4 ms·

>>You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. Yes, and there's a link between high unionization and higher wages

by patmcc 8y ago

>>You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. Yes, and there's a link between high unionization and higher wages/better benefits/better working conditions. Of course there are trade-offs. Look at the history of labour movements in the west. Why do you think we have weekends, overtime pay, etc >>If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. That's completely untrue - if you vote against unionization you don't get fired. The union (almost always) doesn't choose who gets hired or gets fired; they often offer protection against undue termination. You may (depending on jurisdiction) be required to join/pay dues. Also, unions have elections - you have a regular chance to choose who negotiates on your behalf. How exactly is the "new master" worse then the previous one? >>Also justifying the bribes is pure robbery. You should be ashamed of thinking that. Not at all what I said. I said owners keeping 100 rather than keeping 95 and bribing with 5 is no better for the worker; both situations are shitty. But when the union leadership is being bribed they can be voted out by the union members.

hpcjoe 8y ago
>>>You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. >Yes, and there's a link between high unionization and higher wages/better benefits/better working conditions. Of course there are trade-offs. Look at the history of labour movements in the west. Why do you think we have weekends, overtime pay, etc No, the point the parent was making is that there is a well understood and accepted link between increased unionization and increased unemployment. >>>If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. > That's completely untrue - if you vote against unionization you don't get fired. The union (almost always) doesn't choose who gets hired or gets fired; they often offer protection against undue termination. You may (depending on jurisdiction) be required to join/pay dues. Also, unions have elections - you have a regular chance to choose who negotiates on your behalf. How exactly is the "new master" worse then the previous one? It's quite true. Here in Michigan, until we regained our sanity recently and went right to work, there were closed union shops. You could get hired if and only if you were a member of the union. Which you couldn't get into without being hired. The entry fee into the union ranged depending upon the union, but it was most definitely a pay for play scam. So if you were poor, and couldn't afford the entry fee ... how would you get in? How is this not a monopoly? On those union elections ... Do you believe for a moment that the elections were either free, or fair? Do you not believe that there were corrupting outside influences? This new master became rent seeking, drove costs up, quality down, caused higher unemployment by driving costs up, and eventually drove much of the work to lower wage locales. Yes, this is the reality of what unions have wrought. As for this > But when the union leadership is being bribed they can be voted out by the union members. um ... no. The people in power in their rent seeking ways have a habit of building up a support system of similarly minded folks. Trickle down. Bribes paid supported large union machines that existed for the sole purpose of keeping their officials in power. These elections are rarely ever free, and are most certainly never fair. There are entrenched interests that wish to not rock the boat, as that introduces uncertainty. Be this from management, external groups that want to dip into union coffers, etc.
- patmcc 8y ago
  >>well understood and accepted link between increased unionization and increased unemployment. Yes, I know what point the parent was making, and I agreed with that; my points also stand. Unemployment isn't the only consideration - if we had no labour laws or minimum wage I bet unemployment would be lower too. >> closed union shops You need to look at your history more carefully. Closed union shops have been illegal in the US since 1947. The Supreme Court decided in 1985 that a union member can resign from a union at any time (and keep employment). Unions are able to collect "agency fees", but THAT IS ALL - they cannot enforce membership. No forced membership, no entry fee (if you don't join), no closed union shops, no fines imposed by the union (if you don't join). You can get a job at a unionized shop, pay the agency fees, and never join the union. >> Unfair, unfree elections Absolutely there are some corrupt unions with shitty elections, bribes, rent seeking, etc. Same is true for any hierarchy or any democratic process. Saying no one should unionize because some are corrupt is like saying countries are a bad idea because Putin rigs elections.
  - hpcjoe 8y ago
    Looking at history, and some recent (2010) articles before we changed. See [1][2][3] The laws to which you refer ar the Taft-Hartley act, and the NLR act. As for the "no forced membership", it was seemingly easier for local companies to bend to outrageous demands of unions in their contract language, than it was to actually enforce the law as written. There are quite a number of lawsuits apparently about the closed shop nature of many Michigan companies with unions, up and until that right to work was passed. After that, not so much. > Absolutely there are some corrupt unions with shitty elections, bribes, rent seeking, etc. I've not seen counter examples where the unions were not corrupt, rent seeking, etc. I'd love to. This ranges from 11yo me caught in the nastiest teacher strike in the US, where my own teachers were throwing rocks at me in my school bus, though 32yo me being told not to move computers my company was trying to sell to Ford because that was a union job, and there would be consequences to that. So yeah ... in my entire life, currently north of 50 years, 39 of it with experience with unions, I've not seen an example of a positive force a union plays. Anywhere. Many people are in my position, many have seen the corruption, the violence, the rent seeking, etc. personally. > Same is true for any hierarchy or any democratic process. Power has a tendency to corrupt. This is why there must be competing forces for the power, each jealously guarding its interest. > Saying no one should unionize because some are corrupt is like saying countries are a bad idea because Putin rigs elections. This is a poor analogy. The two are not comparable. Also, I did not say "no one should unionize because some are corrupt". I said "unions are corrupt". There may be a vanishingly small number of counterexamples. But I have not personally encountered any. Putin is as Putin does. If he really invested $2M in the ads that no one saw on FB and TWTR, and that swayed the US election ... yeah, I'd be pissed. [1] https://www.varnumlaw.com/newsroom-publications-michigan-a-right-to-work-state https://www.varnumlaw.com/newsroom-publications-michigan-a-r... [2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter15-5.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-... . Closed union shops can be ... closed union shops. [3] http://www.nrtw.org/union-discipline-and-employee-rights/ http://www.nrtw.org/union-discipline-and-employee-rights/ which details the purposefully misleading way many of these membership agreements, collective bargaining agreements, etc. were constructed, as well as the language and insinuations on the part of union officials to the workers.

