Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BiggJawn

(23,051 posts)
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 09:31 PM Jan 2012

There is NO "forced" Union membership.

People get things mixed up. I think the erroneous assumption that you can be "forced" to join a Union in your workplace may have contributed to Indiana becoming the newest participant in the slide to The Bottom.

The way it used to be, you hired into a place with a Union, you had the choice to join the Union and become a card-carrying member or not join the Union.

Now, the Union is required by law to represent ALL employees in the shop, member or not. You don't belong to the Union, doesn't matter, you get the SAME pay and benefits as the other guys in your gang who are members. Also, when you come back from lunch drunk, the Union has to go fight for your job, too.

The way this worked is, if you were, for some damn stupid reason, philosophically opposed to belonging to a Union, you didn't have to carry a card. what you DID have to do, however, is pay for your representation. They go to bat for you, they bargain for benefits and safety equipment, and defend your job (important in an "Employment-at-Will state like Indiana) Isn't it only fair that you pay your share of this?

Now under the soon-to-become-law "Right-to-Work" law, you don't have to pay for your representation. you get ALL the benefits of Union membership and it won't cost you one Gawd-damn DIME! happy days! You get to FREELOAD off your co-workers who belong to the Union. Pretty soon, Union membership starts to drop. Might even come to the point where a motion to disband passes 4-1 (yeah, only 5 dues-paying members left) and you're working in a 100% union-FREE shop. So comes the day when the workforce is about 1% union in the state.

Without the threat of employees organizing a union, what's going to keep the bosses from cutting pay and making working conditions less pleasant? Hmmm?

I can't believe anybody who calls themselves a Democrat would support something like "Right-to-Work&quot for less)

45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There is NO "forced" Union membership. (Original Post) BiggJawn Jan 2012 OP
I don't know about unions being forced to represent non-union members,.... Honeycombe8 Jan 2012 #1
So many misconceptions. LiberalFighter Jan 2012 #16
As I said, I grew up in a union town. I speak from personal experience. Honeycombe8 Jan 2012 #38
What unions did for the middle class is ancient history? Hugabear Jan 2012 #44
I'm pointing out that that was as "ancient" as the bad union aspects. Honeycombe8 Jan 2012 #45
They have to represent non-union members. xmas74 Jan 2012 #17
Not only that, they have to represent them as well as non-members or the union can face charges Major Nikon Jan 2012 #32
Don't I know it! xmas74 Jan 2012 #35
It's the truth. The union has to defend everyone in the bargaining unit. Mopar151 Jan 2012 #31
You are correct. xmas74 Jan 2012 #36
Not my union. Thankfully. proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #40
That's not so bad. xmas74 Jan 2012 #41
They've tried to legislate that proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #42
They made us. xmas74 Jan 2012 #43
Your parentheses are as distorted orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #2
Yep, "Closed shop" tells it all. You must join the Union in a closed shop, no if's, and's or buts. teddy51 Jan 2012 #4
I know many like that- digonswine Jan 2012 #3
What you're describing is known as an "agency shop." PSPS Jan 2012 #5
I work in a closed shop Sherman A1 Jan 2012 #6
Hell yes ,CSEA is a closed shop! orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #7
My union isn't all that different from CSEA, I don't think. Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #12
fair share, exactly shanti Jan 2012 #26
You're talking about an agency shop. Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #9
You must join the union to continue employment after hiring Sherman A1 Jan 2012 #14
Are we familiar with the same Taft - Hartely ? orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #8
I think so. PSPS Jan 2012 #10
your link appears to support the poster's claim fishwax Jan 2012 #11
My generation believe that lie as well as other proaganda. It is REALLY sick and sad. Justice wanted Jan 2012 #13
"what you DID have to do, however, is pay for your representation" boppers Jan 2012 #15
anti-union too Boppers? U4ikLefty Jan 2012 #34
Nah, I'm pro-Union. boppers Jan 2012 #37
"what you DID have to do, however, is pay for your representation" aptal Jan 2012 #18
Who is being forced PETRUS Jan 2012 #19
Someone who doesn't want to be a part of the union? aptal Jan 2012 #20
Ideological consistency PETRUS Jan 2012 #21
Yes and no Sgent Jan 2012 #22
Thanks, aptal Jan 2012 #23
HENCE closed shop. orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #24
Wether they wanted to pay or not right? aptal Jan 2012 #28
Yes orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #30
Closed shops exist - I work in one. Edweird Jan 2012 #25
I had a choice... whistler162 Jan 2012 #27
I worked in a closed shop... meaculpa2011 Jan 2012 #29
I actaully do support the concept - although Ms. Toad Jan 2012 #33
Collective Bargaining Agreements can require workers to pay dues... Honeycombe8 Jan 2012 #39

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
1. I don't know about unions being forced to represent non-union members,....
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 09:37 PM
Jan 2012

but workers are in a way forced to join a union, if everyone knows who and who isn't a member. Peer pressure.

I grew up in a union town. They took their unions seriously. Even if you had the right to cross the picket line during a strike, you'd best not do that, or you'd be dead. Unioners stood on the line with shotguns.

Still, I fully support unions. Just because of a few bad apples (the crime, the mafia, the killings, the shakedowns), doesn't wipe away all that unions have done for the middle class.

LiberalFighter

(50,486 posts)
16. So many misconceptions.
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 07:18 AM
Jan 2012

Unions are required by federal law to provide fair representation to everyone that is within the bargaining unit. Whether it is a RTW state or not. If the union does not provide fair representation even to someone that doesn't pay dues they can be sued.

What crime? What mafia? What killings and shakedowns? You are talking about ancient history. What still exists is far less than all the crime that exists by the companies themselves. Unions are the same as they were 40 or more years ago. Shotguns? Bullshit. None of the pickets I've been on have had any weapons displayed or used.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
38. As I said, I grew up in a union town. I speak from personal experience.
Sun Jan 29, 2012, 10:51 AM
Jan 2012

"Ancient history" cuts both ways.

What unions did FOR the middle class (the 40 hr workweek, ins. benefits, safety, etc.) - ancient history.

Jimmy Hoffa, shakedowns, mafia, killing nonunioners - ancient history.

You can't fight history. But it's a sword with two edges.

Yes....I saw the shotguns on the picket lines. And there were pics in the paper. It was well known and a common practice. I come from an area with a history of the KKK and where lots of people live with guns. The unions there, though, vote Republican (some of them).

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)
44. What unions did for the middle class is ancient history?
Sun Jan 29, 2012, 06:36 PM
Jan 2012

That sounds like a typical right-wing talking point

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
45. I'm pointing out that that was as "ancient" as the bad union aspects.
Mon Jan 30, 2012, 09:42 AM
Jan 2012

To me, neither is ancient. Read the post I was replying to. If one is ancient and irrelevant, then so is the other. Not my viewpoint. It's the viewpoint of the post I was responding to.

You should reply to that poster. He's the one who seems to think union history is ancient history and irrelevant.

xmas74

(29,658 posts)
17. They have to represent non-union members.
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 09:58 AM
Jan 2012

I worked for a state agency that was unionized. I remember the same darn bozos bitching and moaning about the union, refusing to join, yet were constantly using their reps because they were always in trouble.

I always thought it was funny (the head shaking kind) that the ones who hated the unions the most actually used them the most. Most of the stories about "union" members doing horrible things but getting away with them weren't actually members-they were just using their reps. (At least that's how it was at my job.)

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
32. Not only that, they have to represent them as well as non-members or the union can face charges
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 06:46 PM
Jan 2012

A union can be hit with Unfair Labor Practice charges or be sued for failing to adequately represent a non-member.

xmas74

(29,658 posts)
35. Don't I know it!
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 09:18 PM
Jan 2012

A good friend was a steward. She was called in nearly every month to rep the same couple of guys for the same crap, even though they weren't members. She'd sit in on the inquiry, record everything, pass on what was needed to whomever the info needed to go, etc. Every single time the guys got off, even when it was something really crappy. And every time after they were asked about possibly joining they'd give the same excuse: "Unions don't do crap for me."

I was in the same union and proud to be there. How many times did I need representation for inquiries? None, but I was happy to pay my dues every month. I knew they were there for me in ways that I didn't directly see and that they'd be there for me if I ever needed it.

(For the record-I worked in mental health. Allegations were constantly thrown around on a regular basis, most of which were false. We needed the union to protect our rights.)

Mopar151

(9,965 posts)
31. It's the truth. The union has to defend everyone in the bargaining unit.
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 06:15 PM
Jan 2012

My Dad was an officer in his local. The payment in lieu of dues is called an "agency fee" , paying the union to act as your agent.

And a lot of the "bad apple" stuff was done in retaliation or defense.

proud2BlibKansan

(96,793 posts)
40. Not my union. Thankfully.
Sun Jan 29, 2012, 11:08 AM
Jan 2012

We only have to defend members. Non members get into trouble and are on their own.

But we do have to bargain the contract for everyone, including the non-members.

