3 ms·

> Also, all CSU employees must pay the union dues, even if you are not part of the union, which is insane. This is to avoid the free rider problem. Removing th

by ashark 9y ago

> Also, all CSU employees must pay the union dues, even if you are not part of the union, which is insane. This is to avoid the free rider problem. Removing this requirement basically kills a union. Right-to-work laws, for example, are 100% about neutering unions, and they do so by precisely this mechanism. Voluntary associations have serious problems that severely limit their effectiveness. Same reason e.g. taxes can't be voluntary.

colemannugent 9y ago
That was not so much a commentary about right-to-work as it was about the absurdity of the situation. California is decidedly against right-to-work laws, so why in this case you are allowed to opt out of the benefits of the union while still having to pay for it is what I take issue with. If you are allowed to choose not to join the union then you shouldn't have to pay union dues.
- vec 9y ago
  The problem is that most of the union benefits are really hard to opt out of. I benefit from an improved payment schedule, better overtime rules, a safer work environment, nicer insurance, etc. whether I'm a member of the union or not. Don't think of it as club membership, think of it as a negotiator's fee that's baked into your employment contract.
- ashark 9y ago
  It's not practical to opt out of various benefits that come from the union's activities. For instance, your employer's not going to be able to cut your pay/benefits much below that of union workers, or try to give you an abusive schedule/workload, since if they try you'll (I assume) just join the union at the first opportunity. Further, the union may negotiate things like compensation and benefits packages for all workers because not doing so would terminally weaken them by letting management entice workers to leave the union, until it eventually dies—and then management can enjoy the deeply unequal bargaining position of giant-organization versus uncoordinated individuals, until workers organize again—but this time management can kill it more easily and inexpensively before it even gets started, through he same process, but with the bonus that this time they can also be much more coercive and punitive in their approach toward certain especially troublesome individuals since they have less-effective oversight. [EDIT] bah, I effed up my reasoning on that second part by starting with one thing then going another direction and not fixing the first bit. There are two separate problems: 1) if non-union folks don't have to pay dues, the employer can kill the union by enticing people away from it, and 2) if they can hire non-union at below-union compensation (say, if you have to pick up-front whether you're union and can't sign on later) then they can simply only hire people who don't join the union (and preferentially retain non-union folks) until it dies.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > California is decidedly against right-to-work laws, so why in this case you are allowed to opt out of the benefits of the union while still having to pay for it is what I take issue with. You misunderstand the situation. California public employees covered by a union can opt out of union membership and full membership dues and pay reduced “fair share” fees, get all the benefits negotiated by the union (including union representation in disciplinary proceedings); they only benefits they lose are voting rights and non-representational benefits (e.g., if the union has separate arrangements to make products or services available to members separate from benefits negotiated with the employer.)
didgeoridoo 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand. Why couldn't the company only provide union-negotiated benefits to the members of the union, and treat all non-union employees the way they normally would? What constrains the company to give union treatment to non-union members?
- ashark 9y ago
  See my reply below. TL;DR a situation where people can receive different compensation if they're non-union, and can get out of paying union dues if they're non-union, makes it trivial for management to strangle the union. They can entice people to leave the union until it dies. [EDIT] more generally there's a bunch of game-theoretic stuff that keeps unions from being effective if all participation in them is totally voluntary. Union-busting laws usually aim to disrupt the preconditions necessary for the survival of unions, often by simply forcing them all to be voluntary, probably choosing that tactic because there's a personal liberty argument to be made in its favor. Why these people are so insistent that one particular requirement for working for a given employer (join the relevant union) should be outlawed while all manner of other requirements the employer themselves may have are just fine is left as an exercise for the reader.
strictnein 9y ago
> Right-to-work laws, for example, are 100% about neutering unions, No, they're not. The idea that you should have to join an outside organization to work for a government agency is ridiculous. Doubly so when those same groups spend extremely heavily on politics.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  You just provided a (good or not is another question) justification for neutering unions, not an argument supporting the position that right-to-left laws aren't about neutering unions.
  - strictnein 9y ago
    I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. My point is that you should be able to work for a government agency without joining a union. That is a reason for right-to-work laws that has nothing to do with neutering unions. If unions can't survive without people being legally obligated to join them that is on them and they should adapt to meet that reality.
    - ashark 9y ago
      > I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. You dodged the point above, but the governmental agencies themselves are politically active. So are very nearly all employers. [EDIT] my point being, why is aiding one politically-active organization (your employer) as a requirement for employment entirely fine, but being required to aid two is some abridgment of liberty? It's not like it's sprung on you after the fact. It's exactly as much a choice as aiding your employer's political agenda (i.e. you can not work there).
- ashark 9y ago

by ashark 9y ago

colemannugent 9y ago

That was not so much a commentary about right-to-work as it was about the absurdity of the situation. California is decidedly against right-to-work laws, so why in this case you are allowed to opt out of the benefits of the union while still having to pay for it is what I take issue with. If you are allowed to choose not to join the union then you shouldn't have to pay union dues.

