Right to work laws

Dungheap said:
If you are in the bargaining unit, the union represents you. That's the bottom line:
Click to expand...

Ok, but what represents a "bargaining unit"???? Isn't that unit "union-employees"??? Because otherwise you are forcing the minority to accept representation based on what the majority wants. Which should be (if it is not) illegal. If I work for a company that has a union and I think the union leaders do not make good representation for me, I should not be forced to accept their representation.
 
Superfreak said:
Ok, but what represents a "bargaining unit"???? Isn't that unit "union-employees"??? Because otherwise you are forcing the minority to accept representation based on what the majority wants. Which should be (if it is not) illegal. If I work for a company that has a union and I think the union leaders do not make good representation for me, I should not be forced to accept their representation.
Click to expand...


Ok, but what represents a "bargaining unit"???? Isn't that unit "union-employees"???


I really don't think you understand collective bargaining or unions at all.

Of course there are companies that have union employees, and non-union employees. Bargaining units are largely based on job classification. United Airlines has a union for machinists or mechanics. But, the supervisors, or white collar professional staff at United Airlines aren't in that job classification, and most likely aren't union represented.
 
Superfreak said:
Ok, but what represents a "bargaining unit"???? Isn't that unit "union-employees"??? Because otherwise you are forcing the minority to accept representation based on what the majority wants. Which should be (if it is not) illegal. If I work for a company that has a union and I think the union leaders do not make good representation for me, I should not be forced to accept their representation.
Click to expand...


The NLRB decides what is a bargaining unit. In order to gain union representation there has to be a vote of the employees. That vote is conducted under the guidance of the NLRB. The NLRB, in conducting the election, determines what is the appropriate bargaining unit. If the union gains majority support from the bargaining unit, it represents the entire bargaining unit, minority and majority alike. If those voting against the union don't want to be members, they can choose not to be members. Nevertheless, the union is required by law to represent the non-members. The non-members can conversely be required to pay for that union representation. However, non-members cannot be compelled to pay for anything that is unrelated to that representation, such as political activities of the union.
 
Dungheap said:
The NLRB decides what is a bargaining unit. In order to gain union representation there has to be a vote of the employees. That vote is conducted under the guidance of the NLRB. The NLRB, in conducting the election, determines what is the appropriate bargaining unit. If the union gains majority support from the bargaining unit, it represents the entire bargaining unit, minority and majority alike. If those voting against the union don't want to be members, they can choose not to be members. Nevertheless, the union is required by law to represent the non-members. The non-members can conversely be required to pay for that union representation. However, non-members cannot be compelled to pay for anything that is unrelated to that representation, such as political activities of the union.
Click to expand...

Then the law needs to be changed. Because that in essence states that non-union employees can be forced to pay for representation that they do not wish to have.

I was hoping this had changed, given it is exactly what happened to me in my first job out of college. Except in that case I was actually forced to join the union once it formed. It was either that or quit or not use the company trucks (which we had to have to do our jobs). Which is complete bullshit. Needless to say, the union reps did not like me much as I gave them endless amounts of shit at each of the meetings for their shoddy "representation". Friggin teamsters union sucks.... especially for their representation of the sales team.
 
Right to work laws usually equate to the right to discriminate and the right to get rid of your ass anytime your employer gets a hair up his ass.
 
blackascoal said:
Right to work laws usually equate to the right to discriminate and the right to get rid of your ass anytime your employer gets a hair up his ass.
Click to expand...

The lack of right to work laws usually equates to unions taking your money and giving it to politicians you may not support. Unions mean you can be as lazy as you want and the company cannot fire you.

See, I can make blanket statements like that as well.
 
By the way BAC, very few companies can afford to fire employees just because they have a hair up their ass. It costs time and money to train new employees. Training new people is not efficient and thus companies prefer to hire and maintain more efficient workers.
 
Superfreak said:
By the way BAC, very few companies can afford to fire employees just because they have a hair up their ass. It costs time and money to train new employees. Training new people is not efficient and thus companies prefer to hire and maintain more efficient workers.
Click to expand...

Quite obviously you should do more study on the issue.

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).

Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).

Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.
 
blackascoal said:
Quite obviously you should do more study on the issue.

The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).

Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).

Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.
Click to expand...

Quite obviously you need to quit reading biased studies. Now take a look at the cost of living standards in the south (where most right to work states are located) and then take a look at say... the northeast or west coast and look at the cost of living. oops.
 
Superfreak said:
Quite obviously you need to quit reading biased studies. Now take a look at the cost of living standards in the south (where most right to work states are located) and then take a look at say... the northeast or west coast and look at the cost of living. oops.
Click to expand...

DUUUHHH !!!

You think.
 
Superfreak said:
Is that your way of admitting those numbers are full of crap?
Click to expand...

Nope .. my way of admitting that I'm right .. there is a reason why workers in so-called "right to work" states also have a lower standard of living and suffer the highest rates of worker fatalities.

Are the numbers demonstrating significantly higher fatalities in RTW states "full of crap" as well?

"The most important aspect of right-to-work law is its effect on wages. That there have only been a handful of studies directly assessing the impact of these laws on workers' earnings is surprising. What research there is on the subject is mixed, with findings critically dependent on model specification. Unlike most research up to this point, this analysis focuses on the impact of regional costs of living and finds that workers living in RTW states earn significantly less than workers living in non-RTW states. We also find that care must be taken in examining the true effect of right-to-work legislation.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the effect of RTW legislation can be found in those metropolitan areas that occupy both RTW and non-RTW states. In these cases, estimating the effects separately indicates that workers living in these metropolitan areas are helped by the higher earnings typical of the non-RTW state.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_rtw_index
 
blackascoal said:
Nope .. my way of admitting that I'm right .. there is a reason why workers in so-called "right to work" states also have a lower standard of living and suffer the highest rates of worker fatalities.

Are the numbers demonstrating significantly higher fatalities in RTW states "full of crap" as well?

"The most important aspect of right-to-work law is its effect on wages. That there have only been a handful of studies directly assessing the impact of these laws on workers' earnings is surprising. What research there is on the subject is mixed, with findings critically dependent on model specification. Unlike most research up to this point, this analysis focuses on the impact of regional costs of living and finds that workers living in RTW states earn significantly less than workers living in non-RTW states. We also find that care must be taken in examining the true effect of right-to-work legislation.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the effect of RTW legislation can be found in those metropolitan areas that occupy both RTW and non-RTW states. In these cases, estimating the effects separately indicates that workers living in these metropolitan areas are helped by the higher earnings typical of the non-RTW state.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_rtw_index
Click to expand...

Give me some time to look over this study. I will respond after having a chance to review..... and thank you for providing it.
 
blackascoal said:
You're quite welcome.
Click to expand...

Ok, this was one of the better studies I have seen on this as they at least do attempt to adjust for cost of living (which the others I have seen did not). The cost of living adjustment they use is based on rents differentials from HUD. Not the be all end all by any means, but better than nothing. The problem is that it does not account for any other cost of living differences such as food, energy, healthcare etc... all of which will tend to be higher in the north than the south. But again, at least they made the attempt.

My personal belief is that once the other costs are equated, that there will not be much of a difference between the RTW and Non-RTW states with regards to average income/bene's. But until a study is done that factors in more cost of living adjustments, I cannot be certain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top