 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
2. Your parentheses are as distorted
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 09:37 PM
Jan 2012

as your veiw of " Right to Work " ,go out and just join a union ,any of them ,and closed shops eliminate non-members getting the same bennies as those paying.

digonswine

(1,485 posts)
3. I know many like that-
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 09:38 PM
Jan 2012

They get all upset that they are "forced" to pay dues and see no benefit. I am in Wisconsin--my own sis in law argued that. Now she has to pay a much larger chunk of health care and is on a five-year, no pay-raise plan. They do not see the benefits of the union because the fighting has already been done for them.

PSPS

(13,512 posts)
5. What you're describing is known as an "agency shop."
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 09:54 PM
Jan 2012

In my youth, I worked for what was then the largest private employer in the world. All non-salaried people were represented by the same union, and my workplace was an "agency shop" which means you pay union dues ("agency fee&quot and get all the benefits of the union contract whether you personally "join" the union or not. This represents your contribution to the cost of the collective bargaining from which you benefit. The benefits with that job were the most generous of any place I ever worked in my life.

Other types of shops:

"Closed" -- Personal membership in the union is required for employment. I don't think these exist anymore as the practice was outlawed with the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

"Open" -- Also known as "merit," union membership is not required and neither are union dues (like an agency shop.)

Saving Hawaii

(441 posts)
12. My union isn't all that different from CSEA, I don't think.
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 10:43 PM
Jan 2012

Doesn't make it a closed shop. We provide collective bargaining and union representation in the workplace for all company employees including mid-level supervisors. Nobody is required to join the union but they are expected to pay their fair share for collective bargaining and union representation (which is somewhat less than regular union dues, though not much).

What's the alternative? Bail-outs for freeloaders? I don't think it's fair that the rest of the company has to pay union dues to provide collective bargaining and representation to some jerk who's trying to enjoy all the benefits while paying none of the costs. It's only fair.

shanti

(21,670 posts)
26. fair share, exactly
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 08:58 PM
Jan 2012

even if one doesn't want to join, they still have to pay. it's not that much less, a few bucks, but i used to work with someone who refused to join, even for a few bucks more. he was a tightwad though.

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
14. You must join the union to continue employment after hiring
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 06:51 AM
Jan 2012

Split hairs on terminology as you wish. The only non union workers are management who are not represented by the union at all. We have had at least one person terminated through the years for failure to pay union dues. You are either a member or you do not work there, it's pretty simple.

PSPS

(13,512 posts)
10. I think so.
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 10:39 PM
Jan 2012

The Taft Harley Act of 1947 allowed employees the right not to join unions, which renders the whole idea of a "closed shop" moot. This was further codified in the 1959 Landrum-Griffin amendments to the National Labor Relations Act.

Maybe you're thinking of a "Union-shop agreement" that specified that workers in a union are to maintain union membership as a condition of employment (with escape periods during the term of the contract.) A union contract can have a provision that requires employees to join the union within thirty days of hire, but that contract can't limit a worker's ability to resign from the union. Union-shop agreements can no longer require maintenance of union membership.

fishwax

(29,146 posts)
11. your link appears to support the poster's claim
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 10:40 PM
Jan 2012

"The amendments enacted in Taft-Hartley added a list of prohibited actions, or unfair labor practices, on the part of unions to the NLRA, which had previously only prohibited unfair labor practices committed by employers. The Taft–Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass right-to-work laws that outlawed closed union shops. Furthermore, the executive branch of the Federal government could obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions if an impending or current strike imperiled the national health or safety, a test that has been interpreted broadly by the courts."

boppers

(16,588 posts)
37. Nah, I'm pro-Union.
Sat Jan 28, 2012, 07:09 AM
Jan 2012

I'm anti-compulsory "protection money". I'm also anti-bureaucratic-hypocritical-absurdity.

Let me tell you about a friend of mine. He worked 60-70 hours a week. He made no overtime. He had "manager duties" over positions.... that the HR department refused to ever fill. He was a manager.... on paper only. His job? A graphics and printing (a heavy union profession) co-ordinator. For generating signage, banners, (etc.) for his organization.

The organization was the AFL-CIO. (DC Office.)

Those "pro-union" banners and signs he produced? That were used all over the country?

Yeah, the AFL-CIO fucked over the very workers making their signs. They're just another corporation, at their heart, with the "top" making six or seven figures, while they bleed workers.

So, I tend to be a bit skeptical.

Any union worth its salt doesn't *have* to be paid up front to maybe, just maybe, defend worker rights later...

People wonder why Unions have been on the downswing for at least 50 years. Well, to me, it looks like US unions stopped caring about workers, and started caring about their members, their political power, their legal arms, all kinds of things that detract from a basic mission.

