HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I'm trying to understand ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:20 AM

 

I'm trying to understand the issue of right to work

All I could find is this so tell me if I completely understand the law.

This law is not between the employee and the union ?
am I correct on that?

This law is between the union member and the union?

This will allow a union member to still stay in the union but decide when he or she pays for union dues?

Or they can decide not to pay dues and still stay as a union member?
That's pretty much it "right" ?

Now are there a lot of union members that will quit paying their dues?

I would think that most union members would still support their union no matter what the law states?

Am I wrong on this last question..

16 replies, 1204 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply I'm trying to understand the issue of right to work (Original post)
former-republican Dec 2012 OP
Ed Suspicious Dec 2012 #1
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #2
former-republican Dec 2012 #4
jeff47 Dec 2012 #7
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #9
pnwest Dec 2012 #3
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #5
Resonance_Chamber Dec 2012 #14
jeff47 Dec 2012 #6
Rincewind Dec 2012 #11
former-republican Dec 2012 #8
fadedrose Dec 2012 #10
ripcord Dec 2012 #12
yortsed snacilbuper Dec 2012 #13
Salviati Dec 2012 #15
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #16

Response to former-republican (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:46 AM

1. I work at a union shop. Every employee my company hires in manufacturing and

maintenance is compelled to join the union. The union contract governs all relations and grievances between the employer and the employees. I believe right to work makes the requirement of union membership at a "Union Shop" to be illegal. You could have two classes of workers in a shop. Those in the union and those not in the union. As you can imagine, a divided workforce is a less powerful class.

I think this is the point. The non-union people would be receiving similar pay and benefits the union members receive without paying union dues. Eventually the union becomes a diminished factor at that shop. It uses the idea of a larger paycheck and the impression that you don't need a union to disembowel the union. The end result is no union in the shop and ultimately a decrease in salaries, benefits, and a shift in the balance of power toward the bosses favor.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:49 AM

2. Yup, it destroys "closed shops."

It also means that everybody will get representation, but not everybody is paying for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:57 AM

4. So when the union would negotiate a new contract the non union employee benefits the same way?

 

or would the non union workers be on their own if they are called on the carpet so to speak in front of management?

This is a little what I don't understand about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:09 AM

7. The non-union employees benefit as long as the union still exists.

After the union folds due to lack of funds, the bosses will cut wages and benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:12 AM

9. Yes, the non union benefits

California is not a right to work state, but the USPS, federal land, works like it when it comes to the Unions.

The union negotiates for all workers, they represent all workers when grievances come...but it is funded by union members. This has resulted in people working at the plant as non union with all protections. It is technically called an open shop.

Yup, you get in trouble at work, a shop steward will be there to represent you regardless of your fee paying status.

So naturally a few decide that the fifty bucks don't need to go there, weakening the Union's financial position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:53 AM

3. i dont think thats quite right. what i understand,

is that basically no workplace can be strictly union, because everyone has the right to work, and shouldn't have to join a union to get a job.

Where the problem starts, is that these non-union workers want the same benefits and pay as the union guys, but aren't willing to join the union and pay dues to help the union stay strong. Then, once everybody starts quitting the union, they lose strength, and all the things they fought for start sliding away. Like sick pay, insurance, competitive wages...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:59 AM

5. OK, There are union members and then there are scabs. Scabs are freeloaders that do not DU, they

don't pay dues, yet the union is legally responsible to represent them to a point. A closed shop means that dues paying membership is a condition of employment. A right to work state always favors the condition of employment toward management and against labor. Exploitation gets them (management) more pay because managment can then force the production of more widgets and cut costs through violation of worker rights, because workers are eventually forced to work w/o management/labor contracts, therefore make less money. You'll see if you work for a living. That bullshit advantage over workers lives can only be overcome by unity and creation of power in numbers in workforces. I'm tired. Goodnight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:04 AM

14. The Union Works have the power now if they want it

 

see the scabs could be easily encouraged to become a dues paying member or they can seek employment elsewhere.

If Union Members Apply the Proper Peer Pressure the scabs will go away.


Look back to your history union members YOU have the power, you just have to have the will to USE it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:07 AM

6. It works like this:

Union negotiates a contract on behalf of the employees. The way the old law worked, employees had to pay the union to do so.

The way the new law works, employees can decide to not pay the union, but still benefit from the union's negotiation efforts.

Since those efforts cost money, the union will run out of money and go away. Leaving the workers at the whim of their employer.

I would think that most union members would still support their union no matter what the law states?

Some will keep paying. Others will want more money in their paycheck, for selfish or selfless reasons. That second group gradually snowballs until the union is gone.

And, FYI, these dues can not be used for political activity. I mention this because that was the objection a lot of newscasters put forth for why people might object to paying dues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:42 AM

11. Another point,

if the union goes on strike, and an employer can force a strike by refusing to negotiate, only the employees that belong to the union go on strike. The ones that don't belong, keep on working, and getting paid. Then, as the strike goes on, some strikers fall behind on their bills, get shut off notices, can't feed their kids, and so on. So, more and more workers cross the picket line, because they desperately need the money, and might even drop out of the union. The result is, either the union shuts down due to lack of members, or, there is technically still a union, but it is totally powerless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:11 AM

8. All right thanks guys

 

Now I got it.
When I was 18 my father got me a job in a textile plant , you had to be a teamster to work there. Everyone wanted to be one.
And that would end with this law because new hires could refuse to pay dues but still be represented by the teamsters or what ever union is in place.

The plant is long gone but my father was a life long teamster of over 40 years.
My family had retired workers show up at his funeral that I never even had meet before.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:16 AM

10. Many can't afford the dues, and won't pay...

but probably most will. They fear losing their jobs if they get gray hair or get slower from old age - seniority protects them and their pension. Or if the boss is mad because they voted Dem, he can fire them for that...any reason..

One thing tho. Some of the union people make a good bit of money, and should consider lowering dues. Some of them have wonderful vacation lodges, etc., from what I heard...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:49 AM

12. Our local school district is a hybrid

People aren't required to join the union but they do have to pay a small fee for the union doing the negotiating. Non members are not represented by the union for any job related problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:57 AM

13. My union dues were $15.00 a month,

it was the best investment I ever made!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yortsed snacilbuper (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:16 PM

15. Exactly. If you can't afford your union dues...

Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)

...then you can't afford to work at your job when it becomes non-union.

Wanting to stiff your union is the textbook definition of penny-wise, pound-foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salviati (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:02 AM

16. If you can't afford your fucking union dues, then you fucking really don't have a union fucking job!

in the first place!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread