Discussion: All Things Union

[hippie_hunter]

The problem is it's a backdoor way of dissolving the union. Why should somebody get paid the exact same amount and get the exact same benefits to work a union job that the union fought for basically(sure it may suck paying 1-2 dollars to the union each hour but what would you rather having to pay those union dues and making 25 bucks or not paying dues and making less then 20 bucks). Alot of people will opt out saying why should I give the union money which intern will make the union weaker, which intern will make it harder for the union to have any power. It's a basic case of divide and conquer

Why should someone be forced to join an organization if they don't want to?

 

[SentinelMind]

Why should someone be forced to join an organization if they don't want to?

[YT]K8E_zMLCRNg[/YT]

 

[dnno1]

Why should someone be forced to join an organization if they don't want to?

Because they are not. If they accept an offer from an employer who has a contract with a union, that person does not have to join a union under the Taft-Hartley Act. They do, though have to pay the equivalent dues for representation during collective bargaining activities. It is only fair since they are being represented even though they may not be a member and there should be some compensation for those services. This does not imply in any way that the dues are going for any of the union's political or organizing activities. That would be illegal under federal law.

 

[chaseter]

So in dnno's world, paying dues involuntarily is not joining the union....only until you get your decoder ring!

Think of all the money that would have been pumped back into the economy if all the dues weren't spent on fat cat union bosses and greasy politicians.

 

[bkong0]

Considering the unionization rate of America - Very very little.

It's been shown clearly that when unionization decreases, corporate profits rise because employees are paid less (obviously, that's the point of crippling unions). So any claim of "think of how much money would go to the economy if blah blah unions weren't around" is pretty hilarious given that it's the lower classes/middle class that drive the economy. Reduce their wages to fund corporate profits and the salaries of the top 1% and what happens?

Ding ding, the economy suffers. See also : How right to work states have consistently reduced employee compensation.

When even Forbes, one of the most pro-business magazines on the planet, is saying that right to work laws are deliberately intended to hurt employee compensation, it gets pretty ridiculous to pretend "unions" (at historically record low levels) are at any fault for the economy.

 

[SV Fan]

Think of all the money that would have been pumped back into the economy if all the dues weren't spent on fat cat union bosses and greasy politicians.

Without unions the only place those extra unions dues would be going is back into the pockets of the owners, plus you probably could add some extra cash going into the owners pockets beyond the amount people pay in unions dues. As I said what is worse making 25 dollars an hour and paying a dollar to 2 dollars an hour in union dues or making 20 dollars an hour and no unions dues?

This is a 40 year period in that period

Union membership decreases by ~50%, The 1% double it's share of income and the middle class loses about 5% of the share of the income.

 

[Kelly]

So what you are saying is, at least for Teacher's Unions....the dues would be going to the owner of the School (the government), but now its going to the government.....lol j/k

I don't have a whole lot of negative things to say about Private Unions for the most part they do an ok job, I still don't believe anyone should be forced to join ANY UNION....at all, that is just wrong....but Public Unions SUCK, and that is the only way to describe them....

 

[SV Fan]

So what you are saying is, at least for Teacher's Unions....the dues would be going to the owner of the School (the government), but now its going to the government.....lol j/k

I guess that is somewhat a fair argument, but I basically stand that a strong union both public and private sector(warts and all sometimes in the public sector) helps create a stronger middle class.

A stronger middle class on the flip side are people who are more likely to go out and spend a higher percentage of the money they make which intern will stimulate the economy. Businesses though don't think long term(ie how does the middle class stay wealthy so they can buy our products or services), they just look at their quarterly reports and try figure out how they can get more cash to that 1% so you have to have somebody arguing for the middle class.

Where I think the unions lost it over the past 40 years is not drilling into the heads of it's members the importance of shopping at pro-union stores or at least ones that put a high emphasis on treating workers right(ie you should shop at Costco not Walmart)

 

[Kelly]

Here's the thing SV, I totally understand where you are coming from, I really do. And I honestly believe that the organization I belong to and pay dues to, is important to me as a teacher.....BUT, here is where my teacher organization is different from others. My dues ONLY go towards educational aspects, grants for teachers in their classrooms, education legislation NOT politicians pockets for their campaigns...nor does it go into the pockets of other unions that have nothing to do with education. SEE, THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE FOR ME, yet this organization does the same thing for me that these other teacher's unions do in other states, BUT...I don't HAVE TO JOIN ONE, and I was given the ability to choose the organization that I wanted to be a part of, and I chose one that has no ties to any political party.

