SCOTUS: Public union can't make nonmembers pay fees

[Libertarian01]

...and if there was no federal law forcing the business owner to allow for organization, would it happen? Is the business owner really agreeing to "this setup" or are they agreeing to terms, having been forced to accept that they have no freedom not to.

A VERY good question. Is this analogous to being forced to submit to binding arbitration with EVERY SINGLE credit card out there. Or, being forced to go through mediation (at least in Allen County) when I am going to refuse to settle and want to drag the other guy through the court. My point here is that unions aren't the only thing we're forced to deal with.

But the real answer goes back, I believe at least in part, to the early days of the labor movement. In the early days Pinkerton men gunned down strikers, and not just once. Strikers became violent and broke stuff, plus shot back or initiated shooting. Talking is almost always better than throwing punches, so the government forced recognition, thus granting the power to people to organize and gain strength.

Relatively easily. Two pronged attack of "go to college or you'll end up digging ditches" and the associated presumption it's morally superior to avoid manual labor combined with big business interests masquerading as conservative social causes.

You see in here quite a bit. A union shop goes under, the union killed it. A non-union shop goes under...mystery. A union shop goes overseas, the union killed it. A non-union shop goes overseas...mystery. Union shop puts out a bad product...well, you get the idea. Note you seldom, if ever, see any threads here where management and/or investors killed a business. I didn't see any mention of Toys R Us going bankrupt. Non-union shop, so not as interesting as Hostess going under. But Toys R Us was dragged under by a leveraged buyout putting about $500 million in debt on the books at a time when there's no way to get the needed margins to pay that back out of retail. But "job creators", you know.

This is a good point. I had a friend that worked for four (4) unions before returning to Fort Wayne. He said that in two (2) of the shops the union was killing the company, but in the other two (2) the union was saving it (or at least trying to) due to horrible management.

It's a bit more than that. At least for me. I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-crony union. I'd be a lot more in favor of unions if everyone had the freedom of association the constitution implies. Why just one union for an industry in the same business? Why shouldn't unions compete for members? Why should individuals HAVE to join unions? Why should negotiated benefits for union members HAVE to be applied to everyone? Why should non-union members have to pay fees? Oops. They don't anymore. 1 down, many to go before unions are sane.

I used to be anti-union. Now I'm anti-abuse. The cronyism part would fall into the abuse category.

Unions aren't built for competition. Onve they've achieved certain goals, they're built to maintain the status quo.

I believe this is true for American industrial unions. My understanding of the German mindset is a very different one. Respect is given to the workers by the management and the respect is reciprocal. They work together to build the best product and the union facilitates easy management by having one (1) contract with clearly understood discipline levels, pay grades, etc.

Ya know, on reflection they are competing for members....and they're losing. If employees and employers really saw value in associating with a union, membership would be rising instead of steady decline.

For years I have believed that unions have done a horrible marketing job of selling the reason they are useful and/or needed. They need to step up their game if they hope to have value in the 21st century American industry.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

If you want to make a historical argument as to why there are unions and why there is federal law requiring employers to deal with them (under specific situations), I will not argue. There were good reasons. That is not my point.

My only point was to be accurate. Many (possibly not all) employers deal with unions because they have to, not out of a desire to enter CBAs voluntarily because they think its best for their business. In other words, the NLRA and the compulsion to deal with unions is the very antithesis of libertarianism.

Also, whatever people believe about professional licensing, it is not analogous, in the least, with unions. I am licensed to practice law by the state, but essentially for the same reason drivers are licensed. To protect the public. Damage from an incompetent and untrained lawyer can be devastating and permanent. The public may not see it, but on a daily basis, the state Supreme Court is investigating claims of attorney misconduct and, rather than protecting them from the consequences, punishing them.

There are groups of professionals who seek to influence public policy, but I am not a member of any. It is not required. I decide whether to donate money to political causes. None of my money is extracted and sent to support causes I do not support simply because I am a lawyer.

No organization negotiates my wages or benefits. I do. No organization determines my legal fees. The market does.

Now, none of this is anti-union. I have said nothing anti-union. I am just interested in, if the issue is going to be discussed, we do so based upon reality.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's a bit more than that. At least for me. I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-crony union. I'd be a lot more in favor of unions if everyone had the freedom of association the constitution implies. Why just one union for an industry in the same business? Why shouldn't unions compete for members? Why should individuals HAVE to join unions? Why should negotiated benefits for union members HAVE to be applied to everyone? Why should non-union members have to pay fees? Oops. They don't anymore. 1 down, many to go before unions are sane.

