3 ms·

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 wh

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.)

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.)