by patmcc 8y ago

hpcjoe 8y ago

>>>You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. >Yes, and there's a link between high unionization and higher wages/better benefits/better working conditions. Of course there are trade-offs. Look at the history of labour movements in the west. Why do you think we have weekends, overtime pay, etc No, the point the parent was making is that there is a well understood and accepted link between increased unionization and increased unemployment. >>>If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. > That's completely untrue - if you vote against unionization you don't get fired. The union (almost always) doesn't choose who gets hired or gets fired; they often offer protection against undue termination. You may (depending on jurisdiction) be required to join/pay dues. Also, unions have elections - you have a regular chance to choose who negotiates on your behalf. How exactly is the "new master" worse then the previous one? It's quite true. Here in Michigan, until we regained our sanity recently and went right to work, there were closed union shops. You could get hired if and only if you were a member of the union. Which you couldn't get into without being hired. The entry fee into the union ranged depending upon the union, but it was most definitely a pay for play scam. So if you were poor, and couldn't afford the entry fee ... how would you get in? How is this not a monopoly? On those union elections ... Do you believe for a moment that the elections were either free, or fair? Do you not believe that there were corrupting outside influences? This new master became rent seeking, drove costs up, quality down, caused higher unemployment by driving costs up, and eventually drove much of the work to lower wage locales. Yes, this is the reality of what unions have wrought. As for this > But when the union leadership is being bribed they can be voted out by the union members. um ... no. The people in power in their rent seeking ways have a habit of building up a support system of similarly minded folks. Trickle down. Bribes paid supported large union machines that existed for the sole purpose of keeping their officials in power. These elections are rarely ever free, and are most certainly never fair. There are entrenched interests that wish to not rock the boat, as that introduces uncertainty. Be this from management, external groups that want to dip into union coffers, etc.

patmcc 8y ago
>>well understood and accepted link between increased unionization and increased unemployment. Yes, I know what point the parent was making, and I agreed with that; my points also stand. Unemployment isn't the only consideration - if we had no labour laws or minimum wage I bet unemployment would be lower too. >> closed union shops You need to look at your history more carefully. Closed union shops have been illegal in the US since 1947. The Supreme Court decided in 1985 that a union member can resign from a union at any time (and keep employment). Unions are able to collect "agency fees", but THAT IS ALL - they cannot enforce membership. No forced membership, no entry fee (if you don't join), no closed union shops, no fines imposed by the union (if you don't join). You can get a job at a unionized shop, pay the agency fees, and never join the union. >> Unfair, unfree elections Absolutely there are some corrupt unions with shitty elections, bribes, rent seeking, etc. Same is true for any hierarchy or any democratic process. Saying no one should unionize because some are corrupt is like saying countries are a bad idea because Putin rigs elections.
- hpcjoe 8y ago
  Looking at history, and some recent (2010) articles before we changed. See [1][2][3] The laws to which you refer ar the Taft-Hartley act, and the NLR act. As for the "no forced membership", it was seemingly easier for local companies to bend to outrageous demands of unions in their contract language, than it was to actually enforce the law as written. There are quite a number of lawsuits apparently about the closed shop nature of many Michigan companies with unions, up and until that right to work was passed. After that, not so much. > Absolutely there are some corrupt unions with shitty elections, bribes, rent seeking, etc. I've not seen counter examples where the unions were not corrupt, rent seeking, etc. I'd love to. This ranges from 11yo me caught in the nastiest teacher strike in the US, where my own teachers were throwing rocks at me in my school bus, though 32yo me being told not to move computers my company was trying to sell to Ford because that was a union job, and there would be consequences to that. So yeah ... in my entire life, currently north of 50 years, 39 of it with experience with unions, I've not seen an example of a positive force a union plays. Anywhere. Many people are in my position, many have seen the corruption, the violence, the rent seeking, etc. personally. > Same is true for any hierarchy or any democratic process. Power has a tendency to corrupt. This is why there must be competing forces for the power, each jealously guarding its interest. > Saying no one should unionize because some are corrupt is like saying countries are a bad idea because Putin rigs elections. This is a poor analogy. The two are not comparable. Also, I did not say "no one should unionize because some are corrupt". I said "unions are corrupt". There may be a vanishingly small number of counterexamples. But I have not personally encountered any. Putin is as Putin does. If he really invested $2M in the ads that no one saw on FB and TWTR, and that swayed the US election ... yeah, I'd be pissed. [1] https://www.varnumlaw.com/newsroom-publications-michigan-a-right-to-work-state https://www.varnumlaw.com/newsroom-publications-michigan-a-r... [2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter15-5.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-... . Closed union shops can be ... closed union shops. [3] http://www.nrtw.org/union-discipline-and-employee-rights/ http://www.nrtw.org/union-discipline-and-employee-rights/ which details the purposefully misleading way many of these membership agreements, collective bargaining agreements, etc. were constructed, as well as the language and insinuations on the part of union officials to the workers.