Unions do compete for members. If 1/3 of the members petition, a union can be changed for a different one or removed entirely. (Simplified, but basically you'd get a vote between "old union", "new union", and "no union" but if you vote out the old union your existing contract is almost certainly nullified).

Freedom of association seems an odd thing to hang your hat on in employment terms. You have no right to work for Ford or GE. You don't HAVE to join a union and never have.

 

[HoughMade]

What if GM or Ford, or any employer, wanted to hire you, but you didn't want to be a union member?

Should the employer and prospective employee be able to strike that bargain? If not, why not?

 

[Expat]

What if GM or Ford, or any employer, wanted to hire you, but you didn't want to be a union member?

Should the employer and prospective employee be able to strike that bargain? If not, why not?

Why not? We should have the right to contract as we see fit. Even beyond that, if there was no such contract but GM only wanted to employ union people, that should be their right.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What if GM or Ford, or any employer, wanted to hire you, but you didn't want to be a union member?

Should the employer and prospective employee be able to strike that bargain? If not, why not?

I think we've had the discussion multiple times. Is that what "freedom of association" means?

As to can they, apparently now yes they can. Good for business, bad for labor. "Free market" when one side has a much greater amount of bargaining power than the other becomes a race to the bottom. Hiring in at the union rate is getting what the union bargained for without contributing to it. Hiring in at below union rate is undercutting the union and starting the race to the bottom. If we believe Adam Smith of "Wealth of Nations", the base labor rate becomes what it takes to replace you, literally. How much money does it cost to raise a child to the age that they can replace you. Certain jobs, due to unique skills or hazardous conditions, will have some multiplier to the base rate but the average worker is just that...average. Why did unions form to begin with, but to put workers on a field approaching level with employers? What's changed since then?

 

[HoughMade]

I think we've had the discussion multiple times. Is that what "freedom of association" means?

As to can they, apparently now yes they can. Good for business, bad for labor. "Free market" when one side has a much greater amount of bargaining power than the other becomes a race to the bottom. Hiring in at the union rate is getting what the union bargained for without contributing to it. Hiring in at below union rate is undercutting the union and starting the race to the bottom. If we believe Adam Smith of "Wealth of Nations", the base labor rate becomes what it takes to replace you, literally. How much money does it cost to raise a child to the age that they can replace you. Certain jobs, due to unique skills or hazardous conditions, will have some multiplier to the base rate but the average worker is just that...average. Why did unions form to begin with, but to put workers on a field approaching level with employers? What's changed since then?

I understand why unions and its members want see benefits to a "closed shop" of sorts, but just like tariffs, it is simply preferring one group to the detriment of another. There is no inherent morality in unions or non-union. The only questions is who has the political power to get done what they want to get done.

 

[KLB]

I think we've had the discussion multiple times. Is that what "freedom of association" means?

As to can they, apparently now yes they can. Good for business, bad for labor. "Free market" when one side has a much greater amount of bargaining power than the other becomes a race to the bottom. Hiring in at the union rate is getting what the union bargained for without contributing to it. Hiring in at below union rate is undercutting the union and starting the race to the bottom. If we believe Adam Smith of "Wealth of Nations", the base labor rate becomes what it takes to replace you, literally. How much money does it cost to raise a child to the age that they can replace you. Certain jobs, due to unique skills or hazardous conditions, will have some multiplier to the base rate but the average worker is just that...average. Why did unions form to begin with, but to put workers on a field approaching level with employers? What's changed since then?

A lot has changed since the early days of the unions forming. Working conditions are much safer than they were then. Industry is much more heavily watched by the .gov.

If a child can do a job, why should an adult be paid a artificially high salary to do that job?

If there is someone else willing to do your job for less than you are, the company needs a reason to keep you at the salary you are making. If you do a good job and have a skill, there is an excellent chance that will happen. If you do a poor job or do not have a skill, it may not.

Smart companies today tend to try to keep their employees happy. Happier employees are more engaged with their work and are much more productive.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I understand why unions and its members want see benefits to a "closed shop" of sorts, but just like tariffs, it is simply preferring one group to the detriment of another.