vec 9y ago
The problem is that most of the union benefits are really hard to opt out of. I benefit from an improved payment schedule, better overtime rules, a safer work environment, nicer insurance, etc. whether I'm a member of the union or not. Don't think of it as club membership, think of it as a negotiator's fee that's baked into your employment contract.
ashark 9y ago
It's not practical to opt out of various benefits that come from the union's activities. For instance, your employer's not going to be able to cut your pay/benefits much below that of union workers, or try to give you an abusive schedule/workload, since if they try you'll (I assume) just join the union at the first opportunity. Further, the union may negotiate things like compensation and benefits packages for all workers because not doing so would terminally weaken them by letting management entice workers to leave the union, until it eventually dies—and then management can enjoy the deeply unequal bargaining position of giant-organization versus uncoordinated individuals, until workers organize again—but this time management can kill it more easily and inexpensively before it even gets started, through he same process, but with the bonus that this time they can also be much more coercive and punitive in their approach toward certain especially troublesome individuals since they have less-effective oversight. [EDIT] bah, I effed up my reasoning on that second part by starting with one thing then going another direction and not fixing the first bit. There are two separate problems: 1) if non-union folks don't have to pay dues, the employer can kill the union by enticing people away from it, and 2) if they can hire non-union at below-union compensation (say, if you have to pick up-front whether you're union and can't sign on later) then they can simply only hire people who don't join the union (and preferentially retain non-union folks) until it dies.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> California is decidedly against right-to-work laws, so why in this case you are allowed to opt out of the benefits of the union while still having to pay for it is what I take issue with. You misunderstand the situation. California public employees covered by a union can opt out of union membership and full membership dues and pay reduced “fair share” fees, get all the benefits negotiated by the union (including union representation in disciplinary proceedings); they only benefits they lose are voting rights and non-representational benefits (e.g., if the union has separate arrangements to make products or services available to members separate from benefits negotiated with the employer.)

didgeoridoo 9y ago

I'm not sure I understand. Why couldn't the company only provide union-negotiated benefits to the members of the union, and treat all non-union employees the way they normally would? What constrains the company to give union treatment to non-union members?

ashark 9y ago
See my reply below. TL;DR a situation where people can receive different compensation if they're non-union, and can get out of paying union dues if they're non-union, makes it trivial for management to strangle the union. They can entice people to leave the union until it dies. [EDIT] more generally there's a bunch of game-theoretic stuff that keeps unions from being effective if all participation in them is totally voluntary. Union-busting laws usually aim to disrupt the preconditions necessary for the survival of unions, often by simply forcing them all to be voluntary, probably choosing that tactic because there's a personal liberty argument to be made in its favor. Why these people are so insistent that one particular requirement for working for a given employer (join the relevant union) should be outlawed while all manner of other requirements the employer themselves may have are just fine is left as an exercise for the reader.

strictnein 9y ago

> Right-to-work laws, for example, are 100% about neutering unions, No, they're not. The idea that you should have to join an outside organization to work for a government agency is ridiculous. Doubly so when those same groups spend extremely heavily on politics.

dragonwriter 9y ago
You just provided a (good or not is another question) justification for neutering unions, not an argument supporting the position that right-to-left laws aren't about neutering unions.
- strictnein 9y ago
  I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. My point is that you should be able to work for a government agency without joining a union. That is a reason for right-to-work laws that has nothing to do with neutering unions. If unions can't survive without people being legally obligated to join them that is on them and they should adapt to meet that reality.
  - ashark 9y ago
    > I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. You dodged the point above, but the governmental agencies themselves are politically active. So are very nearly all employers. [EDIT] my point being, why is aiding one politically-active organization (your employer) as a requirement for employment entirely fine, but being required to aid two is some abridgment of liberty? It's not like it's sprung on you after the fact. It's exactly as much a choice as aiding your employer's political agenda (i.e. you can not work there).
ashark 9y ago