Putting it another way: You don't turn a scab by threatening workers, you turn a scab by getting them union benefits, for no cost, and asking if they would like to keep those benefits in the long run by joining a union.


aptal

(304 posts)
18. "what you DID have to do, however, is pay for your representation"
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 02:45 PM
Jan 2012

So isn't that being forced? Just saying...

PETRUS

(3,678 posts)
19. Who is being forced
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 02:53 PM
Jan 2012

Unions are required - i.e., forced - to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, members, nonmembers, dues-paying or not.

aptal

(304 posts)
20. Someone who doesn't want to be a part of the union?
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 02:56 PM
Jan 2012

They "worker" is forced to pay correct? So if you are paying for something you don't want, then it's "forced."

PETRUS

(3,678 posts)
21. Ideological consistency
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 03:08 PM
Jan 2012

Under current law, the union must represent everyone. So if coercion bothers you (and it's reasonable to have such concerns) that issue should take precedence.

To be fair, I think results should matter when it comes to public policy. One should state their aims clearly so the consequences can be measured and policy continued or altered based on whether or not the goals are being achieved.

Sgent

(5,857 posts)
22. Yes and no
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 03:39 PM
Jan 2012

The non-union member is forced to pay for the "representation", but not for the union membership.

He can't be charged the full union dues, and his dues cannot go to the national organizations, political pacs / campaigns, or any other items that are not costs of negotiations.

meaculpa2011

(918 posts)
29. I worked in a closed shop...
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 09:58 AM
Jan 2012

when an unusual work assignment came up. I was the only person in my group who could do it (long story) so I negotiated a rather steep premium with my supervisor who gave in immediately. One of my fellow workers then filed a grievance and the union prohibited the deal. I wound up doing the assignment and got paid the premium through a variety of back-door perks. The company booked first class travel and high-end lodging which I then exchanged for cash. Made a lot of money over the course of 18 months. My family has benefited greatly from union membership through the years and we've experienced plenty interesting anomalies. I worked in a union shop where several local mob associates had no-show jobs. Whenever they showed for work we knew they were under surveillance.

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
33. I actaully do support the concept - although
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 06:50 PM
Jan 2012

I wish unions had not been insistent enough on agency shops that a law was necessary to enforce the concept.

I was a union member for all the years I was eligible to be one. I have been on strike, and for years I was a building rep in the union I was a member of at the time of the strike.

I also informed my union that if we insisted on agency shop, and went on strike for that issue I would resign as building rep, and cross the picket line. If they had been successful, I would have been plaintiff on one of the first cases filed challenging agency shop.

I agree with charging non-members for the real costs of negotiating and enforcing the contract. The problem is that the union I belonged to didn't want a dramatically two tiered option (a much lower price for non-members and a much higher price for members), fearing that people would then opt out of membership.

In our school, the proposed fees were identical (or at least 95% of) the amount I paid for union dues (it wasn't completely resolved at the time it was dropped). My union dues bought membership in both the local, state, and national arms of the union, and all of the benefits they provided which were unrelated to negotiating a contract and enforcing the contract. It got me the research and advocacy, and political action of all three entities, to name a few. The proposed fees were far more than it cost to negotiate and enforce the contract. The court decisions at the time (I haven't looked recently) said it was perfectly find to charge non-members for all but the most explicit political advocacy.

I chose to belong to the union, both on principle and because the extras that membership got me were worth supporting. I liked the voice at various levels of education and advocacy that it gave me, and was happy to pay higher fees to support that.

I believe in strong unions. I don't believe you create strong unions by coercing those who choose not to join to financially support them beyond what it costs to negotiate and enforce the contract. I believe you create strong unions by ensuring they provide value for the dues so that people want to become - and stay - members of them.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
39. Collective Bargaining Agreements can require workers to pay dues...
Sun Jan 29, 2012, 11:03 AM
Jan 2012

but not to join the union. In that case, in NH, the union must represent the non-union workers because they have paid funds into the union, though techncally not union members:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/workers-are-never-required-to-join-unions

The NYT wrongly told readers that a bill approved by the New Hampshire legislature would, "disallow collective bargaining agreements that require employees to join a labor union." It is already the case that collective bargaining agreements cannot require employees to join a labor union.

Under current New Hampshire law, collective bargaining agreements can require workers to pay representation fees to a union. National labor law requires that a union represent all workers who are in a bargaining unit regardless of whether or not they opt to join the union.

This means that non-members not only get the same wages and benefits as union members, but the union is also required to represent non-members in any conflict with the employer covered by the contract. For example, if a non-member is faced with an improper dismissal the union is obligated to provide them with the same representation as a union member.
(snip)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There is NO "forced&...