That's true. If you value things like a middle class and economic mobility, then it's a net positive, as union jobs pull wages up even for non-union shops. If you value things like wealth accumulation at the very top of the economy and CEO pay increasing while worker's pay is stagnant or declines, then it's a net loss.

A lot has changed since the early days of the unions forming. Working conditions are much safer than they were then. Industry is much more heavily watched by the .gov.

If a child can do a job, why should an adult be paid a artificially high salary to do that job?

If there is someone else willing to do your job for less than you are, the company needs a reason to keep you at the salary you are making. If you do a good job and have a skill, there is an excellent chance that will happen. If you do a poor job or do not have a skill, it may not.

Smart companies today tend to try to keep their employees happy. Happier employees are more engaged with their work and are much more productive.

...so the child can get an education, primarily.

Average workers are, by definition, average. Worker productivity has increased at a much faster rate than worker wages, so "average" is significantly more productive then it was in the 1970s, but wages haven't reflected that. Ever wonder why? Yup, someone is always willing to do it for less, because someone is more desperate and will accept a lower standard of living. That's why we have an illegal immigrant problem. Want to compete against people willing to live 15 to an apartment? No? Then the employer has the entire balance of power. If you think that's a good thing, carry on.

 

[KLB]

That's true. If you value things like a middle class and economic mobility, then it's a net positive, as union jobs pull wages up even for non-union shops. If you value things like wealth accumulation at the very top of the economy and CEO pay increasing while worker's pay is stagnant or declines, then it's a net loss.



...so the child can get an education, primarily.

Average workers are, by definition, average. Worker productivity has increased at a much faster rate than worker wages, so "average" is significantly more productive then it was in the 1970s, but wages haven't reflected that. Ever wonder why? Yup, someone is always willing to do it for less, because someone is more desperate and will accept a lower standard of living. That's why we have an illegal immigrant problem. Want to compete against people willing to live 15 to an apartment? No? Then the employer has the entire balance of power. If you think that's a good thing, carry on.

Funny. What jobs are you looking at as average? I see an average job as still needing some ability and skill. It is not advantageous for an employer to just fire people for less expensive people. Unless possibly the job is less than average in requirements. There is a reason people working at McDonalds don't make a lot of money.

My company employees around 5000 people in manufacturing and mining. There are no unions, yet somehow employees stay with the company their whole careers. It is not uncommon to find someone that has been here for 30+ years. That is both in the plants and at corporate.

According to your theory, they should be firing people and hiring people for less money all the time. Why keep someone at $25/hr if you can pay someone $20/hr?

Instead, the company actively works to make workers happier. They do yearly employee surveys to find out how they feel and think about their jobs, managers and upper management. They then work to right things that are reported as being wrong with the company. They spend all of that time and money because they feel that employees that are happier at work will be more productive. They will come to work like they should, they will put forth effort in their duties, and they will help the company make more money in the long run.

There are many many examples of industries and companies that employ average workers without unions and pay those workers good wages. In fact in the private sector less than 10% of employees are in a union. How do all of those people manage to survive?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Funny. What jobs are you looking at as average? I see an average job as still needing some ability and skill. It is not advantageous for an employer to just fire people for less expensive people. Unless possibly the job is less than average in requirements. There is a reason people working at McDonalds don't make a lot of money.

My company employees around 5000 people in manufacturing and mining. There are no unions, yet somehow employees stay with the company their whole careers. It is not uncommon to find someone that has been here for 30+ years. That is both in the plants and at corporate.

According to your theory, they should be firing people and hiring people for less money all the time. Why keep someone at $25/hr if you can pay someone $20/hr?

Instead, the company actively works to make workers happier. They do yearly employee surveys to find out how they feel and think about their jobs, managers and upper management. They then work to right things that are reported as being wrong with the company. They spend all of that time and money because they feel that employees that are happier at work will be more productive. They will come to work like they should, they will put forth effort in their duties, and they will help the company make more money in the long run.

There are many many examples of industries and companies that employ average workers without unions and pay those workers good wages. In fact in the private sector less than 10% of employees are in a union. How do all of those people manage to survive?

Survive isn't the question. Again, refer to Adam Smith. Mining is actually one of the jobs he discusses as paying a premium over average. Workers lifespan is shortened, so they must make their wages in a shorter time frame. In addition, it's a demanding job and must pay over the base rate to pull workers from easier jobs. Attorney is another he specifically mentions. It's an intellectually demanding job that most who start out to be one fail, so the ones who succeed get the failures' shares (simplified, but the take-away).

