Charlie Averill, the “go to” source for the union perspective, has a post entitled “A Sneak Attack in The Dark of Night” in which he discusses Rep. Cindy Noe’s last minute introduction of an amendment that would have made Indiana a “right to work” state.
Charlie suspects that this legislation was destined to fail from the beginning but that it’s introduction was intended to attract campaign donations from large, out-of-state, anti-union corporations for the 2006 election cycle.
I do not understand how it is allowed now that people are forced to join a union and pay dues in order to have a job at certian places. I personally don’t have to deal with that, but it would make me sick to be forced into that.
Right to work lawas would allow choice. Currently, we force people into paying for unions against their will. Also, those unions often do not give campain donations equally. So, a union you do not wish to belong to takes a cut of YOUR salary, then gives it to someone you don’t want to vote for? WHY is this legal?
I don’t know whether you are forced to join the union or merely to pay your fair share of the dues. The rationale behind making all workers, not just union members, pay dues is that all workers benefit from the improvements unions negotiate for workers: better pay, safer working conditions, etc. I’d recommend reading Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” for a peek at what working life looked like before unions became effective.
As for a policy debate over what constitutes a “fair share” payment for negotiated benefits as opposed to money that will work its way to politicians with whom you disagree, I suspect a good debate could be had and, frankly, I do not know the ins and outs of labor law.
But, I would note that having money taken from you and spent on crap you don’t like seems to be a part of life: all my tax dollars going to a wasted effort in Iraq, for example. Or, more egregiously, the Bush administration spent $1.6 billion on public relations and advertising campaigns over 30 months according to the GAO. One of their PR tactics was to issue prepackaged “video news releases” that touted administration initiatives which were sometimes aired without disclosing their source. Another has been to pay off columnists like Armstrong Williams to write pro-administration pieces.
My father would disagree on the benefits. He is a front-line worker, and is forced to be a member of the union where he works. When the union decided to strike for reasons he thought were out of line, he was forced to stay home on less pay. Then, when the union got the increases it wanted (that mainly seemed to benefit the union leadership), his employeer proceeded to lay off hundreds of workers. This was no doubt due to the increase the union forced on the company.
I totally agree unions of the past improved working conditions for all workers. The coal mine walkouts where one of the greatest things that shaped our country. However, these days many unions act like the benefits they are asking for are as much of a life or death issue as working in a shoddy coal mine.
There are other cases of this, where a once great movement still feels the need to FIGHT for something, rather than working on maintaining the victories of the past. Jessie Jackson comes to mind as someone who once was part of a great battle and improvement, but now his warfare does more to spilt the races rather than join them. In total fairness, many “Christian” groups also continue to fight and hurt their cause more, rather than focus on cooperation.
I do see your “part of life” point, but that can be used in any situation to defend a bad policy.
There is no place in America where a worker is forced to join a union in order to work there. That was allowed by the US Supreme Court decades ago.
But the law does allow a union to charge a fair share fee for its cost in representing a worker through contract negotiations and grievances. Workers are not required to donate to a union’s political efforts. Individual workers can challenge any fair share assessment through processes required by law.
Unions are chosen by workers in a democratic process and can be eliminated by a democratic process. But while they are there they are bound by law to represent everyone in that workplace. Fair share is simply the recognition that aunion cannot meet its obligation without the resources to do so.
So-called right to work is merely an attack on workers and their ability to have a voice at work. Its intention is to gut a union’s power to seek increased wages, family-supporting benefits and reasonable job security. No one should be fooled by the false claims of right to work proponents. Louisiana has been a right to work state for decades and the impact of those laws can be seen in the abject poverty we glimpsed during the Katrina fiasco.
My father would disagree on the benefits. He is a front-line worker, and is forced to be a member of the union where he works. When the union decided to strike for reasons he thought were out of line, he was forced to stay home on less pay. Then, when the union got the increases it wanted (that mainly seemed to benefit the union leadership), his employeer proceeded to lay off hundreds of workers. This was no doubt due to the increase the union forced on the company.
