General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere 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" for less)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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)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)"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)That sounds like a typical right-wing talking point
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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)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)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)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)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.
xmas74
(29,658 posts)The union has to defend everyone in the bargaining unit, if asked to do so.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)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.
xmas74
(29,658 posts)I was a state employee and our union had to rep anyone who asked.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)But so far, they have failed.
xmas74
(29,658 posts)I still remember to this day that it was the same troublemakers, over and over again.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)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.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)digonswine
(1,485 posts)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)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" 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.)
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Yes, they still very much exist.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)And most people that work for municipalities in N.Y are.
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)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)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.
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)Closed shops got banned by Taft-Hartley and were also found to be unconstitutional. Wikipedia is your friend.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)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.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)PSPS
(13,512 posts)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)"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 TaftHartley 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."
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)boppers
(16,588 posts)Yes, and fuck organized crime.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)you are a gem.
boppers
(16,588 posts)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)So isn't that being forced? Just saying...
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Unions are required - i.e., forced - to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, members, nonmembers, dues-paying or not.
aptal
(304 posts)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)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.
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.
I understand a little better now.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Since 1995 my place of employment has taken the same dues from everyone.
aptal
(304 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)An option would be an Open shop.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)join the union and pay the dues or don't join the unions and pay the dues!
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)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)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)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)