THAT FOR ME IS THE DIFFERENCE, CHOICE......

 

[dnno1]

So in dnno's world, paying dues involuntarily is not joining the union....only until you get your decoder ring!

Think of all the money that would have been pumped back into the economy if all the dues weren't spent on fat cat union bosses and greasy politicians.

We live in the same world where the Taft-Hartley Act is law, and that bit of legislation permits a person to not join a union, but yet still is required to pay union dues (called agency fees) to cover for collective bargaining activities. The union agreements apply to all workers at a facility not just union members, so I think it would be only fair that the non-union worker pay that fee upon request. I think it is you that are living in a hypocritical world where you complain about people not paying taxes but yet getting free money and government services, but yet think it is a person's right not be be forced to join something but yet should have free representation at the bargaining table as well as partake int the pay raises and benefits of the collective bargaining agreements without paying a dime for any of the efforts to get those benefits. You are pretty messed up, man.

 

[dnno1]

So what you are saying is, at least for Teacher's Unions....the dues would be going to the owner of the School (the government), but now its going to the government.....lol j/k

I don't have a whole lot of negative things to say about Private Unions for the most part they do an ok job, I still don't believe anyone should be forced to join ANY UNION....at all, that is just wrong....but Public Unions SUCK, and that is the only way to describe them....

like I said before, no one is being forced to join a union at all, but if you agree to work for a place that has an existing collective bargaining agreement you also agree to being represented and possibly paying agency fees for the services they provide.

 

[Kelly]

Has nothing to do with what I posted....but ok....

 

[dnno1]

Has nothing to do with what I posted....but ok....

It does in that your opinion was that you did not believe that people should be forced to join a union, and I am ensuring you that nobody is being forced.

 

[chaseter]

Without unions the only place those extra unions dues would be going is back into the pockets of the owners, plus you probably could add some extra cash going into the owners pockets beyond the amount people pay in unions dues. As I said what is worse making 25 dollars an hour and paying a dollar to 2 dollars an hour in union dues or making 20 dollars an hour and no unions dues?

This is a 40 year period in that period

Union membership decreases by ~50%, The 1% double it's share of income and the middle class loses about 5% of the share of the income.

What share of income? Oh right...think progress. We all put our money into a pot and commune with Gaia, mother Earth.

I love how the left vilify CEOs and fat cat bankers but love, love, love the union leaders. Lets take a look at what union dues are going to:

Michael J. Sullivan, general president of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
Salary: $1,043,023

Robert A. Scardelletti, international president of the Transportation Communications Union
Salary: $748,531

Newton B. Jones, president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Salary: $607,022

Terence M. O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America
Salary: $589,124

John T. Niccollai, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 464A
Salary: $532,752

Gerald McEntee, international president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Salary: $512,369


ROFLTCOPTR

 

[chaseter]

We live in the same world where the Taft-Hartley Act is law, and that bit of legislation permits a person to not join a union, but yet still is required to pay union dues (called agency fees) to cover for collective bargaining activities. The union agreements apply to all workers at a facility not just union members, so I think it would be only fair that the non-union worker pay that fee upon request. I think it is you that are living in a hypocritical world where you complain about people not paying taxes but yet getting free money and government services, but yet think it is a person's right not be be forced to join something but yet should have free representation at the bargaining table as well as partake int the pay raises and benefits of the collective bargaining agreements without paying a dime for any of the efforts to get those benefits. You are pretty messed up, man.

haha I am messed up? HAHAHA. You agree that a union boss should stand at the door and take away money from each person's pay check whether they like the union or not (figuratively speaking but it's the same thing...you can be denied the job or fired if you refuse). Noice. And, over here is messed up me who thinks that people should be able to choose whether or not they want to pay dues or not. God forbid the union that you are FORCED to pay dues to supports causes or politicians that you don't agree with. You have your side where you get no say in the matter or you have my messed up bizarro side where you can choose to pay or not. Then again your perspective is what the left builds their idols upon...

Michigan did not take away collective bargaining rights. Quit watching MSNBC.