Simple history. A large middle class is a historical anomaly. The level of economic mobility we enjoy in the modern US is a historic anomaly. The average worker is making, inflation adjusted, about what the average worker 50 years ago made. Average CEO pay has multiplied by roughly 16 times. Why?

 

[Libertarian01]

If you want to make a historical argument as to why there are unions and why there is federal law requiring employers to deal with them (under specific situations), I will not argue. There were good reasons. That is not my point.

#1My only point was to be accurate. Many (possibly not all) employers deal with unions because they have to, not out of a desire to enter CBAs voluntarily because they think its best for their business. In other words, the NLRA and the compulsion to deal with unions is the very antithesis of libertarianism.

#2Also, whatever people believe about professional licensing, it is not analogous, in the least, with unions. I am licensed to practice law by the state, but essentially for the same reason drivers are licensed. To protect the public. Damage from an incompetent and untrained lawyer can be devastating and permanent. The public may not see it, but on a daily basis, the state Supreme Court is investigating claims of attorney misconduct and, rather than protecting them from the consequences, punishing them.

There are groups of professionals who seek to influence public policy, but I am not a member of any. It is not required. I decide whether to donate money to political causes. None of my money is extracted and sent to support causes I do not support simply because I am a lawyer.

No organization negotiates my wages or benefits. I do. No organization determines my legal fees. The market does.

#3Now, none of this is anti-union. I have said nothing anti-union. I am just interested in, if the issue is going to be discussed, we do so based upon reality.

#1) This is very true. Businesses are forced by law to deal with organized labor. Libertarianism does support peoples right to organize for mutual self benefit, such as joining the NRA, the Brady Campaign, a union, or any group. Libertarianism does not support the forced recognition of such at the purest level. No disagreement here.

#2) Your professional licensing may not force you to join a particular group, but I do believe some others do. Even without that requirement, your license requires CE, which necessitates your paying a third party to maintain it. That was my only point to make against the thought that no one should be able to force you to pay a third party, when referencing unions, but ignoring professional licensing as the same darn thing for a different coloured collar. Also, the licensing guarantees nothing as to the "competence" of the allegedly trained professional. There are idiot lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc "practicing" their trade that should be removed. The only thing the license does is prove that, in most cases, you can pass a test, not that the licensee truly appreciates all of the nuances of their trade.

#3) I never presumed you were or weren't, and if I came across that way I apologize.

Unions do compete for members. If 1/3 of the members petition, a union can be changed for a different one or removed entirely. (Simplified, but basically you'd get a vote between "old union", "new union", and "no union" but if you vote out the old union your existing contract is almost certainly nullified).

Freedom of association seems an odd thing to hang your hat on in employment terms. You have no right to work for Ford or GE. You don't HAVE to join a union and never have.

This is a very good point. As no one has a "right" to a job, why get upset if that particular employer has a preexisting contract.

What if GM or Ford, or any employer, wanted to hire you, but you didn't want to be a union member?

Should the employer and prospective employee be able to strike that bargain? If not, why not?

The employee/employer should be able to do so, unless precluded either by law or by preexisting contract on either side. I know people who are working while on medicaid. They can only earn so much per time period (I don't know the exact details here). So they force their employer to limit their work time. Is it fair that the government forces them to work less in order to receive a benefit? Not quite the same thing, but similar.

Why not? We should have the right to contract as we see fit. Even beyond that, if there was no such contract but GM only wanted to employ union people, that should be their right.

This is true. There are some employers who, like Volkswagen, prefer working with a cooperative union.

A lot has changed since the early days of the unions forming. Working conditions are much safer than they were then. Industry is much more heavily watched by the .gov.

If a child can do a job, why should an adult be paid a artificially high salary to do that job?

If there is someone else willing to do your job for less than you are, the company needs a reason to keep you at the salary you are making. If you do a good job and have a skill, there is an excellent chance that will happen. If you do a poor job or do not have a skill, it may not.

Smart companies today tend to try to keep their employees happy. Happier employees are more engaged with their work and are much more productive.