A consistent free marketeer would say that your father always has the right to quit his job and work someplace else, where the labor union isn’t so draconian.
If you find such an argument frustrating, imagine what it will be like to be a pregnant teenager living in poverty after the Roberts-Alito court makes abortion laws a matter of “state’s rights”, cooly informed that if you want an abortion, just move to a state where they’re permitted.
Or try that argument in small-town America today, when the one or two pharmacies in your town are staffed exclusively by pharmacists who’ve decided that dispensing the morning-after pill is “against their conscience.”
I totally agree unions of the past improved working conditions for all workers. The coal mine walkouts where one of the greatest things that shaped our country.
Workers’ advocates didn’t just “walk out” to secure the rights that laborers take for granted today. They died for those rights. Witness the Ludlow Massacre and the Haymarket Riot.
However, these days many unions act like the benefits they are asking for are as much of a life or death issue as working in a shoddy coal mine.
Having one’s pension fund raided, defunded, or eliminated, can mean that the elderly or disabled don’t have the money to pay for groceries, or their heating bill. This is the sort of “ancillary” issue that the Delphi plant employees in Kokomo are kicking up a fuss about. You don’t have to believe me; just consult the mainstream media.
There are other cases of this, where a once great movement still feels the need to FIGHT for something, rather than working on maintaining the victories of the past.
It looks to me like that’s exactly that today’s labor unions are trying to do. They’re generally not fighting for a 35-hour work week or mandatory on-site day care. They’re struggling to maintain a living wage and keep their pension plans funded. They’re being conservative, in that they’re attempting to conserve that which they’ve already won through the sacrifices of generations past.
Jessie Jackson comes to mind as someone who once was part of a great battle and improvement, but now his warfare does more to spilt the races rather than join them. In total fairness, many “Christian†groups also continue to fight and hurt their cause more, rather than focus on cooperation.
It’s not clear to me what this has to do with “right-to-work” legislation. Are you asking the labor unions to “cooperate” with decimated wages and eradicated pension funds while executive compensation continues to vastly outpace that of line workers? Even former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, hardly known as a “leftist”, sees a problem here.
Whoops. Sorry for the unclosed “a” tag above. Sure wish WordPress had a “preview comment” feature!
No problem, I went ahead and fixed the tag.
Thanks for the comments. My grandfather is the only person (sheet meter workers union) that I can get a differing opinion on this subject, so it is great to hear other opinions.
As I read what you are saying, and think more about my own opposition to unions, I can show one example of what turns me off to the idea.
The New York City transit strike comes to mind of what I can’t stand. The union wanted the workers to be able to retire at 55 with FULL benefits, 5-7 years before most people can. This in an age where people are living longer every year. It was a totally unreasonable demand, along with wanting to not bear any costs for health care. So, they went on strike and crippled the city. Later, a judge rightly ruled the strike illegal.
In all that, the worst victems were those who did not want to strike. All transit workers went without pay during the strike since it was illegal, and then had to work for FREE for like 5 more days as a penalty.
This is an extreme example, but it shows the the type of action I can’t stand. Workers should be able to choose to not contribute to this.
I do support better work laws, however. If something is good for auto workers, coal miners, or bus drivers, it is probally good for everyone else. I personally feel strongly that every position should be paid overtime. Even if you average it over a month, there should be some incentive for a company to make sure they are not overworking their employees.
I say this as a Network Engineer that has been paid salary my whole career. However, if an IT union were started (there are people trying to do that) that promised overtime, I still would not join or pay dues. Please don’t force me to pay a tax to a 2nd government (unions) with another mix of good and corrupt people.
