the union, no surprise. A few others quit after being ignored over specific issues. A grand total of about 10 members quit out of a couple thousand. Barely measurable.

You mentioned that you are having negative effects personally. What are they?

Quick typing left out time frame in my post. In the future the relationship between contractors and the negotiation committee will deteriorate. Which i believe will cripple the beneficial relationship, that is at times is fragile as it is. That corresponds directly to my/our continued education which is top notch IMHO. The cost of having very nice learning tools goes to the membership which comes out of our dues. The benefit of these tools goes to the contractor and the employee. My school which is through ivy tech and receives an ivy tech diploma is off site and and purpose built to train pipe trades. At a nominal out of pocket fee to me.

Just to name one negative impact.

My reason for starting this thread was to assess the economic growth in Indiana post RTW. It has at least to me done very little to stimulate growth as it was commonly believed it would do. The economic growth i have seen is still following the projected growth/rebound pattern it has been on for the last 4 years. It has also impacted my union far less than originally believed it would at least for this contract period.

 

[octalman]

Sorry I don't seem to recall you adding anything of value to the discussion. I'd be happy to read an overview of Indiana law as it relates to private sector unions.
I'm giving a basic, logical argument for why conservatives should be against right to work. (it's government intervention in private contracts between consenting parties)
By all means, make your position on the subject known.

What was the original question? "Right to Work - anyone notice any difference". What conservatives, liberals, libertarians, any group SHOULD think is off topic.

Did you notice any difference? I have not noticed any difference so far.

I can play in the off topic world since it is more interesting. Right to Work is a necessary piece of legislation to eliminate employees forced to join a union. If a union does great things for it's members, they will attract and keep members. If union membership does not benefit employees, the union not be subsidized by forced membership.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not true just a week ago a contractor became signatory to my local he has 3 employees he did this of his own volition...

Do you mean that an employer and union voluntarily entered into a contract? Well then, good on 'em! More anecdotal evidence that the law isn't having the harmful effects the Democrats and Unions predicted, since it did nothing to prevent that from happening.

But I doubt that many large employers who have unions got them in this manner. Especially in the case of "factory unions," the organizing drives are often adversarial. Trade unions seem to be a better example of behavior that is constructive and mutually beneficial.

The standard Libertarian line on RTW has been that such laws interfere with a voluntary, uncoerced contract relationship between an employer and a union, and therefore represent unwarranted government intervention. But it needs to be pointed out that the arrangement was never uncoercive in nature to begin with, backed as it is by the heavy-handed influence of the Federal Government, via threat of an "unfair labor practice" lawsuit by the NLRB against the employer.

If a Union approaches an employer and says, "We want to organize," then the Employer says, "4Q" and walks away...end of story, in a free market. Any further coercion brought by the Union via the NLRB is government interference. RTW simply means that parties who seek their goals by government coercion, have no right to claim "freedom from coercion" as their rationale for opposing RTW. You either believe in a free market, or you don't. Once you've indicated you don't, the proponents of RTW are simply "granting your wish" within the context of your value system, to paraphrase Ayn Rand.

 

[PwrCruz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but even if you don't join a union or are a dues objector you still have to pay a certain amount of money each month to said union for administrative and or representation fees.
Just because you don't join a union if they have negotiated a contract with an employer they can still charge you a service fee each month because they are required to represent you. The only difference is the amount of money you pay and then you don't even get to vote on the contracts that they negotiate on behalf of the membership.
And to the OP no I have not seen a difference yet since RTW started.

 

[Dosproduction]

there is good and bad to union and nonunion alike. Any one that is one way is a idiot. Unions have done great things in this country and some have done bad things to its members as well as some buisness. I do not think that some one that joins a union shop should get the same pay benifets if they are not part of the union. let them negotiate on there own. Some people would say unions are the reason that Detroit is the way it is (Auto workers). I say if that is so then nonunions are the reason the country is in the poo hole (BANKS (nonunion)). FORD started his union so he could get the best workers he paid them well and gave them benifits and his buisness never hurt for it. If i started a buisness i think it should be up to me if i have a union or not and i would negotiate both ends to see what is better. So where clear I am in a UNION. And i hate democrats as well as republicans. Im a RON PAULer

 

[Libertarian01]

This is the law I've been looking for, where is it?
That is what conservatives should be trying to revoke, they shouldn't be trying to pass right to work on top of it. The two can't coexist.

To Jludo (et alia),

I believe the answer to your question is the National Labor Relations Act, aka the Wagner Act.

IANAL but I think this is the specific law you are looking for: 29 USC § 157 - Right of employees as to organization, collective bargaining, etc. | Title 29 - Labor | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

As the law gives the employees the right "to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing" the employer will then be forced to deal with said representatives.

For the record I see this as simply protecting the individuals right to organize and work together for their own benefit, just as we do on INGO. We get together, share ideas, share links to important firearms and other interests through the media. This then lends power to our ability to donate money where we may want to far beyond our individual ability to search out such stories.

The problem is that Unions are formed during a time of conflict: ALWAYS! A group of workers who are happy and content don't all of sudden on a whim decide to give part of their pay and time that they have worked hard to earn to an organization that cannot make them less unhappy. Unions are born of suffering and despair and as such emotions run high once negotiations are entered into. The workers list of demands are usually initially reasonable, such as the coal miners demands for safety rules in mines and being paid in cash instead of company scrip. Companies that were happy with the status quo don't like being told that they have to sit down and talk about actually paying employees for lost fingers and limbs because they didn't have to before hate the union for cutting into profits.

The issue unsustainable when Unions go too far and make demands that become unprofitable for companies to continue to operate profitably. Unions do this not because they are suicidal but because of decades of mistrust of the company. For decades the company has whined about lost profits and how they will go out of business if they have to follow safety rules or pay employees more money, yet they stay in business right up until they are proven right. Very few companies are willing to be open and honest with their unions.

On the other side IF the company shifts management and tries to become "reasonable" the Union employees are so distrustful of the company that they cannot grasp the concept that they no longer need the union and fail to vote the union out of existence. Also, union officials become used to their power and influence much like career politicians and dig in deeper than ticks on a hound dog to get rid of.

The reality is that employers need employees and employees need employers. Over decades of strife each side fails to realize that the relationship should be symbiotic and they should work together to help each other grow and thrive in a free market environment. A union is a tool used by employees to address a grievance or series of grievances without fear of individual reprisal. The truth is some tools need to be put away when they are no longer needed and some need to be used indefinately. We lack the wisdom to know which is when.

Regards,

Doug

 

[eatsnopaste]

^^^^
YAY Doug!

 

[atvdave]

From a union member to Doug.