A lot has improved as you say, no question. However, there are still many areas where workers are abused. See Harvey Weinstein. He got away with a lot of crap because people were deathly afraid of him. The fear that he could ruin your career pushed many, many women into extremely uncomfortable situations at best or victimization at worst. Also, when I took a business class covering the history of labor I was amazed in research just how much modern companies do get away with. WalMart makes it easy. Just Google Walmart employee abuse or something similar and you can find cases where the employees are deathly afraid to act due to feeling powerless. The union does provide cover for an abused employee to come forward with a legitimate grievance without fear of losing their income.

Funny. What jobs are you looking at as average? I see an average job as still needing some ability and skill. It is not advantageous for an employer to just fire people for less expensive people. Unless possibly the job is less than average in requirements. There is a reason people working at McDonalds don't make a lot of money.

My company employees around 5000 people in manufacturing and mining. There are no unions, yet somehow employees stay with the company their whole careers. It is not uncommon to find someone that has been here for 30+ years. That is both in the plants and at corporate.

According to your theory, they should be firing people and hiring people for less money all the time. Why keep someone at $25/hr if you can pay someone $20/hr?

Instead, the company actively works to make workers happier. They do yearly employee surveys to find out how they feel and think about their jobs, managers and upper management. They then work to right things that are reported as being wrong with the company. They spend all of that time and money because they feel that employees that are happier at work will be more productive. They will come to work like they should, they will put forth effort in their duties, and they will help the company make more money in the long run.

There are many many examples of industries and companies that employ average workers without unions and pay those workers good wages. In fact in the private sector less than 10% of employees are in a union. How do all of those people manage to survive?

You just added an entirely new dynamic to the conversation. That dynamic is the difference in management styes of Theory X and Theory Y. Your company is clearly a Theory Y company that will never have a union as they already respect and appreciate their employees. You will note throughout modern history it is Theory X management is the one to encourage the creation of unions, whereas Theory Y already appreciates their workers and cares for them. Basically, for those unfamiliar, both theories are the managements opinions of their workers and what it takes to get them to work. Theory X thinks all workers are lazy, and must be micromanaged and pushed in order to get work done. Theory X managers believe the workers are just here for the paycheck and will do the least work necessary to get the check. On the other hand Theory Y managers believe that their people enjoy their work and take pride in it. Theory Y managers believe in the old thought by Gen Patton, "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." Theory Y presumes ambition and creativity, a worker who takes pride in being the best.

I think I've pounded Theory X & Y hard enough, but this your company sounds like the embodiment of Theory Y. Look at how all the managers thought of their employees when the unions first came into being. Almost entirely Theory X. For the record I hate Theory X thinking. Some people are like that, sure, but I believe most want to do a good job.

Regards to All,

Doug

 

[EMDX6043]

This article seems to echo what the suspicion has been: the public-sector unions have (now "had"...) an extremely broad interpretation of what "collective bargaining" actually means. All they had to do was use a PAC to fund their non-workplace related activities.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...-union-dues-political-speech-first-amendment/

 

[jamil]

Unions do compete for members. If 1/3 of the members petition, a union can be changed for a different one or removed entirely. (Simplified, but basically you'd get a vote between "old union", "new union", and "no union" but if you vote out the old union your existing contract is almost certainly nullified).

Freedom of association seems an odd thing to hang your hat on in employment terms. You have no right to work for Ford or GE. You don't HAVE to join a union and never have.

If there's a union, why can't I chose not to join, not to pay fees, and more importantly, to negotiate my own compensation if I want to? Saying you don't have to go to work for a union shop isn't the same thing as saying you have a choice not to join a union. Freedom of association is a very reasonable thing to hang my hat on in employment terms. The rules as they exist today are built to give unions the upper hand. And they've used it to become very corrupt. I'd rather neither have an upper hand to the extent that's possible.

 

[Libertarian01]

If there's a union, why can't I chose not to join, not to pay fees, and more importantly, to negotiate my own compensation if I want to? Saying you don't have to go to work for a union shop isn't the same thing as saying you have a choice not to join a union. Freedom of association is a very reasonable thing to hang my hat on in employment terms. The rules as they exist today are built to give unions the upper hand. And they've used it to become very corrupt. I'd rather neither have an upper hand to the extent that's possible.

Several ideas have been brought up that are an interesting counter to this question.

#1) You do not have a right to a job. You may want one, but no one is obligated to give you one.
#2) The business and the union signed a legal contract agreeing that anyone hired would be represented by the union. So long as the contract is legal, why should they make an exception for you? Perhaps the business prefers the simplicity of negotiating once with the union instead of getting nagged many times by many different employees?
#3) If you don't like their contract then you are free to seek employment elsewhere, just like going somewhere else to get a wedding cake made, right?