 

[SV Fan]

What share of income? Oh right...think progress. We all put our money into a pot and commune with Gaia, mother Earth.

I love how the left vilify CEOs and fat cat bankers but love, love, love the union leaders. Lets take a look at what union dues are going to

So you completely ignore the facts how the 1% basically doubled their share of the income, while the middle class is making less(along with the lower class by proxy which the public has to supplement many times using their tax dollars with assistance programs) by showing a few high end salaries for union leaders(which for the sake of argument are pennies on the dollar compared to many CEOs and "fat cat" bankers)

If you can't debate the facts create a strawman and argue against that right

God forbid the union that you are FORCED to pay dues to supports causes or politicians that you don't agree with.

Nobody is forcing anybody to get a job at a unionized place, people are more then welcome to find a job at a non unionized place which generally for the same skillset will most likely have lower wages and worse benefits.

 

[chaseter]

You do realize union bosses are the 1% right? Look at those salaries.

 

[Kelly]

Yep.......I'm sure that most will see Bloomberg as a reputable site?????????

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ing-ceo-pay-also-in-top-1-bgov-barometer.html

The BGOV Barometer shows the heads of the top 10 U.S. labor unions took home average salary and other compensation of $394,925 last year, according to union reports filed with the U.S. Labor Department. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent had adjusted gross income higher than $343,927, according to IRS statistics published in 2011.

Now mind you, comparing them to CEO's of many companies is crazy.....but the fact that they cry so much about the 1%, maybe they need to figure out who is actually IN the 1%.

 

[SV Fan]

You do realize union bosses are the 1% right? Look at those salaries.

And once again you are making a strawman argument ignoring the issue that the 1% have basically doubled their share of income no matter where they are. Given Kelly's statistics of the top 10 union bosses making 4M combined I think that is the least of our issues of where the money is being distributed(ie. I would love to see that compared to the top 10 CEOs)

 

[chaseter]

I love the irony and the hypocrisy that fat cat union bosses have lavish salaries and people that pay those union dues will go picket on the sidewalk about the 1% and complain how their share in the wealth is diminishing...when the guy running their organization makes 10-20 times what they make. HAHAHA love it.

 

[dnno1]

You do realize union bosses are the 1% right? Look at those salaries.

The richest 1% make on average over $340,000 (based on 2009 numbers). According to the list I saw, only 5 union bosses fell into that category (Dennis Van Roekel of the NEA, Gerald McEntee of AFSCME, James P. Hoffa, of the Teamsters Union, Joseph Hansen of the UFCW, and Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers). With that being said, these people still are fighting for better wages for people making less than themselves, and are aware of the wage inequality that exists in this country. So what is your point again?

 

[SV Fan]

I love the irony and the hypocrisy that fat cat union bosses have lavish salaries and people that pay those union dues will go picket on the sidewalk about the 1% and complain how their share in the wealth is diminishing...when the guy running their organization makes 10-20 times what they make. HAHAHA love it.

I think 1% is more symbolic for big corporate CEO or shareholders who get paid sweet salaries or bonuses while the workers get paid crap. I don't think most people begrudge somebody who makes a good salary and is at the top of there job(as in working) being in the low end of the 1%(say like 250k-1-2M), what they are protesting about is CEO getting huge bonuses for screwing up or shareholders making millions on the backs of firing people

 

[Kelly]

I think its just the hypocrisy of these union leaders.....I'm sorry but if anyone thinks they are in this for the worker, they are extremely naive.

 

[chaseter]

I love how the forces came out to defend the union bosses. Down with the 1%!

 

[hippie_hunter]

Because they are not. If they accept an offer from an employer who has a contract with a union, that person does not have to join a union under the Taft-Hartley Act. They do, though have to pay the equivalent dues for representation during collective bargaining activities. It is only fair since they are being represented even though they may not be a member and there should be some compensation for those services. This does not imply in any way that the dues are going for any of the union's political or organizing activities. That would be illegal under federal law.

Or I got a better idea, if you're not a part of a union, you don't get union benefits! It's not fair that if you don't pay dues and aren't a part of the organization that they take care of you. Union membership and paying fees should be a choice, not an obligation.

And if you think those dues aren't going to political and organizing activities, you're naive. Unions have a long history of corruption and violating the law.