We beat the Union today!

Damocles said:
The choice here would be between an open shop and a union shop.

In an open shop you can choose not to be union and still work there. In a union shop you must, after a period of time after hire, become a member of the union.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I'm dyed in the wool when it comes to unions but I don't and never have supported the closed shop. Our state and federal industrial legislation has outlawed the concept for many years. No-one should be forced to join a union. They should, if they accept the benefits won by the union, be called out as bludgers on the union and they should be persuaded to join the union but they shouldn't be forced. At the state level here for many years a conscientous objector has had the right to pay the equivalent of union dues to a nominate charity.
 
Diuretic said:
That's interesting. I'm dyed in the wool when it comes to unions but I don't and never have supported the closed shop. Our state and federal industrial legislation has outlawed the concept for many years. No-one should be forced to join a union. They should, if they accept the benefits won by the union, be called out as bludgers on the union and they should be persuaded to join the union but they shouldn't be forced. At the state level here for many years a conscientous objector has had the right to pay the equivalent of union dues to a nominate charity.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be "persuaded" here you are forced to pay dues even if you choose not to be represented.
 
Diuretic said:
That's interesting. I'm dyed in the wool when it comes to unions but I don't and never have supported the closed shop. Our state and federal industrial legislation has outlawed the concept for many years. No-one should be forced to join a union. They should, if they accept the benefits won by the union, be called out as bludgers on the union and they should be persuaded to join the union but they shouldn't be forced. At the state level here for many years a conscientous objector has had the right to pay the equivalent of union dues to a nominate charity.
Click to expand...

O, but are union rules are probably completely different than yours.

Anyway, it's a constriction of the market to disallow contracts between employers and union.
 
Damocles said:
You don't have to be "persuaded" here you are forced to pay dues even if you choose not to be represented.
Click to expand...

There was some talk about that here in some jurisdictions. The argument was that since the "award" (I can explain it but your eyes will glaze over) was won by the union (an "award" puts in minimal conditions in a particular industry or craft across all employers) and enterprise agreements (think labor contract) raise pay and benefits (and they do, there's no clawback here) then those who are not union members but get the benefit should pay the union a fee for service. It didn't get anywhere though.
 
Watermark said:
O, but are union rules are probably completely different than yours.

Anyway, it's a constriction of the market to disallow contracts between employers and union.
Click to expand...

I've had a look at some unions in the US, I went along to a collective bargaining training course in Austin, Tx and also sat in on actual collective bargaining sessions in Tx and NM. I will not profess any expertise in how it's done there though. But I think I have a little bit of knowledge of how things work. There are indeed very major differences not just between our unions but also our industrial relations systems.

I always wanted to go to this -

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/index.html

but I was a victim of internal politics in my own union and didn't get there.
 
Diuretic said:
I've had a look at some unions in the US, I went along to a collective bargaining training course in Austin, Tx and also sat in on actual collective bargaining sessions in Tx and NM. I will not profess any expertise in how it's done there though. But I think I have a little bit of knowledge of how things work. There are indeed very major differences not just between our unions but also our industrial relations systems.

I always wanted to go to this -

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/index.html

but I was a victim of internal politics in my own union and didn't get there.
Click to expand...

I think in America the big thing that gets unions is that they are required to represent non union members in the bargaining unit even if they aren't paying dues.
 
Watermark said:
I think in America the big thing that gets unions is that they are required to represent non union members in the bargaining unit even if they aren't paying dues.
Click to expand...
They are not. In places where they are required to represent, those who are not members must pay.

In right to work states, those who are not members are not represented by them at all.
 
Diuretic said:
You said "labour" not "labor". :clink:
Click to expand...

I like the American spelling better. The other way harkens too much back on 1066, when the Old English language died and was replaced with this convoluted, Latinized thing that we have today. Of course, our language has Shakespeare, Tennyson, Longfellow, etc., and the other one doesn't, but you get the point...

This is also particularly significant, because in every other (at least I'm pretty sure its the only exception) discrepency, I always side with the Queen's English over American (and Aussie, Canadian, S. African, etc.) English. For example, it is "you all," or "chaps/blokes" and not "y'all" or "mates." :clink:
 
Threedee said:
I like the American spelling better. The other way harkens too much back on 1066, when the Old English language died and was replaced with this convoluted, Latinized thing that we have today. Of course, our language has Shakespeare, Tennyson, Longfellow, etc., and the other one doesn't, but you get the point...