The New York City transit strike comes to mind of what I can’t stand. The union wanted the workers to be able to retire at 55 with FULL benefits, 5-7 years before most people can. This in an age where people are living longer every year. It was a totally unreasonable demand,
I don’t know about that. Many managerial types get to retire at 55. Federal employees under the CSRS system get to retire at 62 with 5 years of service, 60 with 20 years, and 55 with 30 years of service. Under the FERS system (“Most employees hired after December 31, 1983 are in the FERS system.”), you can retire as young as 50 with full benefits. cite).
In the private sector, not only do you see this, but mergers and “rightsizing” often result in managers taking retirement at ages well under 65, with full benefits. They’re offered sweet retirement deals to incentivize them to leave.
Transit workers do sound to me, incidentally, like the sort of folks who’d spend 20 or 30 years on the job.
So if that’s totally unreasonable to you, maybe you need to do more research into the real-world job market. Do you have more of a beef with the people who are already getting the sweet arrangement the transit workers unsuccessfully sought?
…along with wanting to not bear any costs for health care.
…apart from those FICA taxes they’ve been paying all those years, wnd will continue to be paying until they retire at 65 or 72 or 80 or whatever you had in mind?
You can certainly argue things from a policy perspective, but I utterly fail to understand your sense of moral outrage over people seeking retirement age and health benefits comparable to what some sectors of the economy already enjoy.
So, they went on strike and crippled the city. Later, a judge rightly ruled the strike illegal.
“Rightly” in that the judge interpreted the law correctly, or “rightly” in that you feel we have a moral imperative not to go on strike if we happen to be a New York City transit worker?
In all that, the worst victems were those who did not want to strike. All transit workers went without pay during the strike since it was illegal, and then had to work for FREE for like 5 more days as a penalty.
I haven’t heard about the transit workers trying to topple the leadership of their union since then — maybe this was a risk they (or most of them) were willing to take? And if so, if it’s that important to them, are you still so certain that you are better informed and possess superior judgement? Is it even conceivable to you that, in aggregate, they weighed the risks and benefits and acted rationally?
If something is good for auto workers, coal miners, or bus drivers, it is probally good for everyone else.
See above. As far as I know, the NYC transit workers weren’t asking for anything unprecedented. I will admit they might have been asking for something that is generally considered to be “above their station”, and something that we tend to reserve to public sector works and veterans. I mean, it’s not like New York City transit workers are maintaining a public good or anything. Uh…
I personally feel strongly that every position should be paid overtime.
…in which case you’d think that senior executives of Fortune 500 companies, for example, would have it. Funnily enough, they don’t. It is instructive to try to find the reasons why, and when evaluating one’s own salaried position, to discern whether one is more like a senior executive, or more like a New York City transit worker.
However, if an IT union were started (there are people trying to do that) that promised overtime, I still would not join or pay dues. Please don’t force me to pay a tax to a 2nd government (unions) with another mix of good and corrupt people.
You’re already answerable to multiple governments, at the federal, state, and local level. (Fortunately for you, thanks to President Bush you’re probably not really bound by international treaties unless you’ve managed to really piss him off.) Furthermore, you are subject to innumerable contracts of adhesion. Your employment contract (which probably stipulates “at-will” employment, contains an embedded non-disclosure agreement, as well as non-compete agreement which is binding even if you are terminated without cause), the terms under which you get your electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable, and internet service, bank, student loan corporation, automobile finance company, credit card company, mortgage company, landlord, homeowner’s association, doctors, and lawyers, as applicable. Of all of these, do the terms more closely resemble laws passed without your consent (or even knowledge — did you read all the fine print?), or agreements negotiated and undertaken with full volition and deliberation by both parties?
Being forced to live under the strictures of a labor union may very well be like paying a tax to another government; I do grant you that. But I would argue it’s not like the some new “second” governing body taking your money and limiting your freedom. Maybe the third or fourth dozenth. Therefore I do have to wonder why you are particularly aggrieved by this one.
Thanks for the spirited exchange!
(Just an aside, but I love when discussions break out around here — particularly if they don’t involve ad hominems.)
Yes, thanks for the debate playground, Doug!
“Do you have more of a beef with the people who are already getting the sweet arrangement the transit workers unsuccessfully sought?”
Yup. I have to save my retirement in a 401(k) and in other areas if I’m not a totally betting man. All my past and my current employeers would match my savings to a point, but that’s it. If it is the employer’s job to pay for my retirement at a steady level no matter how long I live, then let’s see that for everyone. However, with the 60,000 plus people GM and Ford have laid off to help offset their own mistake (or decit) in offering “retirement”, I think most will agree companies will not do that.
““Rightly†in that the judge interpreted the law correctly, or “rightly†in that you feel we have a moral imperative not to go on strike if we happen to be a New York City transit worker?”
As I understand it, their own union agreement did not allow for a strike. So, the union went back on a previously agreed upon arrangement when the debte on a future arragement didn’t go their way.
Is it even conceivable to you that, in aggregate, they weighed the risks and benefits and acted rationally?
Sure, IN AGGRAGATE. However, I can’t beleive that there were not some of those who would rather had just gone to work with the arragement they had. Not everyone is cut out to yell for change or speak up, and they shouldn’t be punished by the mob (majority, not Teamsters).
in which case you’d think that senior executives of Fortune 500 companies, for example, would have it.
Nope, I know they don’t get OT either. However, they should have to work for their money like everyone else. Give them a base pay, and let them work OT if their job demands more than 40 a week. I do agree with Ben Stein’s point on that issue, but I do think he is more concerned about shareholders than employees. This is the same guy that said the oil companies DESERVE the record profits they are getting.
Thanks for the time! You can have the last word if you want it!
For Jason –
Would it help you to know that unions have fought for the extension of overtime rules to folks like you – while the same wealthy corporations that think RTW is a good idea have fought to reduce positions eligible for overtime. And the main reason they push for RTW is to ensure that there is no worker voice lobbying against their ideas.
Anyway, at the heart of your position is opposition to democracy. But what other process is there. Where unions do not exist, employees are subject to a dictatorship of one. Where unions exist, they can impact their own fate – by every method available to use as an American. They can run for office, they take a stand at meetings and they can vote.
Incidentally, if workers don’t want to be on strike, they break the line. A strike without worker support is axiomatically doomed to fail and won’t be called. And workers cannot be punished for refusing to participate in an illegal strike.
At any rate, nobody is forced to join a union (or at least hasn’t been for nearly forty years). They can only be forced to pay fair share fees for the union’s cost in representing them. And they can only do that as long as
Ask yourself, in the end why those you know wanted so badly to work at a certain place even though they weren’t wild about the union. Was it because it was a decent place to work, reasonably safe, good pay, decent benefits? Then they wanted to work in a union facility. And the small pittance of fair share fees they would be required to pay is dwarfed by the advantages – monetary and other – of working in that environment.
In RTW states, where unions are weaker, worker fatality rates are 51% higher!
Also, let me put in a good word for the much maligned ‘teacher’s union.In public education, the elected local school board is the final arbiter of where tax money goes.In many school elections, the only issue for those who vote is taxes. Taxes not only goes to teachers’ salaries but also to money spent on student educational programs in general. .Often it’s only
the NEA there to fight for programs. There’s a widespread perception that we can cut taxes and everything will be the same,or get better automatically….only ‘waste’ will be cut,and teachers make too much anyway ,and only work part of the year,and we teach all this ‘liberal stuff'(like the sciences).
Nancy:
Very good points. If an IT union were formed, I wouldn’t leave my job. I enjoy this type of work. However, I do see that enough caring people are involved there are still very good things that can, and probally still do happen. Looks like I would want to run for office within my union if I had to start paying dues.
Lou:
Like many other unions, I have respect and distaste for the NEA. I do support better pay for teachers.
I just deleted two paragraphs explaining my position on vouchers and tenure since it was very much off-topic, and I’m getting drained on debate for the time being.
I have to say, my wife very much appricates that I have this outlet for debate rather than doing it at home!