As to unions becoming corrupt, I agree in many cases. Although I would argue that businesses are equally corrupt as that goes. They also form an association called the US Chamber of Commerce. Through this they also lobby, bribe, threaten and push to get legislation that is one sided - their side. As Hough would point out they do this willingly, but nonetheless I would argue there is corruption on that side as well. With every organization looking after their own interests and promoting their own interests no one is looking after OUR interests. Too much adversarial process...

Regards,

Doug

PS - I am not 100% on either side of this issue. Both sides have some merit and some serious problems.

 

[jamil]

Several ideas have been brought up that are an interesting counter to this question.

#1) You do not have a right to a job. You may want one, but no one is obligated to give you one.
#2) The business and the union signed a legal contract agreeing that anyone hired would be represented by the union. So long as the contract is legal, why should they make an exception for you? Perhaps the business prefers the simplicity of negotiating once with the union instead of getting nagged many times by many different employees?
#3) If you don't like their contract then you are free to seek employment elsewhere, just like going somewhere else to get a wedding cake made, right?

As to unions becoming corrupt, I agree in many cases. Although I would argue that businesses are equally corrupt as that goes. They also form an association called the US Chamber of Commerce. Through this they also lobby, bribe, threaten and push to get legislation that is one sided - their side. As Hough would point out they do this willingly, but nonetheless I would argue there is corruption on that side as well. With every organization looking after their own interests and promoting their own interests no one is looking after OUR interests. Too much adversarial process...

Regards,

Doug

PS - I am not 100% on either side of this issue. Both sides have some merit and some serious problems.

#1) I have a right to pursue employment but I don’t have a right to a job. The problem with this argument is that unions don’t have a right to exclusive contracts, without which, companies would be free to negotiate independently. They have the right to pursue such contracts, but...See #2.
#2) The business signed a contract with the union because of the government’s thumb on the scales. If it were a truly mutual deal between unions and companies, without government coercion, I’d have no problem with it. But if it weren’t for the government unions would look a lot different.
#3) take the government out of it and you might have a point. You can’t claim I have a choice when the government forces the undesirable options available. A Hobson’s choice is not choice.

 

[Libertarian01]

#1) I have a right to pursue employment but I donÂ’t have a right to a job. The problem with this argument is that unions donÂ’t have a right to exclusive contracts, without which, companies would be free to negotiate independently. They have the right to pursue such contracts, but...See #2.
#2) The business signed a contract with the union because of the governmentÂ’s thumb on the scales. If it were a truly mutual deal between unions and companies, without government coercion, IÂ’d have no problem with it. But if it werenÂ’t for the government unions would look a lot different.
#3) take the government out of it and you might have a point. You canÂ’t claim I have a choice when the government forces the undesirable options available. A HobsonÂ’s choice is not choice.

The only thing the government does is force the business to recognize the union and negotiate. It does not force any of the terms of the contract. If the company was more aggressive in its negotiating perhaps they wouldn't have a closed shop. That is not the unions fault. There are shops that are open, and there are shops that are closed. The difference is how the company and the union negotiated, not in the governments finger on the scale.

You are correct that unions don't have a right to exclusive contracts, but neither do they have a right to health insurance. They do have a right to ask for them and the company has the right to agree or not.

Being forced by the government to negotiate isn't quiet the same as being forced to negotiate what the terms of the contract are. The government also forces businesses to follow many, many rules that are specific, such as how often to clean in a restaurant, how you must categorize workers as salaried or not, etc.

If we have a problem with our neighbor we are forced to use certain channels such as civil court, other than just beating the hell out him. We may well want to beat him up, but this is where the law started. Without being forced to negotiate, things were very ugly, and very deadly, on both sides. Perhaps it is the lessor of two (2) evils. If only all companies were run like KLB's, there wouldn't be any unions in the first place as folks would be happy with their working conditions and treatment.

Regards,

Doug

 

[KLB]

You know what's funny? We have a plant in East Chicago which is surrounded by the BP refinery and a steel mill, both union.

 

[EMDX6043]

It's interesting to see who carries the Site Supporter badge............just making an observation.......

 

[KLB]

It's interesting to see who carries the Site Supporter badge............just making an observation.......

What's your point?