This is also particularly significant, because in every other (at least I'm pretty sure its the only exception) discrepency, I always side with the Queen's English over American (and Aussie, Canadian, S. African, etc.) English. For example, it is "you all," or "chaps/blokes" and not "y'all" or "mates." :clink:
Click to expand...

"Labour" looks better than "Labor", but "Colour" looks worse than "Color". I'm a bit picky with this.
 
Watermark said:
I think in America the big thing that gets unions is that they are required to represent non union members in the bargaining unit even if they aren't paying dues.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. It's not the case here, of course the non-union members get the benefits but they don't get the input into the union agenda prior to the first round of negotiations. Personally I don't like the idea of someone getting a free ride but then I still don't like compulsory unionism even though I'm 100% union, always have been, always will be.
 
Threedee said:
I like the American spelling better. The other way harkens too much back on 1066, when the Old English language died and was replaced with this convoluted, Latinized thing that we have today. Of course, our language has Shakespeare, Tennyson, Longfellow, etc., and the other one doesn't, but you get the point...

This is also particularly significant, because in every other (at least I'm pretty sure its the only exception) discrepency, I always side with the Queen's English over American (and Aussie, Canadian, S. African, etc.) English. For example, it is "you all," or "chaps/blokes" and not "y'all" or "mates." :clink:
Click to expand...

I remember reading that the "u" was actually an affectation which occurred after the American colonies broke away. So Americans actually have the pure spelling. The "u" was apparently put into words like "colour" and "labour" and the rest of it because everything French was a fad and they wanted to make those words more French-like.

It's an interesting language for sure. I like the variations, I think it keeps it stronger.

Bud :clink: :D
 
Watermark said:
"Labour" looks better than "Labor", but "Colour" looks worse than "Color". I'm a bit picky with this.
Click to expand...

And here we have the Australian Labor Party (when it was formed the shearers who formed it explicitly rejected "Labour" for the name of their party and insisted on "Labor"). Many newspapers here use the American spelling, some keep the British-Australian spelling.

Funny thing, I've noticed a bit of cross-pollination regarding "arse/ass". People here are using "ass" instead of "arse" but I've noted some Americans using "arse" over "ass".

I hope we don't all get anodyne.
 
Diuretic said:
Funny thing, I've noticed a bit of cross-pollination regarding "arse/ass". People here are using "ass" instead of "arse" but I've noted some Americans using "arse" over "ass".

I hope we don't all get anodyne.
Click to expand...

I've noticed some American posters adopting "arse" in recent years as well as an increasing use of "wanker", which i'd always regarded as a British/Oz/S.African thing. I'm thinking of starting a campaign to introduce the word "spunktrumpet" to American shores.

As far as cross-pollination goes, sometimes i do find myself throwing an odd MF'er into polite conversation. It does tend to liven things up splendidly.

Incidentally, i know it's not swearing but you would not believe the amount of Australian vernacular which has crept into English conversation due almost entirely to the sinister Australian propaganda vehicle known as 'Neighbours'.
 
Americans use "arse" because it sounds funny and not at all like a curse word. Kind of like "bastage"...

The Australopythicus, or whatever you call people from that Island that they try to convince me is a continent, use "ass" because they watch too much TeeVee...
 
charver said:
I've noticed some American posters adopting "arse" in recent years as well as an increasing use of "wanker", which i'd always regarded as a British/Oz/S.African thing. I'm thinking of starting a campaign to introduce the word "spunktrumpet" to American shores.

As far as cross-pollination goes, sometimes i do find myself throwing an odd MF'er into polite conversation. It does tend to liven things up splendidly.

Incidentally, i know it's not swearing but you would not believe the amount of Australian vernacular which has crept into English conversation due almost entirely to the sinister Australian propaganda vehicle known as 'Neighbours'.
Click to expand...

I have to apologise for "Neighbours". I saw an episode once. By accident. For five minutes.

What a load of shite it is :eek:
 
Damocles said:
Americans use "arse" because it sounds funny and not at all like a curse word. Kind of like "bastage"...

The Australopythicus, or whatever you call people from that Island that they try to convince me is a continent, use "ass" because they watch too much TeeVee...
Click to expand...

Our TeeVee is piped in from RupertMurdochemania aka the US, we don't have a chance :clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top